6.20.2008

McCain VP: Pawlenty Guarantees MN, WI?

Yesterday, James Pethokoukis of US News and World Report reported that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is high in the running for John McCain's VP selection. The claim from the source for the story, "a high-ranking McCain campaign official," also accompanies a mention that internal polling shows Pawlenty "delivering" both Minnesota and Wisconsin to McCain in the fall.

Wow, I had no idea it was that easy. Just name a guy as VP, and because he's from the region, a couple states you look like a longshot to win suddenly become yours. I mean, they should totally do that; it's a no-brainer.

Minnesota's last ten public polls have showed Obama leading in 9 instances, and the one instance McCain led was 47-46 by SurveyUSA in mid-March. Since then, SurveyUSA's once a month polling has shown Obama with leads of +6, +5 and +1 (their February poll had Obama +7). Rasmussen has shown Obama leads of 14, 15 and 13. The Star-Tribune poll of 1117 respondents in mid-May had Obama up 13 points. 538 regression analysis puts Obama in front by 9.3%, and predicts a 10.4% win.

In Wisconsin, it's Rasmussen who has the race somewhat close, with its June 5 poll putting Obama up by 2, its May 5 poll McCain up by 4, and its late March poll showing McCain up 2. Unfortunately for McCain, those two Rasmussen polls in March and early May are the only Wisconsin public polls that have McCain in front. SurveyUSA's last 5 polls have Obama up 9, 6, 5, 4 and 11, working from this past Sunday back to late February. As is the case in Minnesota, the trend is going Obama's way, with 538 regression putting Obama 8.2% in front and projecting an 8.4% win.

McCain's internal polling apparently says Minnesotans are homers under the Pawlenty Theory. Or, the spin is that Kerry's 3.5% win in 2004 is the biggest margin by which Obama can beat McCain whereas McCain can siphon that off with a strategic VP pick, and all the polls showing a much, much wider lead in Minnesota are a mirage.

But of course, if you pick a governor from one state as vice-president, that carries so much weight that even citizens of neighboring states suddenly fall in line. A hundred thousand Wisconsin voters who were planning to vote Obama just think, "hey, I totally heard that guy Pawlenty is from near this state, I don't really have a strong opinion on any other factor in this race, I gotta flip my vote from what I am currently telling pollsters!" (Obviously, telling pollsters by representative sample).

Did we mention Obama's Illinois also borders Wisconsin? So let's thread this needle for Wisconsin voters. Gotta not have very strong opinions about Obama or McCain to start. Have to be wishy-washy and flippable. They have to absorb the info - as low-info voters or ambivalent voters or low-frequency voters - to assign weight and value to the fact that the lower-tier candidate is from a neighboring state, while not assigning weight and value to the fact that the higher-tier candidate from the other party is from a neighboring state. They then have to elevate that factor's meaning over and above the meanings of other arbitrary factors you hear from people who are low-info voters. Such as any factors that go into the reality that only 17% of the country, low-info voters included, thinks the country is on the right track.

Now, anyone who's talked to thousands of voters on the phones and at their doors and in random conversations knows that the reasons low-info voters come up with are almost uniformly frightening in terms of that person's mental processes on politics. And I mean that in a non-partisan way, whether the output of the bizarre calculation they share with you is support of your candidate or the opposition. The good news is nobody gets to be offended by this; if you're reading this post you already aren't a low-info voter. (Though I'm sure someone will entertainingly point out in comments how opinions like these are ruining the purity and sanctity of the site.) Regardless of all the obligatory paeans you hear to the Great Judgment of the American People from the talking heads, one always comes away from such discussions feeling depressed about how much dead weight there is out there in terms of informed citizenry.

It's important to understand that, almost by definition, the quirky calculus of low-info voters isn't subject to en masse influence by any particular trivia-quality factor such as VP's home state. It's nearly a tautology. To be persuadable by new information, you have to absorb that information. You have to think things like, "I like that guy and I'm gonna vote for him," which assumes you already have a basis for forming your opinion. And once you're down that road, you probably have a basic opinion about which of Obama or McCain you like better. Of course there are exceptions, but the point is they don't exist in the large numbers that would be required to change the bottom line outcome.

Granted, as a general rule, private, internal-use campaign polling is usually much better than public polling. So McCain's internal polling is supposedly identifying voters so much on the fence and so much under the powerful, hypnotic sway of Tim Pawlenty that they will flip their soft support, or come out and vote instead of sitting home. Or, McCain's internal polling shows something wildly different from what 538 projects for those two states.


Color Camp Obama unimpressed; they don't even list Minnesota in their top 17 most competitive states, not even bothering to send any of their 3,600 Organizing Fellows to Minnesota (Wisconsin gets some). That should tell you everything you need to infer what the internal private polling is telling Obama about Minnesota. And the big advertising buy in 18 states doesn't include Minnesota either.


Something tells me this is 2 parts internal political jockeying by Pawlenty patrons within the McCain camp, 1 part run-of-the-mill political hype. (McCain has his Lanny Davises and Terry McAuliffes too, though those two are absurdists for the ages, see links.)

At the end of the day, McCain may well pick Pawlenty, and there would be endless blather about how the Republicans are going to leverage Pawlenty's overwhelming 1%, 21,000 vote (out of nearly 2.2 million cast) Minnesota gubernatorial re-election win in 2006 into automatic electoral success in the fall. I'm not really sure Bridge Collapse Guy is going to be able to hit Barack Obama on inexperience, for example.

Finally, John McCain is in Ottawa (Canada) for a press conference today, and Pawlenty is a hockey fan, which gives me the transparently flimsy excuse I was seeking to get in a mention of the NHL Draft tonight in Ottawa. Who among us isn't hanging on who the St. Louis Blues will take with the 4th pick? Maybe the exact same number of Minnesotans and Wisconsans who would have voted for Obama but for Pawlenty.

187 comments

410E9th said...

In a similar effort what about Sam Nunn. Could the reason that Obama is putting so many resources into Georgia be becuase they are overestimating the effect of putting someone him on the ticket?

asmodeus said...

What McCain won't get is pawlenty of voters.

MVRed.com said...

As a McCain supporter, I want Romney. He helps to sure up McCain's weakness on economic policy, and certainly will not hurt him in a state like Michigan.

Yes go ahead and tell me he won't help him in Michigan, but I do recall Romney winning this state in the primary's and how well liked his family is. If it is within 1-2 points in Michigan like we all expect, this may push McCain to victory in this state.

I do admit Pawlenty will not bring McCain back in Minnesota and Wisconsin. I think Wisconsin will be very close, but Minnesota is a lost cause. Only a pure toss up could be affected by the VP, that's why I am so high on Romney.

Juris said...

Re Minnesota, it's the RNC strategy to put it into play, witness the choice of their convention location.

And by his own visits and his speech in Minnesota, Obama isn't going to ignore the state. Far from it. But this isn't a place where he needs to put on a full court press right now.

Richard said...

I forgot that Canada was the 51st state. How many electoral votes does it get again?

Anonymous said...

Pawlenty will have a marginal effect in Minnesota at best...he barely won reelection, and isn't cultishly popular among his base.

As for thinking Pawlenty could have any swing whatsoever in Wisconsin, I'd like some of what he's got in his pipe.

Juris said...

All of this keeping Pawlenty's name in the news is just a courtesy since he'll no doubt be given a good media shot at the convention.

If Canada is the 51 state, it's one of the angrier ones. Many of the old-timers are still angry that the U.S. stole Wayne Gretzty; many are celebrating that the Canadian dollar has surged against the U.S. dollar.

I love Canada, but it has an inferiority complex.

moondancer said...

He needs the miracle VP that gives him Pa,Oh,NJ, and Mich. As soon as this candidate is born, he/she is in.

Geoff said...

we're wisconsinites, not wisconsans. Thank you.

John said...

Minnesota is the type of state that Pawlenty would deliver. The Wisconsin theory I'm with you is rediculous. Minnesota, and I live here, has a huge inferiority complex. If it meant we would have a Minnesotan as the VP I believe that would swing enough independents to deliver the state.

We claim Roger Maris even though he was born and lived in MN for about 6 months. Same with Charles Lindbergh. Considering the fact that the convention is also here I think enough low-information independents could swing the state to McCain-Pawlenty. It's one of the reasons I think the SurveyUSA poll was so close. I think most minnesotans assume that Pawlenty already is the VP nominee.

McCain 2008 said...

This site is getting less and less credible due to the blatant Obama-loving on this site. All the articles are basically Obama cheerleading articles and McCain knockdown articles, not to mention the obvious spinning of the polling data on this site to favor Obama(example, calling Florida/Indiana/Missouri/Nevada for Obama makes no sense at this point due to the lack of hard data showing Obama in the lead).

Big Canadian said...

As my moniker implies, yep, I'm from Canada. But no ordinary Canadian (if there is one) as I'm an academic (political scientist) no less, so have more than a passing interest in this election.

Anyway ... leaving aside the snide "51st state" & "inferiority complex" remarks, the analysis here seems exactly right on one level: Pawlenty might not be enough to carry MN just because he's the governor. But as others have pointed out elsewhere, his strong attachment to the evangelical Christian community would really help keep them away from the temptation to park their vote with Obama (yes, it's a real threat with *some* of them). And that might be the kicker for McCain (Romney is just too outside for that same target group).

