I've done sports radio fairly regularly over the past several years, and a small handful of television appearances on regional cable. But this CNN gig was a different thing entirely. One thing I didn't fully appreciate is how labor-intensive all of this is. Morning shows are intended to give the appearance of spontaneity -- and to some extent, because of the fast, almost caffeinated pace, they are. But there is also an enormous amount of due diligence involved. Between the anchors and the guest and especially the producers, there are probably 100 minutes of preparation for every minute of live television that you see.
6.13.2008
CNN Video
@ 10:25 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
78 comments
Hi Nate, great job today on CNN! Quick question for ya'...
The CNN map had Colorado and New Mexico red, and in your discussion you mentioned that Iowa and New Hampshire were the most likely states to flip sides.
Did you not mention Colorado and New Mexico due to time constraints on the segment, or are you not all that confident that they will flip to the Democrats?
Hmm... the cnn folks gave you lip service but didn't really seem to respect the work - for some reason they came off flippant about it and seemed to cut you off a couple of times. Too bad for them! You did a great job!
Nice Nate. Funny how they kinda pushed you for a solid numerical sound bite.
Did they ask you to narrow it down to five states in the interest of time, or did you just think that was the easiest thing to talk about (instead of, say, Obama's chances in the Southwest or along the eastern seaboard)?
Fine debut. I was surprised by your emphasis on states in the NE quadrant of the country. Colorado and New Mexico combine for twice the EV as Iowa, and appear almost as likely to flip. You're also showing Nevada split 50/50 as of this morning. Next time you're on, I'd love to see you discuss where the map might expand, particularly in the Mountain West and South Atlantic Coast.
nate do they pay you for these kinds of appearances?
Hey Nate,
Why didn't you all discuss the big ass John McCain ad on the site and how great John McCain is.
Well now that you got on TV maybe you will at least get laid.
I agree - the anchors came off as aloof - but I think they were just worried you'd begin a discussion that they wouldn't be able to keep up with. I love how the female jumped in "key voting block??" as it to say - "see i understand!"
About time someone put you on the teevee to begin sharing your great work. Way to go Nate!
I agree with Anon above, in that that show was the antithesis of what you really do. Nice job though, you didn't let them back you down to a talking point.
I also like that your title was "Baseball Stat Master" You should put that on the back of the next BP book.
I agree that you did great, Nate. Too bad the CNN folks didn't really understand the concept of a statistical projection (no surprise there). The whole point of it is that you're not saying how each state will come out; rather, given the likelihood of each state coming out a certain way, what the expected electoral outcome is.
I got really annoyed the way they kept pressuring you to say how each state (particularly the statistical dead heat states Michigan and Ohio) would come out. A nonsensical question under your analysis. You handled their questions great, though, when you reframed the issue back to your projection for the overall electoral college vote (as of today).
$10 says anon at 9:57 AM is loser Dick Bennett from ARG. Any takers?
It was also strange that they used essentially the Bush-Kerry map rather than your map...or even CNN's own map of the current battleground states. CNN's map (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html) shows NM as lean-R (which is a whole different discussion), but at least shows Colorado as a battleground. Odd that they decided to make it red, rather than blue as you (rather solidly) project, but made Michigan blue despite the fact that it is a statistical dead heat.
I guess this is what happens when you devote 30 seconds to something that requires substantially more time to explain.
Aren't you the cutie ? Woof
why is everyone so concerned about the mccain ad? nate's an obama supporter and can donate the proceeds to obama, or keep them for himself. who the fuck cares? if you're so fucking morally opposed - go somewhere else.
They really fundamentally misunderstood (or misrepresented) the nature of your site and your analysis. They sort of turned you into another political pundit, rather than making clear that you were doing a statistical analysis of demographics, polls, and other factors. That's what's gotten you all the buzz on the Intertubes and it's what makes your site so great. It must be incredibly hard to get your message across on these shows, but next time you're on you should try to get a few sound bites in just saying exactly how your analysis works. Still, I can't imagine doing better my first time on one of these shows, and I'd probably do a whole lot worse.
What's funny is that if they'd had you on to talk about baseball, I bet they'd have been much more eager to talk statistics. But the media a) still isn't used to that approach to politics, in the way they are to baseball; and b) have a bit of an interest in protecting the idea that there are some "pundits" who can better discuss and predict what will happen in elections than anyone else. That's an uphill fight for you, but one that's really worth fighting when you have the chance. Your site suggests that, frankly, we don't need pundits. It's like you're the index fund and they're the managed mutual fund. But keep pushing: eventually people will get it.