Anonymous said...

Do low-info voters even know the name of the governor from the neighboring state ? I'm not exactly a low-info voter, but I don't know the names of governors of my 2 neighboring states ...

unertl said...

McCain 2008:

The site methodology has been explained numerous times in recent posts and in the FAQ. If you don't like what the results are saying, then there are plenty of other sites that offer the type of conventional wisdom analysis which will put your mind at ease.

GoldenAh said...

Would it help McCain to have a young attractive guy by his side? Pawlenty makes McCain look like his grandfather. Not sure that helps him any.

John Peterson said...

I really don't like the condescension for "low-info" voters. Guess what? We're all low-info voters. People vote for McCain because he doesn't scare them and they vote for Obama because he makes them feel good about themselves. Upon this template (and party allegiances), more "informed" voters build platforms of issues from which to defend their initial impression.

Deep down, there are real differences. But I don't know how much following the news-speak from both camps teaches people anything. I usually trust the initial, ignorant impressions of plain folk more than the supposedly reasoned speech of the "informed," which is full of a lot of buzz talk and nonsense.

Matthew H said...

The best thing I've ever heard about Pawlenty is "better than Norm Coleman". Along with virtually everything else you can think of.

http://wcco.com/local/tim.pawlenty.approval.2.646136.html

55% approval rating! Yeah, that'll move a whole lotta people.

Richard said...

Big Canadian - I think you misinterpreted my remarks. I was sarcastically pointing out that it makes no sense for John McCain to waste his time campaigning in Ottawa. That's all.

evie said...

On SuperTuesday (Feb 5), making calls from Obama volunteer HQ in Chicago, the woman next to me was talking to one of those "low-information voters." I kid you not, I overheard her say:

"No, he's running AGAINST Senator Clinton."

Some of the stuff you come up with makes you shudder. But let's face it, if you're a LIV from Wisconsin, you're not going to know who the governor of Minnesota is.

My cable guy (very sweet guy) yesterday told me a story about how Mayor Daley used Nextel walkie-talkies on 9/11 to get through the chaos in NY because cell towers were down.

and on and on...

Anonymous said...

Geoff writes: "we're wisconsinites, not wisconsans."

And, not surprisingly, "Badgers"!

asmodeus said...

Geoff, how about Wissies?
on the subject of low-info voters, ultimately you have to have some faith in the masses or why engage in democracy at all?

Sean said...

410 - the principle is the same either way. If Obama wins Georgia, it's because of a wave and big registration gains and huge enthusiasm, not because the otherwise McCain-voters are persuaded by the Nunn factor but not the panoply of all other possible factors. If Obama wins Georgia, this election will not be close at all.

mvred - As a partisan, I am not a fan of Romney's, but objectively I'm open to the argument that he's a smart McCain choice. Not for the Michigan reason, because I think the VP-electoral gain argument is bunk, but for the fact that he would fire up a particular constituency's turnout (Mormons, which really helps with defense in the Mountain West) without particularly alienating any up-for-grabs voters. There is the minor snag that McCain hates Romney's guts, of course.

In my view, Huckabee is probably McCain's wisest choice, because his total batshittery is covered by a gifted communication ability. He's likable, is amazing on TV, he would energize the evangelicals more than any other candidate without his policy turnoffs being high-profile enough to alienate the lower-info, wishy-washier voters. Evangelicals are the engine of Republican Party organizing, and they don't have anyone to be particularly excited about right now. Huckabee would drive up base turnout in my opinion more than any Republican out there. Winning Iowa with no money means you fire up the base.

Geoff - sorry, I googled Wisconsans and got a lot of hits. Will correct in the future.

McCain 2008 - both Nate and I are open Obama voters. Have you checked the FAQ? It's openly stated, and has been from the start. There is no delta. So, good reading comprehension there. The idea that me factually stating what the polling data is or Nate's regression analysis says is a form of "Obama-loving" is a form of delusion. In other words, I support Obama, but evidence of that proposition is not that I correctly cite the Rasmussen polls. Moreover, it's not a matter of opinion that Obama's campaign did not put Minnesota in its 18 states for the recent big ad buy or the 17 states to which it is sending organizing fellows. The inference that Obama's internal polling disputes the claim of McCain's internal polling based on this behavior is not a matter of opinion, it's a basic threshold question of whether you're a competent political observer.

Anonymous said...

Bobby Jindal and Bill Richardson!

(I knew there'd be a day when being a TX Dem would pay off! And, yes, I'll admit it, I can't think of the governor of Oklahoma. Guess I'm simply awed by the insanity that is Senator Daniel Inhofe...)

deltaverde said...

The best political data porn on the planet, and now snark, too? I'm in heaven.

Dale Petrie said...

As a Minnesotan who votes Democratic in most matters, I have a perspective on this you might find interesting. I don't like Pawlenty, I didn't vote for him either time, and like you said, his win was razor thin in the last election. But one of the things that has happened SINCE his re-election is the bridge collapse in Minneapolis...I'll get to how he might be held somewhat accountable momentarily.

Now, Mr. Pawlenty is one of those guys who signed the taxpayer league "no new taxes" pledge, and he has essentially done everything he can do to shift the tax burden off of the state by cutting services and pushing it off to counties via property taxes. Indeed, the marginal tax rates pre-Pawlenty in Minnesota were actually a slightly progressive structure, but they have under his governorship become regressive. We used to have a provision in our property taxes which kept them from increasing too rapidly despite rapidly growing market values, but he created a plan to phase out that cap, and taxes are t2 to 4 times what they were when he took office. Yet, he has cut services left and right so he can claim to be a no nonsense budget balancer.

But what we've seen are roads that don't get plowed as well when we have snowstorms, projects in roads getting delayed and cuts being made for political retribution. In a recent boding bill for example, he had pledged 900M in bonding, and the bill sent to him was way over this...he cut down to 700m, 200m less than he'd agreed to, and the lion's share of this came out of St. Paul's programs, which happened not that coincidentally after a St. Paul lawmaker showed him up on an issue. He even redlined funding of $75m for a commuter rail service line extenstion to St. Paul that he'd always supported, and which if it were not to go through would cost the state $450M in Federal funds, just to prove a point. Eventually this funding got reinstated, but this is the kind of politics he has begun playing, and don't think Minnesotans haven't noticed, particularly in light of the bridge.

Here's the deal, Pawlenty appointed his Lieutenant Governer as the head of the MN Dept of Transportation, so she was doing both jobs but they were paying her one salary...nice way to balance the budget. Except she did not take the public interest to heart, only the budget concerns. Repeatedly when the idea of what to do about this bridge came up, under her "leadership" and advice from the Governor, they opted for inspections over repairs, which if they had been made would have saved 13 lives and hundreds of millions of dollars. And he's the first to say, "don't go turning this into a political issue", but I don't think if the 2004 elections were held again today, he'd win by that razor thin margin...I believe that well more than 21,000 Minnesotans hold him at least slightly responsible for what happened.

And as an aside on the bridge issue, pretty amazing that it fell down August 1 of last year, and depite the fact that it takes much smaller bridges 2 or 3 years to be rebuilt, we're already talking about having the damn thing open in time for the Republican Convention...what a great photo op for Timmy!

And one other thing you probably didn't see on the national stage. In 2004 when Bush was "re-elected", they had tried to paint Minnesota as a battleground state that year as well, because Norm Coleman had won Paul Wellstone's Senate seat (by manipulating people into thinking Democrats had turned Wellstone's memorial into a rally for political gain, when it was actually the Republicans who exploited his untimely death). So, election night, Bush has won, and there's Coleman and Pawlenty, giddy with glee, because even though they didn't deliver Minnesota, what the DID was force Kerry to spend a lot of his money and time trying to defend Minnesota, and that helped them capture Ohio.

So heed this as a warning, they don't expect to win Minnesota. If they pick Pawlenty, it will be because they can show this nice shiny new bridge built in just over a year under the direction of this "brilliant" young leader, and they will hope that Obama will spend money and time here that he doesn't need to spend which will make him more vulnerable in the places he really SHOULD be campaigning. This is how the dark side operates.

Mike said...

I've been avidly reading this site since April. I'm an Obama man through and through, but I have to agree that this site is definitely hurting its own credibility. It has nothing to do with the new projection calculations - those seem pretty solid on the whole. The problem, I think, is Sean. His flippancy is the kind of juvenile partisan BS that would be fine on his personal blog or Kos or something, but will really hurt the image of 538. Nate always seems very professional and objective. Sean seems like a hack.

Anonymous said...

What about Palin for veep?

Chris said...

in 2000 I was part of the High School Page program at the Minnesota Legislature where Pawlenty was the majority leader. I didn't really know much about him, but after one incredibly unprofessional back-and-forth between him and a democrat on the other side where Pawlenty called his collage was fat, I thought to myself, "wow, what an asshole!"

Now he is Governor and could be VP. Scary.

SBG said...

I'm a Minnesotan, having lived here since 2001 and in neighboring ND for 36 years before that.