Jeff-
Not to mention the fact that the readership of 538 is not going to be at all swayed by a John McCain ad, let alone go to his website and donate $$$.
Why did you pimp Ohio as the end all/Be all of the campaign? It's clearly obvious at this point that Obama has a better shot at Virginia/Colorado combo than Ohio and with Virginia/Colorado/Iowa, without New Hampshire, Obama gets 270...
Honestly, I'm disappointed. I think the producers got to you and pushed you in the direction of pimping Ohio... anyone inside the Obama campaign will tell you Ohio is priority, but not THE PRIORITY that you make it out to be... however CNN would love to keep it the way it is, and the producers no doubt infected your brilliance in the prep time.
I'm concerned you're spreading yourself thin Nate... Rasmussen, CNN Punditing, TNR... If you're going to build a Media Presences, at least please stay true to the facts of the Map. Read your own site before you select 5 states to focus on...
Z,
What I'd like to know is how much this site's traffic has increased due to the CNN appearance (the more eyebals that go into this website, the more Nate's way of looking at things will catch on - plus, Baseball Prospectus will get some residual traffic).
JRVJ
The hosts seemed rather outclassed by you, and the format seemed to end up diminishing what you do. They really should give you a 30 minute special and creative control and access to the graphics department to really delve into what you do and present the breaking open of the electoral map.
I bet the Obama campaign would fund something like that if the media rejects the idea ;)
Good job with what you had to work with though!
kubla000: How is Virginia (13 EV) projected as a 36% shot for Obama more of a battleground state than Ohio (20 EV) projected as a 50% shot for Obama.
That's a difference in expected value of +5.32 electoral votes in favor of Ohio.
Yes it's ironic that the very media whose simple-minded horserace predictological mentality you are critiquing puts you on in order to get your predictions but not really your projections or analysis. But you handled the situation very well, IMHO. Congratulations!
I hope this will lead to more electronic media exposure where you can show how you actually approach this subject, including, as has been pointed out, the importance of Obama's broadening the electoral playing field.
Nice job Nate, glad to see you succeeding. A cable news interview isn't really the right medium to showcase your work though.
I see You are working with Rasmussen Now ....... Congrats and keep up the Good Work ...
Kubla -
Did you not notice that they opened the segment with a predetermined 5 state focus? They basically just pointed to a map and have Nate say "red,blue" - it's a really tough situation to be in, especially on your first appearance.
Aaron - Aw, Dick's probably just frosted by Nate's new association with Rasmussen. :)
I think the McCain ad is fine as is. Nate's gotta eat, crunching numbers is hungry work!
OK I get the daily polling. And I definitely get the MSM lust for a close race. But there is a gut factor polls do not touch and there are some standout, anomalous polls like PPP in SC Clinton-Obama that are a hologram for the subsequent contest.
I will betcha the collation of your choice we are looking at a minor landslide -- at least 300 EVs to the winner. That would be Barack.
And that when the leaves are read, the demographics will be less important than such factors as brains, a few key issues and the visceral fear of McCain which is vastly more justified than LBJs manufactured fear take on Goldwater.
Just a thought.
Interesting the prep factor on CNN. Not worth the trouble in my book. Been there done that -- TV wraps fish as much as newspapers did.
Cheers, S
Briefly:
Remember the context. This was a four-minute segment. The goals were to have some fun and to create opportunities to give voice to this kind of analysis going-forward.
I love to see the face of an average CNN watcher that went to this site. Danger, danger Information Overload: More than three numbers displayed :)
Seriously, you did the best you could do Nate.
Nate, I love this site and I am spreading the word. Knowing your site as I do, you now see why cable news is just a poor reader's digest version of news. You were fine, but the coverage of your site was too simple. I am also a baseball stat junkie, so you are really appealing to my interests. Thanks!
I say double the McCain ads so we can get you help and a rss feed.
Firstly, if you're going to respond to my critique, please, give the coursey of clicking Name/URL and dropping in a SN
Next, Anon 10:17 AM, point taken. However, if you'll notice the way the campaign is actually gearing up, it's focus is much more on Virginia than Ohio. The campaign kicked off in SE Virginia on the Tennessee Border then had a rally the same night in the Suburbs of Washington DC. I think it's the only day that Obama has done Two Events in One State on the same day since the start of the General Election. Virginia is simply more favorable demographically and stylistically. Ohio has been organized over and over and over again... it has a robust local GOP party that always stays ahead of the Democrats. Virginia however is much more fertile virgin ground for Obama's way of doing things (namely finding new voters that didn't turn out before). Virginia is also trending Democratic with now likely two senators and a governor election night, unless one of those 3 becomes the Veep, which is extremely highly likely. Electorally, with Colorado in the bag due to the convention and state party growth, and Iowa in the bag due to it's being Iowa and loving Obama, Virginia is the finish line. There are so many ways to cross it. I think Nate would have been much truer to his professed endorsement of Obama had he talked up Virginia in place of Ohio, even though the stats aren't there just yet, granted. They will be there. I'm much more inclined to believe VA goes Blue than OH, which is a widow maker incase you hadn't noticed...
Anon 10:22 AM, Nate chose the 5 he wanted to talk about, not CNN. And i"m surprised he went back to the Ohio well, which is tapped out. It's a new map, 538.com is one of the leading sites supporting that Obama Campaign Thesis, and to see Nate go against that grain in his debut appearance is disappointing. I think the CNN Producers told Nate to focus on Ohio rather than Virginia...
As other's have said, it's extremely hard to project a decent multi-dimensional statistical analysis into the 2D binary space seen by the cable news. It didn't really work this time, but at least you got your foot in the door. Maybe next time there will be a way to explain what the P(EV) graph means- they showed it but no viewer would have a chance to understand it.
Rasmussen, on the other hand, may be a Republican, but at least he's not an ignoramus.
Woohoo! Great job Nate:) I gush about you every chance I get!
Kubla -
Where's your URL? You seem to comment frequently, no profile?
Yeah right, I am sure the money from the McCain ad is being given to the Obama campaign. It likely just goes toward more freaking tacos... at least they taqueria people put up a sign for the guy they support. Maybe if John McCain will give us all a little scratch we can put up McCain yard signs in front of our homes and put bumper stickers on our cars. Sorry but I just don't think one can be a supporter of something then take money from the opposition and to say that only Obama supporters visit this site is ridiculous
You didn't talk about NM, CO = blue! If he wins those states it doesn't matter about winning OH. And Iowa isn't a swing state.
But I guess they structured it that way. So fantastic job on TV, anyway. I hope you go back on more often!
I don't really have a public profile... only a history at dKos as a die in the wool hardcore obama supporter whose worked within the campaign on the ground in Texas and whose a max donor and in touch with things at least strategically...
538 is my favorite resource for polling analysis, however I am frustrated to see Ohio once again elevated to the level it is. Considering what'sthe news today, with 3600 Obama Organizing Fellows deploying to 17 states around the country, this election has a much wider broader map than Ohio, and while McCain will defend Ohio to the bitter end, they'll get out flanked by Virginia, among others.
You did fine, welcome to X-second media spots.
In saying that the purpose was "to create opportunities to give voice to this kind of analysis going-forward," I would argue that you did miss your one chance to explain what this kind of analysis *is* besides one man's prediction.
My experience, having "performed" for the media in a public capacity for nearly 8 years is that I had to prepare in advance and limit myself to a single message: basically you get one message per engagement, and you need to pivot to the message over and over, no matter what the question is. It's hard and you think you're being rude, but your're not. They had a story they wanted to tell, and guided the narrative in that direction. You need guide the narrative to your single talk point: this is a method to incorporate many historical polls into a useful framework that most accurately reflects current reality, (or whatever.)
I enjoy the site and visit every day. Thanks.
""I think it's the only day that Obama has done Two Events in One State on the same day since the start of the General Election.""
If I recall, one was in Bristol, and the other was in Bristow.
More Breaking News on how important Virginia factors into the process this year.
The campaign says that they're sending Mitch Stewart, one of Obama's star organizers, into the state to serve as Virginia's state director. This is no small thing. Stewart served as Obama's Iowa caucus director, where he was in charge of the whole field effort, pulling off a major coup and helping deliver the victory that essentially put Obama on track to victory.
Well done, Nate!
Agree with Anonymous 12:10 (sounds like a book of the Bible). As somebody who is one of Nate's colleagues at Baseball Prospectus and has done plenty of radio and a bit of TV, I can sympathize with the overwhelming ratio of prep time to air time that goes into a segment like this, not to mention the lack of an opening to steer the conversation towards the sweet spot of your expertise.