I honestly don't know if Tim Pawlenty wins Minnesota for McCain. He certainly didn't do much for McCain in the caucuses (Romney won here). He did win re-election in 2006 (but wouldn't have if our candidate hadn't imploded less than a week before the election). He's got a pretty high approval rating, but I think he's vulnerable here, considering his veto of the transportation bill (which was overriden with the help of six Republican members in the House) that provided a higher gas tax to fix roads and bridges. Further, he had his Lt. Gov. running the MNDOT until she was run out by the State Senate. She was a total incompetent and provided absolutely no advocacy for funding for her department. She was strictly a political appointment.

Oh, by the way, you might have heard that we had a bridge fall down last year. In the wake of the new transportation bill (which, as I said, he vetoed), several more bridges have been targeted for major repairs or replacement. There's room to hammer Timmy not only here in Minnesota, but elsewhere. His "stewardship" of our infrastructure has been poor. Sounds like the Bush way of doing things.

JV said...

I agree 100% with John Peterson. The democrats and republicans have already made their decision based mostly on party allegiance. The 14% or so party dissidents made their choice already based on "likeability". Independents, either dont really care or will make their decision based on "likeability" as well.

This is scientific fact and well used in marketing for the last couple of years, we all make decisions based on emotional responses to products or people and only after deciding we rationalize those decisions with facts that reinforce our decision.

I recommend reading the book Blink and reading up on the brain amygdala to understand the emotional aspect of decision making. Both candidates are appealing to emotional factors, it's either Barack brings HOPE, or McCain calms our FEARS. Everything else has been decided already in the minds of the voters or it will not be at all for the vast majority (this explains the low turnout of all presidential elections around the world). There's always a low percentage of people that are more "rational", but it represents 5%-10% of the population at most.

Sorry for the lousy formatting, kinda new at this.

John said...

Anonymous said...
Bobby Jindal and Bill Richardson!

(I knew there'd be a day when being a TX Dem would pay off! And, yes, I'll admit it, I can't think of the governor of Oklahoma. Guess I'm simply awed by the insanity that is Senator Daniel Inhofe...)

Ummm... It's James Inhofe.

I do know the governors of my neighboring states (GA: Perdue and AL: Riley), but I'm way too into politics for my own good.

John said...

Anonymous said...
Bobby Jindal and Bill Richardson!

(I knew there'd be a day when being a TX Dem would pay off! And, yes, I'll admit it, I can't think of the governor of Oklahoma. Guess I'm simply awed by the insanity that is Senator Daniel Inhofe...)

Ummm... It's James Inhofe.

I do know the governors of my neighboring states (GA: Perdue and AL: Riley), but I'm way too into politics for my own good.

Juris said...

Not everyone here is a died in the wool Obama supporter. I am one of the converted. Though I am a Democrat, and would have been drawn to him as the nominee eventually.

I am also not a McCain hater. I do think he's sewn himself increasingly into the skin of the ultraconservatives and Evangelicals, however, and so some of the good things he's done (e.g., on campaign finance and, more generally, speaking his mind) has gotten muddied over by his own association with some very extreme and unsavory characters.

But while I do have a horse in this race, I'm mainly just an analyst of elections and politics, much like Poblano is when he's in his data analysis mode.

Sorry for the knock on Canada. Should have STFU'd. I just recall, however, visiting the Hockey Hall of Fame a few days after Gretzky's "defection," and the Canadians there were grumbling about that "Hollywood movie star," etc. Hockey IS the national sport, and Gretzky had been a widely-followed national hero from the time he was, oh, 10 years old.

Juris said...

Shoulda written "dyed" in the wool.

Kennyb said...

I also am a political junkie (from NH), but I'd be guessing at the names of the governors of Vermont and Maine. Obviously, I know Massachusetts (Deval Patrick).

Christopher G said...

Man! It's opinions like this that are ruining the purity and sanctity of this site.



;)

Alex said...

John's right...we're mostly all emotional/low info voters. The difference is probably just in the level of justification. I can (and have) compiled a list of justifications for why I want Obama over McCain, but that doesn't mean my first reaction wasn't "ooh" and "eww" respectively.

Regarding Pawlenty, stop taking campaign statements at face value, Sean. It's possible that Pawlenty provides a package that the McCain camp is looking for, and anyone, anywhere will plug the "deliver us X state" line about whomever they choose (because, you know, everyone comes from somewhere). And Pawlenty may get them a few points closer in those states. What do you want McCain to say? "We're going to choose Pawlenty because he's a pretty cool guy, but we admit wholeheartedly that we have no chance to win in his state." We can analyze better than this.

Anonymous said...

Rasmussen New Hampshire:
Obama 50
McCain 39

Rasmussen Nevada:
McCain 45
Obama 42

Mike H in Cali said...

Chris,
Pawlenty's willingness to make ad hominem attacks makes him well-suited to be a VP attack dog (going after Barack's penchant for Whole Foods arugula, having Father Pfleger as his moral compass, etc.)

One little known risk -- He converted from being Catholic to an evangelical Protestant. Catholics are the key swing block since 1960, especially in PA, OH, and MI.

JGabriel said...

MVRed: "... I do recall Romney winning [MI] in the primaries and how well liked his family is. If it is within 1-2 points in Michigan like we all expect, this may push McCain to victory in this state."

Romney probably would help McCain in MI, if selected. I won't try to disabuse you of the notion that McCain can MI - given the current polling numbers there, it can't be comnpletely ruled.

That said, MI is a pro-labor state that hasn't voted for a Republican president for two decades.

Given the current economy, do you really think they're gonna return to the Republican fold now?

By the time the election rolls around, I fully expect Obama to be leading in MI polls by more than 5%. Well outside of any advantage that Romney could provide. McCain would be better off looking for someone who could provide support in a state that is likely to remain a toss-up until November, such as Florida. Probably Crist, if he can survive the vetting process.

Finally, McCain was brutal towards Romney during the primaries. I can't see McCain picking Romney for the VP slot, nor can I see either of them working well together.

Anyway, we'll see what happens come November. Maybe you're right - but it seems very, very, unlikely.

.

nieddu said...

On "we're wisconsinites, not wisconsans."

No guys, it is wisconsians.

Anonymous said...

I'm from NH; I know who the governor of Maine is (John Baldacci, right?), but had to be reminded that the governor of MA is Deval Patrick and not Mitt Romney. Hurf.

Stephen said...

jv--

You talk as if emotional reactions and information/reason are independent from one another. That is clearly not the case. As a very simple example, think of the rush of fear the average person would get if someone near them pulled out a gun. A gun only provokes an emotional reaction because we know what it can do--it isn't a terribly threatening item in of itself. Knowledge informs emotional responses.

So forgive me if, yes, I do find myself a bit disgusted by people who vote based on negative emotional reactions to words like "Muslim", "Liberal", "Gay", etc. In this instance, I consider my emotional response to be very much informed by reason.

anandamide said...

I doubt that Pawlenty would deliver Minnesota but since I am from Wisconsin I can GUARANTEE that it won't deliver Wisconsin. Nobody here knows who Pawlenty is (other than his mention as possible VP)and even if we don't have any particular loyalty towards MN, simply because it's next door. We're also next door to Illinois, remember?

Crazy.

Insult Comic Dog said...

I would like to entertainingly point out that opinions like these are ruining the purity and sanctity of the site.

Juris said...

Obama isn't taking MI for granted, no matter who the GOP VP nominee might be. Nor should he.

Kerry won MI by just over 2 points in 2004. I do think Romney has some pull in MI (more among older voters, I think, who remember his Dad) but you can't go by the landslide in the primary to draw any conclusions about how much impact his VP candidacy would have.

Romney's potentially more valuable nationally as a "financial" and "economics" guy, to counter McCain's confessed ignorance about economics. He does have a handicap of skepticism about his Mormonism, especially among Evangelicals. So that might be the deal breaker in his being selected for the ticket by McCain.

JV said...

Stephen,

My post is about decision making, not about emotional reactions to external stimuli that of course requires knowledge about those stimuli, otherwise it's a new memory about to be created. But now that you mention it, you bring up an interesting point. The McCain campaign is relying on the people that "know as a fact" that muslims are all terrorists, for example. This "fact" is of course not real, but the "emotional memory" of 9/11 for these people strongly associates "muslim" with "fear". When McCain or his surrogates suggest that Obama might be muslim or an outright terrorist (fist jabs), they're appealing to this "knowledge" and positioning their product as the "not scary" product of the market place.

Sorry for all the "quote" signs... =)

Geoff said...

I didn't realize that being a Wisconsinite was so controversial. Though, personally, I do like the sound of Wisconsonian. I'll settle for being called a Badger. WHOO!!

JGabriel said...

Sean: "In my view, Huckabee is probably McCain's wisest choice..."

I agree. Huckabee provides a little bit of a home state advantage, probably unnecessary since McCain is likely to win AR anyway. But it's a locally Democratic state, so it doesn't hurt McCain to shore up his support there.

More important, a Huckabee pick is likely to shore up the evangelical / fundie vote for McCain. Given McCain's weak support in that demographic, a Huckabee pick might re-energize the religious right. That could help McCain in several Western, Mid-West, and Southern states.

.

Stephen said...

jv--

Well, your premise seemed to be that we make decision based on emotional responses and come up with intellectual rationales after the fact. Sure, I agree this is usually true. But my point is that this tendency doesn't invalidate the concept of "low information voters", because our emotional reactions are developed by the information we absorb. Your point is well-taken that not all that information is "knowledge" in the sense of being, well, factual truth, but I still tend to think that people with more information will make better decisions that people without information, on average. Even if they are no more rational, they have still been trained via experience to react in different, generally superior, ways. The "low information voter" is a problem.

stewie said...

I just noticed that the "Obama Landslide" projection is up to 40%. Wild.

Juris said...

Don't get too excited about the 40%. It could collapse in a day or a week, or once the DNC and McCain and the various surrogates haul our their heavy artillery. This is June.

John Peterson said...

The fact that the more "educated" a voter is, the more likely he is to vote for Obama, is all the proof I need that "being informed" has next-to-nothing to do with making the right political choice.

JV said...

Stephen,

Thanks, I agree with you. I was trying to support the fact that the low info voter is a problem, but that unfortunately, close to 90% of the population are low info voters and that most of them don't even actually go ahead and vote (low turnout).

MCCAIN 08 said...

FISA passed !

MCCAIN 08

Stephen said...

JV--

There we can certainly agree. This is why civics, current events, and debate classes should be mandatory in school--if people never have to defend their ideas, it's too easy to get away with never thinking about them, either.

Stephen said...

John Peterson--

You sounds like Stephen Colbert. And not in the good way.

Jaime said...

John P.

That just means they are either not moved by fear, or don't trust McCain to make them safer. Or it's a non issue for them and they are moved by emotions of Hope.

Anonymous said...

Yet another rant masquerading as a post from Sean. Please, take it to DailyKos.

If you really wanted to analyze your wild speculation regarding border states and its ability to impact Wisconsin, you would consider media market coverage. The Chicago media market does not cover any of Wisconsin based on media market maps, though some positive coverage of Obama from Chicago over the last few years probably bled into Kenosha County, WI, an important and somewhat swing county in the state. The Minneapolis media market covers six counties, including St. Paul suburbanites. You might want to analyze the population receiving Twin Cities coverage in Wisconsin vs. Chicago coverage in Wisconsin and consider the likelihood of them being swing voters.

John said...

I've always estimated that about 85% of Americans are idiots. Do you think that's about right?

JV said...

John,

Nope. 90% of people make decisions based on emotions not facts. That doesn't mean that 90% of the people don't know any facts. Though some of them do rely on truthiness rather than the actual, you know, real facts found on books and stuff.

Leo said...

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/the_general_election_map_2.php

I thought some of you guys might enjoy mocking Marc Ambinder's latest "analysis" of the state of the race.

Anonymous said...

This sort of "Choosing X as VP can deliver state Y" nonsense isn't confined to the McCain camp.

To take the flip side of the coin, there's been some noise that Obama should select Kansas gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate, not only because of her obvious appeal to female voters, but because she could somehow help deliver the swing state of Missouri.

As an Obama supporter living in MO, I have to say this idea is pretty much laughable. Sebelius has pretty much zero name recognition here other than maybe in the Kansas City area, and even if she did, Kansas and Missouri have a long history of uncomfortable relations (including open warfare if you dig far enough back in history).

Having a Kansan on the ticket is not going help Obama in Missouri any more than having a Minnesotan on the ticket would somehow help McCain in Wisconsin.

JGabriel said...

Anon @ 12:11p: "If you really wanted to analyze your wild speculation regarding border states and its ability to impact Wisconsin, you would consider media market coverage."

Or we can look at the obvious.

Wisconsin hasn't given its electoral votes to a Republican candidate since 1984. Do you really think they'll switch over to the R's in the current economy?

Yes, there's the argument that Kerry barely won WI in 2004, but Obama is a much stronger candidate.

By Novemeber, WI will no longer be in play. Arguably, it's not even in play now. According to Pollster.com, McCain hasn't won a poll there since 5/5. In fact, McCain has only won 2 of the last 10 polls (going back to March), and both were from the same pollster, Rasmussen Reports.

Wisconsin is not in play, and Pawlenty won't change that.

.

sarah said...

I am a die hard Kossak who visits DK with religiosity and have nothing but praise for this kind of a post had it been posted there. 538 is only degrading its quality by indulging in such subjective speculation. Why cant we just keep to the statistical analysis?

Charles Pluckhahn said...

I was born and raised in Wisconsin, and get back there often. I've never heard of any instance in which a Minnesota "favorite son" candidate made an impact in Wisconsin on that basis.

For example, Wisconsin voted against Hubert Humprhey in 1968, the Carter-Mondale ticket in 1980, and Walter Mondale in 1984.

Mac Z said...

"Nope. 90% of people make decisions based on emotions not facts. That doesn't mean that 90% of the people don't know any facts. Though some of them do rely on truthiness rather than the actual, you know, real facts found on books and stuff."

Have you ever read "The Political Brain" by Dr. Drew Westen? It's about just what you're talking about, and has studies that shows that emotion plays more than 150 times the role that the issues do in how you vote.

almondwine said...

Minnesota has voted Republican exactly three times since the Depression. It is the single bluest state in presidential politics, and it is in fact the only state that never voted for Reagan. Even Massachusetts is less reliably Democratic than Minnesota. This is despite a track record of non-DFL governors going back decades.

That McCain thinks he can remedy this by plucking a GOP governor who wasn't able to deliver the state in 2004 and couldn't deliver the Senatorship to a well-liked and popular representative is... well it's something that wouldn't be appropriate to say on the tubes. And that says a lot.

lilnev said...

I've been thinking about a more quantitative approach to estimating the average "home state effect" for both pres and VP. Basically, start with the state-by-state results from the last ~15 elections and fit it to a model with coefficients for each state, each election, and possibly a linear time trend for each state (to capture the South trending R and the Northeast D, for example). That leaves you with a set of residuals. If there really is a "home state effect", it should show up in the residuals of the home state being positive on average. Thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Here's another vote for "please leave the opinion pieces like this to other sites." I come here for statistics and analysis, not partisan opinion pieces. I'm seriously considering switching my bookmark to the "today's polls" link to rid myself of this nonsense, but I'd hate to lose Nate's analysis in the process.

Mind you, all this from an Obama supporter who doesn't actually disagree with Sean.

Matt Pizzuti said...

We can all sit here and agree that the Pawlenty VP nod is unlikely to deliver Minnesota (or the election) to John McCain, but we can also probably agree that anything John McCain can do is unlikely to deliver him the election, period.

McCain-Pawlenty might not be a great scenario for John McCain, but his campaign might be thinking it's the best scenario he has. Does he have a better chance of winning with Romney, Huckabee or Crist? What blue-colored states could they deliver to McCain?

We also know that the "McCain has no chance of winning" effect makes Republicans more likely to stay at home or make a symbolic vote for a third-party candidate. If they can hype his chances at winning, it helps him everywhere. Making an election seem close always helps boost turnout.

If John McCain brings his win percentage from 25 percent to 35 percent by making Minnesota a more pale shade of blue, he'll probably lose the election but it would still have been a good VP choice for him.

Jason said...

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"If Tim Pawlenty is on the Republican ticket as John McCain's vice presidential running mate in November, would you be more likely or less liekly to vote for McCain for president -- or would it not make much difference either way?

Would not make much difference: 62%
Less likely: 20%
More likely: 16%
Don't know/refused: 2%

Source: Star Tribune Minnesota Poll conducted May 12-15 with 1,203 adults statewide. Margin of sampline error: No greater than 3 percentage points, plus or minus, at a 95 percent confidence level."

judas_priest said...

Anon @ 12:11:

I'll take your word for it that Twin Cities media outlets reach 6 Wisconsin counties. And just how many households is that? Judging from maps, it is less than 10% of Wisconsin households. (I'd also guess it's less than 5%, but that is less certain.)

Given the general lack of a "hometown" effect in general, the idea that this coverage would make a difference in Wisconsin strikes me as a vast overreach. (Or perhaps only half-vast)

Juris said...

Stephen wrote:
This is why civics, current events, and debate classes should be mandatory in school--if people never have to defend their ideas . . .


Stephen, study after study has shown that civics classes don't accomplish this in the least. They tend to be too formalistic or formulaic. And teachers stay away from a lot of controversial topics.

OTOH, debate -- especially debate as a competitive school activity -- definitely gets students into thinking and challenging their own assumptions, or backing them up with evidence. That's why I use this approach a lot, at least when I teach small classes.

Anonymous said...

People who don't like the opinions here shouldn't read them. See how easy that was?

OBAMAISCOOL said...



NEW OBAMA SONG

Link

Mac Z said...

"Stephen, study after study has shown that civics classes don't accomplish this in the least. They tend to be too formalistic or formulaic. And teachers stay away from a lot of controversial topics.

OTOH, debate -- especially debate as a competitive school activity -- definitely gets students into thinking and challenging their own assumptions, or backing them up with evidence. That's why I use this approach a lot, at least when I teach small classes."