The bigger the entity on the other end of the line, the more preconceived their notions are about the kind of content you're going to deliver in your seconds/minutes of exposure. And with that, the more important it is not to become flustered when the conversation DOESN'T go your way. Nate showed range and fluidity in fielding their questions smoothly. Even if CNN didn't totally get what it is he's doing, he acquitted himself well enough that he'll surely have other opportunities to get that message across, and likely more leverage to communicate that desire to the show's producers as he gains credibility in their eyes.
Hmmm, that's odd. The blogger profile in my commment just above linked to the other Jay within this thread.
Lest anyone get confused, this is me: http://www.blogger.com/profile/12717810588608683055
GOOD JOB NATE, not to pile on (of course you know this means I am about to pile on) I am kinda surprised you or maybe CNN was so focused on OH
Kubla: (I hope this is better, I'm Anon 10:17)
I'm not disputing your analysis of the politics/demographics of Virginia vs. Ohio. It's essentially a floor/ceiling analysis. Obama is probably at his floor right now in VA and has a higher ceiling than Ohio.
This actually brings me to another point. I'm not sure what data Nate is using to predict the November election results beyond the polls. Maybe he has said--I only recently became a daily reader. But I noticed that his primary predictions were incredibly accurate, mainly because he could use past *actual primary* results to predict the results of future primaries based mainly on demographics, rather than relying on polls.
Since the general election is completely different (i.e., all elections held on one day rather than spread out over months), it looks like he's relying more on polls than demographics. The evidence for this is that when the polls change, the predictions change pretty dramatically, even though the demographics aren't changing at all.
However, the end result is that the predictions for the general probably won't be as accurate as his predictions were in the primary. In the primary, if Nate said a state was going to go one way, it was basically a lock.
Anyway, the point of all this was to say you're right that the current projections for OH/VA are not necessarily close to what the actual results will be, and certainly not as close as the primary predictions were. So VA may in fact be the true battleground, even though every site (including 538) lists it as lean-R.
Nate-
Do you have any unused Dukakis coloring books? They would fetch a nice price on eBay perhaps. I'd buy one. Especially for the tank scene.
Re: kubla
Regarding Colorado (and NM) as a battleground state, I think it wasn't mentioned because Nate doesn't see it that way: It's pretty safe, just not on the side that CNN is currently thinks.
As far as VA goes, that's one of those wait-and-see situations. Could go either way in the end, but currently isn't quite there.
I wonder what your opinion is on the idea of going from the electoral college vote to the national popular vote. Certainly it would render your domain name old fashioned and would make the number crunching less fun... But I Do think it's the right thing.
As far as your CNN appearance - You did well given the time allotted.
I think CNN wanted to frame the discussion around those five states because they could frame the set better with the co-hosts standing on each side of the map but close enough together that you could see the states. And that meant that Colorado and New Mexico had to be obscured.
Way to stay focused and not let them rush you through it!
I love the site. I thought you honestly did a great job in the interview especially given the constraints. You came across as "the smart guy in the room" and hence pretty convincing rather than just appearing as another pollster yapper. Of course my impressions might be colored by the fact that I've got guilty knowledge about the quality of your work.
You did great! I love this Web site and can't wait to see how both the site and you grow these next few months!
Well done, I couldn't be that collected in front of a camera myself. I do agree that it is a pity that they wanted just "red/blue" rather than an explanation of how you're different, but I am certain that actually doing that is incredibly difficult.
I think it would be useful to think about metaphors (possibly sports metaphors!) to explain the kind of analysis you're doing to a wider audience. Ohio is a perfect example, because today's polling puts it at an exact 50-50 split, so the statistics really gives no answer as to who would win today.
A while back on this thread I tried explaining your methadology as I understand it in terms of tossing weighed coins, but that might have made sense to no one but me - however, while people tend to view polling as infallible, they understand how a stronger team might only win against a weaker team 60% of the time, just like how you predict the currently "strong team" of McCain-in-Virginia would only win 64% of the time...
Hi Nate,
I've been following your blog of late, knowing how good your work would be based on having had a chance to discuss limit hold em hands with you on twoplustwo.
Anyway, I wanted to try to give some constructive feedback with respect to your appearance. First, you did a good job of handling the questions and replying with clear, coherent answers. This seems to me to be not so easy to do given the format, so kudos on doing so well.
And while I understand your statement about the goals of the show, I do agree with other commenters that it is a shame that you were not able to get more across about your methodology, which is really what distinguishes you from other, typically misinformed, political prognosticators.