Agreed. Debate, Philosophy-Logic, or something like that should be part of the mandated school curriculum, as too many people in the US, even educated people, are woefully lacking in the critical thinking department due to the Factory System of education that values efficiency and proficiency over formation of ideas.

Stephen said...

juris--

It seems to me that that relies on a particular method of studying civics classes. I'm passingly familiar with educational standards in a few states, and I agree that places like Texas, with mandatory "be a good citizen!" mantras are going to accomplish next to nothing. But courses focused on current events, political theory, constitutional law, logic, and ethics could accomplish a lot. I took a number of these kinds of courses throughout high school and college myself, and they all had varying degrees of effectiveness dependent on the attitude toward the courses taken by the teachers and the educational institutions involved.

Anonymous said...

Over the past 25 years (roughly), there have four VPs who did not bring to the party his/her state.…

1984: Geraldine Ferraro, New York (In crushing defeat that Republican Ronald Reagan winning his second term 525-13, former Vice President Walter Mondale only won his home state Minnesota and D.C., which has always voted for the Democratic Party since it had the vote in 1964)

1988: Lloyd Bensten, Texas (Democratic Party nominee Michael Dukakis only carried ten states, and Texas was already Republican president elect George Bush's home state)

1996: Jack Kemp, New York (also with roots in California, Bob Dole's running mate on the Republican ticket did not harm in an pulling upset over Democratic president Bill Clinton, who carried both states in his win column)

2004: John Edwards, North Carolina (the U.S. Senator wasn't powerful enough to sway his state and bring it over the Democratic Party nominee Senator John Kerry's win column, as Republican president George W. Bush kept N.C. red)

Rasmus said...

"http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/the_general_election_map_2.php"

Why should one mock this?
His list of states does not look bad. I agree that some of the Toss-Ups lean Obama, like Iowa and Pennsylvania, but if you don´t only look at polls, but also at the 2000 and 2004 election, there is some reason to put them in the Toss-Up category.

I´d say a state that was Republican last year can´t get more Democratic as "Lean-Obama", no matter what the polls say (ok, maybe except a 25-point Obama lead, that should be safe)

almondwine said...

But how many of those VPs who did bring their state brought a state that wasn't going to vote that way anyway? Wyoming votes for Bush? Oh, big shock. Minnesota votes for Carter? Ooooh.... didn't see that coming. Connecticut votes for Gore? Wow.

Gore brought Tennessee. MAYBE. Then he couldn't carry it when he was on the ticket. Bush brought Mass. LBJ brought Texas. That's about it.

The geographically strategic VP is a mythical beast. You'd be luckier looking for a pro-gay-rights Tennessee Mormon Libertarian who wrote in Jacque Chirac.

John Peterson said...

I don't think 85% of people are idiots. I think poor Americans who "cling to guns and God" are usually more grounded in the reality of life than university-educated liberals who believe they have transcended such petty nativism, or yuppies who get their values from the ephemeral nature of advertisement.

That said, I agree that the vast majority of voters are not won over by the candidates' stands on the issues (besides maybe with regards to abortion), but rather are affected by the calculated sentiment-inducers put out by both sides. But this includes those who read magazines and newspapers and watch cable news shows. I think most people "believe" in one platform or another because they emotionally side with the candidate, not because they are capable of researching and figuring out how it really works. Hell, the candidates themselves don't know how most of their proposed policies or reforms would work.

I think, when you really get to the philosophical foundations, conservatism is the only sensible basis of policy, possessing the only coherent and internally consistent purpose, and is the only currently viable political world-view in consonance with the vision of our country's Founders.

That said, conservatives who run for office use the same shameless emotional arguments and base demagoguery that liberals do. Since most people are not steeped in the philosophical foundations and implications of their candidates' world-views, the debate is almost entirely in this realm of the sentimental and insipid. Liberals spot populist nonsense, and conservatives shamelessly invoke the name of family values in order to garner votes.

How many really informed voters are there? I would say less than one-hundredth of one percent of the population gives really serious thought to their vote. Most really intelligent people I know could not care less about politics, because it operates in the realm of inane babble. That's democracy. Philosophers do not become kings.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick correction, I am from Wisconsin and we are "Wisconsinites."

Not "Wisconsans."

Anonymous said...

anonymous 13.11

how much did you pay to read this site? Your comments reflect typical Republican entitlement. Its Sean site seems to me he can post whatever he chooses and asking him to take to another site appears to the high of absurdity. Remind me never to invite to my house - you might ask me to leave!

Anonymous said...

Electoral Projections Done Right

I think you should stick to your mission statement. The reason I'm here is because after 2004 I can't trust Electoral-Vote.com or Zogby.

I visit plenty of other sites every day. I'll gladly visit Sean's blog as well, but I don't think credible projections and political blogging mix well.

Stephen said...

John Peterson--

Out of interest, exactly what is this glittering, internally consistent worldview that true conservatives adhere to? Because I have never read a conservative point of view, from the most libertarian to the most neo-conservative, that wasn't riddled with logical fallacies. For a start--I have yet to see a conservative who could articulate logically why defense of the nation against external governments and internal criminals is the job of the government, but defense of the nation against natural disasters, famine, and disease is not. (Unless you know a lot of conservatives who believe in universal healthcare, of course).

Anonymous said...

I'm anonymus @12.11 who suggested the media market analysis.

I didn't say it would swing the state, as my critics have suggested. What I said is it is a better analysis than the "rant" dressed up as analysis and cherry-picking presented by Sean in this post.

This web site is getting worse every time Sean posts, seriously. You are hurting your cause.

While I am not sure that Pawlenty can help McCain win Wisconsin, it would make it more competitive. The six Wisconsin counties in the Twin Cities media market include swing voters who trend conservative on social issues or who are suburbanites that are Dave Obey Democrats. Obey is a liberal congressman, but his constituents are more populist w/ a mix of social conservatism and economic liberalism. Pawlenty has super-positive coverage in the Twin Cities, and it could make the state more competitive. It's reasonable.

Anonymous said...

If Sean keeps posting, you need to change the name of this site to "Electoral Projections Done Left."

It debases the analysis.

Anonymous said...

For the record, as a St. Louis Blues fan of two decades, I care very much who they select tonight with the 4th pick. That means that at least one person might be swayed by Pawlenty (although it wouldn't be me...maybe John Danforth, though).

Jeremy said...

"I don't think credible projections and political blogging mix well."

I can only agree. If you must mix the two, at least clearly label the opinion pieces at the top of the article so I can ignore them. Hell, tag them with "opinion" and provide a site viewing option that excludes pieces with that tag. Simple.

Anonymous said...

before you complain about the author of this site posting his opinions in the blog section of the site, ask yourself this: In the interest of full disclosure would you rather know his opinions or not?

Alex said...

Bizarro SUSA poll on Iowa out today: Obama +4, but -11 amongst black voters.

The sample size on that is minuscule, 2%. So with 528 respondents...11 black respondents, with 6 for McCain and 5 for Obama. But how does SUSA justify putting out crazy crosstabs like this without also releasing a MOE calculation with it? The media is gonna be harping about this nonstop, even though it MEANS NOTHING.

Jeremy said...

"before you complain about the author of this site posting his opinions in the blog section of the site, ask yourself this: In the interest of full disclosure would you rather know his opinions or not?"

1) Sean is not the author of this site, he's a guest here. Nate runs the site and handles the actual projections.

2) Nate's views are, in the interests of full disclosure, laid out in the FAQ section.

Anonymous said...

"the powerful, hypnotic sway of Tim Pawlenty"

Awesome.

John Peterson said...

Stephen, I'm don't want to argue with you in depth. The foundation and purpose of our free and United States is the subject of many an excellent book, and the question you raise might be outside the scope this forum allows.

Still, I think if you were to look hard, you would find that the idea of "universal health care" is far outside of the vision of our founding Fathers. As much as say, Nazi-like eugenics. Yes, it is the duty of society to care for its young, elderly, disabled, mentally ill, and I think any true conservative would tell you that. But taking choice out of the matter should be abhorrent to the free mind. The free market isn't the problem-- it's restriction of the free market.

I said I wouldn't argue, and now I'm doing it. Damn.

ED froM Calgary, AB Canada said...

HI from Canada..
In regards to seeing Obama sitting with all the Governors today...

ALL I can say is wow and wow and wow.. I was near tears with pride on seeing truly how much of a leader that Obama is..this guy is like the second coming of JFK..

I am from Canada and I can't believe how fortunate you neighbours down south are to have the opportunity to have this guy be your next president..

Anyone that cannot see that by now needs to take their head out of the sand...

By the way, did you hear Arnie does not want off shore drilling...

Stephen said...

John Peterson--

Not to diverge entirely here, but I'm not really asking about the vision the Founding Fathers had--they were individuals with individual opinions, and trying to ascribe a collective opinion to them about matters that they could not possibly have had any idea is fairly absurd, in my opinion. I'm talking about your claim that conservativism was logically consistent. As to the free market being the solution to all our problems, A: I think this is a prime example of the overly-rosie view that many on the right espouse, and B: if this logic applies to healthcare, why doesn't it also apply to the military?

John Fournier said...

I don't know man, after Stamkos its a mixed bag. St. Louis is wheeling and dealing today, so who knows where they will end up in the draft. Go Wings.

zlionsfan said...

Anon@12:27 ... that's kind of what I thought when I read the post, and subsequent comments seem to reinforce my thinking. Tying in hockey, and ignoring how Minnesota residents feel about their governor, I actually have an easier time picturing Wisconsin residents voting against someone from Minnesota. (In fact, the Badgers and Gophers meet twice in late October ...)

As a long-time Red Wings fan, I'm really not thinking too much about the draft right now. :)

Governors ... well, I know Kentucky has one. I know something about Illinois' governor's name, but I don't know how many people can spell it even if you do know it. I know Michigan's governor is female and is in a bit of trouble because she hasn't fixed the economy yet (well, not Kilpatrick trouble). I'm afraid Ohio's governor also slips my mind ... 0.5/4 = fail.

"Low-info" is a relative term. During the primary, there were at least three people in my precinct who asked to which party Obama or Clinton belonged. We couldn't tell if they were crossover voters or perhaps just didn't have TV or newspapers ...

Juris said...

Ed from Canada wrote:

"I was near tears with pride on seeing truly how much of a leader that Obama is..this guy is like the second coming of JFK."

Ed, I sometimes have the same reaction when I see Obama in a crowd. But frankly this scares me. The guy has charisma. Nothing wrong with that. I also think he has ideas and a style that will travel well into office.

But it's the rockstar aspect, which some have also described as "cultish" fervor, that scares me. One reason is that it makes him a target. Another is history: I don't think cult leaders are good political leaders, in particular of secular states. A "state religion" of Obamism could only ultimately lead to intolerance and authoritarianism.

So Obama needs to find a way to calm and channel that popular energy while also reinforcing his message of tolerance and cooperation. We can't get carried away with the emotional side of his leadership or he will ultimately fail.

Mike H in Cali said...

The problems caused by the recently revised methodology are shown on this morning's Nevada projection of 60% likelihood of an Obama win there even though all three NV polls in the last two months showed McCain in the lead in NV.

Now, Rasmussen has just come out with a new NV poll today with McCain ahead again -- this time by 3 points, instead of the 2 points Mason-Dixon showed earlier in June.

I think some more tweaking of the new model may be necessary.

Jay Johnson said...

I can't imagine Pawlenty having *any* effect in Wisco, whatsoever. Those are Dave Obey's and Ron Kind's districts on the border, both established Dem congressmen. Past that, Pawlenty would seem to mean little in any bizarre conventional wisdom paradigm that is being hatched by the Keystone McCain Squad.

Almost half of the pop here lives in the Greater Milwaukee stat area - which excludes Kenosha county, actually a part of the Greater CHICAGO stat area. Add in Madison and Janesville and you've pushing half the pop easily with 2 hrs of Illinois. Check out how far the density is from MN here.

And I can't buy a demographic argument, since I doubt more than 10% of the folks outside of the Western halves of CDs 3 and 7 could identify Pawlenty.

This kind of thinking from McCain's "strategists" show the intrinsic organizational advantage for Obama. Internal polling... right.

Juris said...

I made a comment on another thread regarding those win probabilities. I don't get too focused on them. I look at the % of vote projected for each candidate. That truly doesn't change nearly as rapidly. I don't think this indicates a need for a change in the method. You'd probably get a similar result under the old method.

Ed from Alberta Canada said...

hey Juris..

Sorry that you are so frickin' negative and pessimistic...

He is no cult or religion... he is essentially a guy trying to save your country from the crap that the Republicans have gotten you into during the Bush Regime..

Hey, our country is now in Afghanistan fighting a war while you guys are fighting a war in Iraq based on sheer outright lies and deception.

It is about time that the Bush mentality of "shoot first, ask questions later" go the way of the dodo bird ...


And even up here in what is labelled as the redneck province of Alberta..Obama is kicking Mccains butt in the polls...

So Juris take off your blinders take off your blinders and take a look around... get ready for President Obama...

Ed from Alberta said...

hey anyone notice that even Fox news and Rasmussen which are or were heavily bias towards the Republicans are putting Obama ahead in the polls..

Hey I wonder what FOX news will do after Obama is elected.. show old movies of Reagan and colorized reruns of the McCarthy hearings to keep the Republican spirit from totaly dying...OLOLOL

Chris said...

I agree with Mike H in Cali. He said "The problems caused by the recently revised methodology are shown on this morning's Nevada projection of 60% likelihood of an Obama win there even though all three NV polls in the last two months showed McCain in the lead in NV."

I agree. This site has become the Obama stats site, given the new methodology. I predict that there won't be any methodology changes, though, unless McCain starts polling +4 or so in national polls, thus giving him unrealistic large margins in states where Obama would otherwise be winning or tied if you only looked at state polls.

The methodology is flawed, but it won't get fixed unless the pendulum swings toward McCain. There is subtle bias here.

Stephen said...

I don't think the new methodology is flawed--or, at least, I think it's *less flawed* than the old, already good, methodology. And I think that's borne out by, say, the new methodology's decent stab at predicting the new Ohio polls.

obsessed said...

Nate - Here's an idea: How about dividing 538 into two discrete sections - Polling and Commentary. In the Polling section, commenters would be limited to objective discussion of the data without advocating for one candidate or the other. The Commentary section would allow spirited partisan debate.

You've attracted a smart and diverse crowd here that makes interesting reading in both modes, but having two forums, with different rules of decorum, would be the best of both worlds.

This way, if someone starts spouting off partisan in the polling area, we could say "take it over to the other room!".

Kyle said...

I'm going to chime in and agree with those that have said Sean's rants are totally out of place here.

Nate, seriously, you should get rid of him. Or, if he is actually helpful behind the scenes, at least don't allow him to post on the main page.

judas_priest said...

Mike H:

Had you taken the time and effort to read how the model was constructed. you would have learned that the "tweaking" is done to adjust for (inferred) shifts in sentiment since the last polls in any given state. If the country has turned 5% in one direction since a particular state was polled, it is more likely that the particular state has shifted in that same direction by some amount than to assume it has remained where it was "back then."

These "tweaks" have a significant impact only if there is minimal recent data. The new Rasmussen poll is the first new poll in Nevada for some time, and will therefore reduce the impact of the "tweaks" both in terms of the state itself and by tempering the average state shift to Obama. Enough such polls and the impact of the "tweaks" becomes miniscule. The projection model is, in that sense, self-tweaking.

JGabriel said...

Stephen @ 2:31p: "John Peterson -- Not to diverge entirely here, but I'm not really asking about the vision the Founding Fathers had..."

Stephen, you're arguing with someone who equates universal health care with Nazi eugenics experiments.

It's kind of pointless, don't you think? He's either incapable or unwilling to make a rational argument. I mean, that kind of comparison is only socially acceptable to people with views to the right of the KKK.

.

Chris said...

To judas_priest. You said "If the country has turned 5% in one direction since a particular state was polled, it is more likely that the particular state has shifted in that same direction by some amount than to assume it has remained where it was "back then."

Not necessarily. If the Obama national increase is coming mostly from strong Democratic states, then imputing national results to swing states biases the electoral vote predictions and likelihood of winning too much toward Obama. So Massachusetts and New York and other very Democratic states where Obama was already winning 3-4 weeks ago are now polling with much bigger margins for Obama now that the primary is over. These increases in Obama support in what were already Obama states with lots of population could be the bulk of the national polling.

The national poll support for Obama-McCain will not be distributed uniformly across states. Additionally, many national polls won't even be large enough to include voters in North Dakota and the like.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to third the idea that Sean's posts ruin this site. It is losing credibility fast.

If you want to keep this opinion stuff, please put it on another page. I like posting about the data and issues with methodology. I don't enjoy reading what amounts to one's opinion about a floated trial balloon from the McCain campaign regarding veep.

Juris said...

Ed from Alberta:

Your response is exactly the type of reaction that I was concerned about. People with a different point of view aren't "wearing blinders."

Also, please don't personalize things; I didn't do so in reacting to your remark. I said I had experienced the same feelings when seening Obama speak but I was concerned about the emotion.

I also didn't question Obama's objectives; by and large I support them. But to achieve them he needs not just popular adulation but good science, good policies, good long-range planning.

I'll say again what I said in that post. We have to emphasize the rational and not the emotional, to reason things through and not just rally the crowd.

Stephen said...

Chris--

First, the premise that Obama's bump would be strongest in deep-blue states has, so far, had little support--Nate's already discussed how big his bump has been in the Appalachian region, for instance. On average, Nate's current method should be *less wrong* than doing nothing at all, even if it isn't perfect.

Second, the fact that a national poll doesn't include anyone in North Dakota (if that is, indeed, the case) doesn't mean that it can't be viewed as an indication that support for Obama has increased in North Dakota. If his support has increased across the country, it is likely it increased in any given part of the country--otherwise polling would be useless and you would need to take a census to get any valid information at all.

Stephen said...

jgabriel--

Good point, that *was* pretty f'ing crazy...

judas_preist said...