I have a couple of suggestions for how you might do this:
(1) Develop a map that colors in shades based on the probability of winning -- solid blue for a state where the Dem win prob is near 100%, becoming blue-purple and then purple when the Dem win prob is 50%, becoming red-purple and finally deep red when the Dem win prob is near 0%. I too am not really proficient in these matters, but this is something that is likely very easy for someone knowledgable in computer graphics to accomplish. If you could find someone to do this for you, not only would this be a great graphic for your site, but it would be the one I would suggest you encourage the media networks to display, as it would be a *much* better illustration of what you are actually doing.
(2) Use your baseball stat expertise to make the analogy between what you are doing in terms of political prognostication and batting average. I think the public can grasp the idea that if a hitter has a BA of .300, then he has a 3-in-10 chance of getting a hit in his next at-bat. What you are doing, you can explain, is computing a state-by-state "batting average" for each cnadidate, which gives the chance that each candidate will win that state and using that to get a national "batting average" for each candidate. Right now, Obama is batting .548, meaning that he has a 54.8% chance of winning the election if it were held today given what we know from polls. Of course, there are a lot of subtlies being skipped over here, but I do think this general train of thought is something you can polish into a one or two minute bite.
For those saying what about this other state... By the numbers here at 538, Ohio is the top tipping point state and the top must win state. PA and MI are 2/3 and 3/2
YAY!!! JOHN MCSHAME!!! LETS CLICK ON HIS AD AND CONTRIBUTE MONEY SO WE CAN "DELIVER HOT BOTTLED WATER TO DEHYDRATED BABIES" AND "VETO EVERY BEER"!!!
Good job on CNN, but whatever happened to Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico?
Strong interview performance, Nate. One tip for the future: Be sure to keep looking into the camera and fight the urge to flash your eyes at the monitor. For the viewer, it makes your eyes look shifty and you appear a little nervous.
If you really want to do punditry stuff, I suggest you do some practice with a friend recording and get used to having a conversation with a camera. You can learn a lot and improve dramatically after watching yourself on film.
Good show, though! I really enjoy your analysis and you have great data skills. Keep it up!
Mike:
(1) - You mean like the graphic he has at the top of the page? (Except instead of purple at 50/50 it's white).
(2) I agree that when they asked about a state like Ohio or Michigan, rather than saying "I think it will go this or that way" a better answer would be to say "Based on the data available right now, my calculations show that it is a 50/50 tie and completely up for grabs at this point"
I think that a lot of the other comments are on to something. For next time, it would be good to have a short, one sentence statemnet that summarizes exactly what your doing that you deliver right at the beginning, like: "I use mathematical formulas that take data from various sources, including previous elections, current polling data, etc., to come up with a probability each candidate will win a given state. I then take these probabilities to predict who is most likely to win the election."
RIP Tim Russert
Great to see you on TV, but this just reaffirms my decision to cancel my cable subscription and get all my news from sites like fivethirtyeight.com.
The anchors were morons - interrupting you every 3 seconds and steering the interview such that they gave no sense whatsoever of why 538 is good or different, or why Obama's electoral map is different.
I did learn one thing: Ethanol contributes to McCain's Iowa weakness.
With Tim Russert's sudden death, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann better be extra careful since they are presumably on the Clintons' latest enemies list too.
You did great! Good job!
Jane
Aaron, Jeff, and Jay:
That anonymous poster is funny, and despite them posting here since the site started I think this is the first time anyone's responded. I mean, if "YAY!!! JOHN MCSHAME!!! LETS CLICK ON HIS AD AND CONTRIBUTE MONEY SO WE CAN "DELIVER HOT BOTTLED WATER TO DEHYDRATED BABIES" AND "VETO EVERY BEER"!!!" doesn't make you laugh, then rest assured that you're in the minority here. Just because a blog isn't a satire of others' blogs doesn't mean the comments can't be satire of others' comments.
Poblano: The problem here is that you did a morning show. The other problem is that you did CNN. I think MSNBC would be a better fit, but they're already all over Chuck Todd's nuts.
If you get another such opportunity you should bring to the table the stuff that no one on TV has. Everyone predicts that Ohio will go one way or another because of whatever, but no one predicts that the person who wins any one of Ohio, Michigan, or Pennsylvania will win the entire thing. In fact, if you want to draw the audience before dropping a more nuanced message next time you might try saying "In this election, whoever wins Ohio will win the entire thing over 80% of the time." The hosts will have a big important-sounding-to-laymen number to banter on, and then you could go further and say "but it turns out that the same is true of Michigan and Pennsylvania as well, with a win in all three of them determining the next president 99% of the time. What's interesting at present is that only Pennsylvania of these three leans toward either candidate, and that lean toward Obama almost on its own makes him the favorite to win presently." with the wording at the end there intentionally meant to trigger people's sports familiarity with statistics. Hell, going on a news network and telling them that Barack Obama in fact does not poll poorly among blue-collar whites but rather polls poorly among "Americans" and what this means for the election with contrast to what the popular narrative is would be interesting to these people and substantially different from typical projective punditry.
Also, make sure next time someone introduces you to an unfamiliar audience they mention either your stellar primary projections or PECOTA and also explain that your method is a weighted aggregate of polls. Their introduction of you gave you no credibility on the subject and in fact made you seem like a guy who was interested in sports first and just wandered on the set because you were also interested in politics.
You looked quite nervous, especially when they (repeatedly) interrupted you and made you steer in another direction, but you didn't miss any beats even then.
Like I said, you need to have your own little special in which you control the subject matter and the pacing, and present the whole premise and logic of just what you do and why it works.
Why did CNN not use your map if they were going to have you on the show - hello? - Colorado and New Mexico. You look like Vince Vaughn's brother.
Peace!
What about Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, and New Mexico?
Those are all Red states in 2004 that, at least at this point, are breaking Blue.
congrats on the pub, Nate, but it was a weird interview. Obama is averaging plus 5 Wisconsin , plus 3 Colorado, plus 2 New Mexico, minus 2 Virginia, tied in Nevada and minus 2.6 in Missouri are all also swing states currently within a few points, worth 53 electoral votes, (and we could even throw North Carolina in there, since the latest poll has McCain up 2) so why the focus on the states you focused on? Was that your call or CNN spinning? Let's face it, all these states are trending Obama, so if they break his way
You did well, Nate. I'm sure there are more media appearances for you in the future, and if you're flagellating yourself about any small errors right now, well, learn, deal, and move on, because you were well-informed, prompt and even rather damn cute.
Anyway, here's where John Roberts got his start. (Click the Clash part 2 link if you don't see the right video right away). Roberts was always a clueless tool, but the fact that he interviewed The Clash way back when does give you a Joe Strummer number of 1. Represent!
It would have been more interesting if they wanted to know about your methods and techniques as opposed to "what's this state gonna beeeeeee?!" Still, good job handling the interrupting news media, Nate =).
Well done! As for your next venue, I'd say you should angle for Keith Olbermann. Just promise to slip him some preliminary stats from the next BP :-)
(Ooh! A panel with you, Chuck Todd, and Rachel Maddow with kick holy ass. That's a lot of brains there.)
Yeah, make sure no one gets the idea you're a CNN-exclusive commentator. You'll never replace Chuck Todd, but if you play your cards right with MSNBC they'll let you be a guest political analyst and eventually one of the three on Todd's team and from there you would have the best chance of making regular appearances on Maddow's show when it starts later this year/early next year.
Essentially what I'm saying is that you should do whatever possible to always be around Rachel Maddow. If you get in early as a regular commentator on her show then she'll likely bring you back all the time for the entire span that her show runs. This would be huge for your career in political analysis, but more importantly, it would be huge as far as always being around Rachel Maddow goes.
Actually with all the advice about CNN and MSNBC why not PBS and NPR -- not as big a reach but a better chance of making a serious impact. Cheers, S
Good point Stephen C. Rose, were Poblano a regular guest analyst on Air America he would also have a pragmatic avenue to always be around Rachel Maddow.
Wow, I just imagined a political show with Rachel Maddow and Nate! We'd have trustworthy information.
Nate, congratulations. I thought your CNN appearance was exceptional given the constant interruptions. Wish we could have heard a bit more from you and a lot less from them.
Marie
Good interview. The one thing I noticed was that the CNN people didn't look to hard at the site. If they had, they might have noticed that you have CO and NM flipping, and NV as a toss-up, too. I do agree with your analysis that the election will come down to whomever can pull off OH, PA and MI.
What does 15.9% for Ohio mean in your Tipping Point States Table? ...and 83.8% for Ohio in the Must-Win States table.
Do you have an explanation for these somewhere?
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
Post a Comment