BTW, yu can count me among those who are criotical of Sean's rant. It wasn't that I disagree with. I though it was right on; I enjoyed it; I wish I had written it.

But I think this is a case of, "It wasn't what you said; it was how you said it." The tone was wrong. The same material could have been written without the combination of condescension and hostility. In the alternative, it could have had some note indicating the nature of the piece. I find far too many political sites heavily infected with rancorous partisanship. I am myself quite partisan, but I don't look for that in web-sites - I look for information and analysis.

mikeel said...

Comments for the day:

1. Site crashes occasionally when I click on comments--time for a new host?

2. Need to fix NV--Obama's never been ahead in the state.

3. SUSA's Iowa partisan split was 38-D, 37R--is that possible?

4. What about the Pawlenty effect in Iowa? He's the flavor du jour
again, back to being the favorite in Intrade. His wife has evangelical connections, which could come in handy. I still think Romney is his best choice, followed by Sarah Palin.

hosertohoosier said...

On the "Obama bias" thing - this site projects a 5-point lead for Obama in the popular vote (this is larger than most national polls, but results from, I believe, a higher weighting of more accurate polls and the 538 regression).

A 5-point lead has often translated into the kind of electoral college numbers projected by the site ~200 to 337. There was a time, you may remember, before 2000, when elections were not always close.

In 1992 Clinton won by 6 points, and won the EV 370-170. Truman won the popular vote by 4.5 points, and won the EV 189-303. Just as in this election, a series of flukes in close states might have flipped things to McCain, but that is very unlikely.

So, is there some consistent methodology that suggests Obama is ahead by 5? Sure. That may overstate trends, but it is there, and it is consistent. Are these electoral college results consistent with such a popular vote result? Yes. It doesn't mean that a series of flukes in swing states can't save McCain. It doesn't mean that the popular vote won't narrow (as is already happening).

What incentive does an Obama supporter have in saying OMG Obama will win. 50 state sweep! Particularly when that is not a realistic outcome, it is ridiculous to assume that intelligent, politically sophisticated folks would adopt such a position. Moreover, if that belief became widespread, it would cause an inefficient allocation of Obama's resources (he would campaign to win more congressional seats, not to win the presidency).

KoolAid said...

Juris:

Would it be preferable if those of us who support Obama were simply supporting him because he's less of an SOB than the other SOB? Apparently, if we aren't jaded, we aren't doing it right.

But it's that kind of mentality that drives voters away from the polls and encourages the kind of ignorance Sean spoke about in his post.

People don't care about politics because they don't see anything worth caring about. Yet when a figure comes along who arouses the hopes and passions of ordinary Americans, it's a cause for worry.

The Obama supporters are no cult. They are millions of Americans who, for the first time, are embracing the potential of the future. Obama is simply pointing the way.

Anonymous said...

How naive is this column? By the end of it, you are throwing in a jibe at Terry McAuliffe, for no other reason than to say McCain and the Clinton campaigns have "absurdists" working for them? But Obama never utters an absurd piece of sping? Give me a break.

How old is Sean and how lacking of historical politics is he? All campaigns have spinmeisters who say whoppers, in the hopes of helping their candidate. From my read of this column, it wouldn't surprise me if you are being paid by the Obama campaign to write it. Except that it is such an unhinged and absurd column, that I don't think Obama would hire you. You're doing too much damage to them.

Stephen said...

Well holy shit:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss

That is pretty crazy.

Anonymous said...

Huge fan of the site and of Obama, but I've got to say that the opinions provided by Sean just bring down credibility overall. This is the kind of site I want to forward to other people, but when there's such a blatant bias, it calls into question all of the numbers.

Frankly, I want to be able to forward 538 to McCain supporters or people on the fence, but it gets dismissed instantly when biased rants are on the front page. In essence, you're squandering a powerful tool to actually help Obama win.

Chris said...

Responding to Stephen--

Stephen said "First, the premise that Obama's bump would be strongest in deep-blue states has, so far, had little support--Nate's already discussed how big his bump has been in the Appalachian region, for instance...."

Two points. First, Nate's post on the within-state bump excluded the most recent, and negative polls for Obama. For instance, he included an Ohio poll showing an Obama bounce, but did not include the Rasmussen poll published just after his post. So to assume that things he's written in the past are purely objective is not clear. Though this may have simply been timing of the post, so I forgive that.

Second, on the Appalachian post. These are subsets of state polls, showing regions of Pennsylvania. You are talking about MofE of perhaps +/-10% or more for some of these subset populations. That post didn't show much in my opinion, save for one very large swing in one part of one states.

I just think that (1) the changed methodology helps Obama, at least for now while Obama is ahead in the national polls; and (2) it helps Obama's case because this sort of pseudo-objective site makes it harder for McCain to raise money if donors think Obama is a lock. Even pseudo-objective information has political consquences.

And Sean's posts just muddy the objectivity that does exist in the data analysis.

Anonymous said...

To Stephen: If a 15% poll is incorporated w/ this methodology, Obama will be winning all states.

John Peterson said...

Stephen, I guess we're done here? I never equated universal health care to eugenics. Why dis you immediately side with some asshole who characterized my point that way? I said that they are equally far from the foundation of American society. And while there is no universal health care in this country, there is eugenics (selectively aborting fetuses with diseases, for example), and often I find that the same people who argue that it is the purpose of government to protect its people (arguing for universal health care) support this kind of eugenics.

So it is not about protecting our people, it's about socialism. And socialism, as we have seen in countries where it has become dominant, only benefits those who are in power or those who are willing to compromise themselves to endorse their ideology, while making poor people and the unpopular opinions of the political losers into criminals.

I'll choose freedom instead.

SigmaSquared said...

So, if I'd just heard about this website from Newsweek and decided to check it out, the first thing that I'd see is someone writing second-rate snark about McCain's VP choice. That's going to be a turn-off for the average Newsweek reader.

The problem with saying "don't read the opinion pieces" is that first-time viewers are going to come to this site, and the first impression they're going to get is Sean writing like someone who does DailyKos diaries. The rants distract from the statistical analysis that makes this website great. It's time for Sean to hang up his spikes at 538.com, or failing that, he needs to be taken off the main page. Please, Nate, I'm begging you: this experiment needs to end.

Stephen said...

Chris--

True, perhaps, for Ohio and PA, but what of West Virginia and Kentucky? Sure, they're not as "swingy", but they're not true-blue, either. Further, if you look at the more "negative" poll for Ohio, it showed... no change for Obama. Three polls displayed in a week, one showed no change (over one month), one showed a 19-point swing (over three months), and one a 10-point swing (over one month), and you're complaining that Nate gave a five-ish-point bump to the pre-existing numbers? It looks to me like he was pretty dead on the average.

I'd love to see an analysis of his "trend-adjusted" numbers compared to new polls in those states, to see what the variance is, because so far it looks like his predictions are pretty solid.

hosertohoosier said...

Suggestion: why not display multiple methodologies? It would not be that hard to do, we have some space from axing Clinton and it will make it more fun to evaluate who was right come election time.

Alex said...

Should we say that the Newsweek poll lends credence to PPP's partisan ID finding in Ohio?

Anonymous said...

Chris,
On your two points:
(1) Yes, the new methodology helps Obama out, at least for now. But it will help McCain out just as much if and when he's leading in the national polls and there's a long gap between polls of key swing states. It looks like the big pollsters all poll Florida once a month around the 18th, which seems ridiculous to me, but what do I know? Anyway, this could cut both ways, if McCain builds up a national lead.
(2) There are lots of other websites out there that project Electoral College results, which diminishes the impact this site might have on potential McCain donors. Of course it's possible to have a methodology that's more favorable to McCain than this one, but just right now it'd be pretty hard to imagine a methodology that would show him winning...

Stephen said...

john peterson--

You denied equating universal healthcare to eugenics, but then immediatley conflasted people who support universal healthcare with people who support eugenics. Don't think you undercut your point there at all?

In any case, my question remains: if socialism is always so evil, why do we have a socialized military?

Anonymous said...

Chris says at 3:56 pm:

Fivethirtyeight.com is only a "pseudo-objective site" with "objectivity that does exist in the data analysis."

Yeah, boy, I sure do hate it when there's a bias, and it's an objective one.

JGabriel said...

John Peterson @ 2:18p: "Still, I think if you were to look hard, you would find that the idea of "universal health care" is far outside of the vision of our founding Fathers. As much as say, Nazi-like eugenics."

John Peterson @ 3:59p: "Stephen, I guess we're done here? I never equated universal health care to eugenics."

Sure looks like equating to me.

You were saying?

.

John Peterson said...

By the way, I'm done talking about political stuff. Feel free to have the last word.

I agree that this site should be about the polling. I don't see NEWSWEEK in the poll rankings. But it looks like they do a poll every week.

Stephen said...

Anonymous 3:58--

Not true. First, McCain polled at much better than a 15% lead in many states before this poll came out showing a 15% shift to Obama. Second, the trend-adjustment has more or less weight depending on recent polls from within the state. Third, it is also mitigated by the regression analysis, which will tend to favor McCain in traditionally red states. Finally, no single poll is going to affect the trend-adjustment with absolute power.

hosertohoosier said...

Also, I apologize for saying "we" since this is Nate's site.

Oh and leave my countryman Ed from Edmonton alone. When people from Edmonton say they have a "chill going up their leg" it is almost certainly because Edmonton is a frigid hell-hole! Liberal Albertans haven't had a left-leaning government since 1921, so they have to live vicariously through other countries.

Chris said...

To anonymous @16:05. I realize it will help McCain if or when he goes up in national polls and a number of state polls are within or near the margin of error.

But that's not good either! It just creates too much responsiveness. I think the regression estimates combined with polls make sense.

And regarding this site vs. other sites swaying donor opinion, I didn't read about electoral-vote.com and others in Newsweek last week, but I did read about this one. If this site want to be legit, it should stick to its initial methodology which is comparable over time. First-time readers will come to this and be told by their friends that just 2 weeks ago Obama had a 51% chance of winning the presidency, and now it is near 80%!?

And then throw in the illogical and poorly constructed posts by Sean, and I wonder about the site generally.

Anonymous said...

I would point out that over at electionprojection.com, the Blogging Caesar (a conservative) has Obama winning 349-189.

Thus: Nate is a closet conservative. A true liberal would have Obama at over 500.

Richard said...

Cris said "The national poll support for Obama-McCain will not be distributed uniformly across states."

That is why Nate doesn't apply it uniformly. He regresses the data using a number of variable which are correlated with a state's reactions to national trends so that, for instance, national trends will hardly affect dyed-in-the-wool conservative states at all. Read his posts about the refinements to the new model: they explain it very clearly.

Charles Pluckhahn said...

To the McCain supporters who are complaining about Nate Silver's bias, he's never made any bones about being an Obama supporter. That's his "editorial page," but his "news," i.e., the polling data and interpretations, are separate.

In the primaries, this site had the most accurate projections. Nate has changed his methodology for the general election, and it remains to be seen how accurate it will wind up being.

I don't see any advantage for Nate to skew the data toward Obama. If he does so and it turns out that he's way off, then he'll be known as the guy who got it right in the primaries but fell victim to the audacity of hope. Time will tell.

Anonymous said...

Short answer on how it all turns out in November for those who can't read or can't handle reading the stupid and/or inane commentary that is, for the most part, political blogging today:

If the swing-voters make the leap (ala Reagan in 1980), Obama wins by 10%+ in the two-party vote. If they don't, it'll be close and could go either way. If I were betting right now, I'd bet that Obama wins easy, but, then, how does that disclaimer go: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Okay?

ogre said...

For all the whining about tilting wildly towards Obama, this site projects 337 EV.

Going over to Election Projection, which is avowedly completely pro-Republican, the projection is 349 EV for Obama, and almost a 4.5% lead in the national popular vote.

I'll just quote his latest update:
"At this point, every "battleground" state belongs to Obama, and others, such as North Carolina, are starting to look like battleground states themselves."

So... where's the pro-Obama tilt? What you whiners are bitching about is that the facts on the table point to a drubbing of McCain. Whether you hear that from an Obama supporter or a McCain supporter doesn't matter... facts is facts is facts. Or perhaps Nate might tell you that the numbers don't lie.

Charles Pluckhahn said...

p.s.: Nate, it's a good thing you tweaked the methodology, got comments, and made your re-adjustments, before the whackjobs discovered the site. The cries 'n moans are a hint that you're doing it right.

Anonymous said...

Previous poster said: "In the primaries, this site had the most accurate projections. Nate has changed his methodology for the general election, and it remains to be seen how accurate it will wind up being."

Exactly, if it ain't broke, why'd he decide to fix it? The only guess is Obama wasn't doing as well under the old methodology OR he noticed a problem with the old methodology.

And the pro-Obama tilt is there in Sean's rants, which lack logic and clarity. Stick to the data.

Todd Dugdale said...

Pawlenty won Minnesota with a plurality, not a majority. He's a severely constrained governor in a Democratic state.

More and more, the McCain strategy seems to be to bolster their base, not win over independents. He's essentially still fighting a primary battle.

Portraying Obama as a "socialist" may win over some of Bush's base, but it will make independents laugh. Of course, Republicans still think that the majority of the country believes everything they say. Keep running with that, okay?

Jim said...



New National Numbers

From Newsweek poll

Obama 51, McCain 36



its a dream ?

darn.

i'm awake

lol

Charles Pluckhahn said...

Exactly, if it ain't broke, why'd he decide to fix it? The only guess is Obama wasn't doing as well under the old methodology OR he noticed a problem with the old methodology.

I can tell that you didn't bother to go back and read the discussions about the methodological changes. Therefore, I'm not going to pay any attention to you other than to tell you than I'm not going to pay any attention to you.

obsessed said...

Nate: Okay ... 51-36 is a 15 point spread, but 13% are undecided.

Obviously, if Obama achieved his 15 point lead with 57.5 to 42.5 and 0% undecided, it would be many orders of magnitude more significant, right?

So ... the question (for Nate or others) is: does the system of applying national polls factor this in?

Charles Pluckhahn said...

Jim, I just check that, and saw that the number for "Other/Unsure" has taken a big jump. I suspect we're starting to see the impact of Republican dissatifaction with McCain.

Back in '92 the Perot vote was drawn more or less equally from both candidates. A lot of the right-wingers didn't believe that, but I recall studies showing it.

This year, Nader will be a tiny factor, and the big third-party vote will be for Barr and the Libertarians. He's already polling 6% in Georgia, his home state, and there is every sign that Ron Paul is going to be dog whistling* like crazy for him. I bet we're going to see more and more polls reflecting it.

* Each election brings a new buzzword. Dog whistling = coded messages in the subtext. The Republicans have been master dog whistlers, so it's fun to watch them being dog whistled by other Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Ogre: I agree with your statement that perhaps Nate might tell you that the numbers don't lie.

I would only add that title of Nate's regular column on baseball is "Lies, Damned Lies." This is a reduction of the usual line about there being three kinds of lies: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I don't think even Nate would say that statistics speak for themselves. Facts are facts but they have to be interpreted, and they may be subject to different interpretations. Sometimes the best way to understand what's going on is to use indirect indicators or proxies rather than direct ones. (For example, his "538 regression" may be better than relying on out-of-date and unreliable polls, as he showed in his primary election forecasts.)

I think another of Nate's general premises is that any projection or estimate has a margin of error -- especially his own! And this is what a lot of those reading his numbers often forget. He may make his "best estimate" based on the multivariate analysis, but there's a lot of uncertainty about it. And the best estimate today may be corrected tomorrow by reality -- or by more data.

That's how he approaches his PPECOTA baseball projections: there's no payoff to over- or under-estimating the performance of any player or team.

And he's not devising his method on 538 or analyzing his data to favor one candidate or the other. The "prize" for him is making the most accurate projections or forecasts. That's why he improved his methodology last week. (You're right, Charles -- that was fortuitous timing.)

Anonymous said...

As a Daily Kos reader, I agree that Sean's posts belong there. When I come here, I want to geek out on the numbers.

As for people who say the numbers are biased, there is nothing in the methodology that specifies one candidate or the other. Each candidate goes through the model the same way and gets judged the same way. Take Oklahoma: The first poll in two months gives McCain 14 points, the regression and projection give him over 16 points. Or take Mississippi: The regression gives McCain 15.5 points, higher than any poll has ever given him. Same with Idaho: The regression and projection are 19.8 and 18.2 McCain, even though McCain's best poll numbers in Idaho only give him 13.

Once we start seeing a bump for McCain, you'll start seeing numbers you like better, McCain supporters.

But I'm with you on Sean.

big.bald.dave said...

Not that this is a democracy or anything, but here's one more vote for leaving the opinion elsewhere. I'm a diehard Obama guy, but I come here for the numbers and the method, not partisan ranting.

obsessed said...

So now that we agree we're here to geek out on numbers, I'm still geeking out on whether the model takes into account the large undecided in the Newsweek poll.

obsessed said...

In the most recent Electoral Vote Distribution there's a massive spike around 390. Looks like the model like GA and NC for Obama. To get 390, I have to take all the states that have been discussed as Obama leaners and add those two.

I am a Fractal said...

ok your skinner techniques are in full force and effect. I have clicked on your site at least a dozen times this afternoon. and now i was rewarded by obama's numbers even improving more, with a +12 lead in your super tracker and more than a 76% chance of winning! woah. could it really be?

you do not show why the data changed though!

you do not have an update time on the pie charts!

you do not have a scroll bar on those to show previous days!

your poll tables are not sortable by columns, which seriously, they need to be...

help! you're driving me crazy!

Juris said...

To "I Am a Fractal":

Despite the pretty maps and excellent charts this is still a very low tech website. I'm hoping Nate can find some financial backing and hire a programmer and perhaps also move off of Blogger. He should introduce the type of features that you have mentioned, plus things like "rollover" definitions and others.

So far this has been pretty much a one-man operation, and he needs technical help.

Any volunteers out there willing to contribute some time and expertise?

Paul Bradford said...

To tell you the truth, I argued -- in 2004 -- that John Kerry ought to have chosen Dick Gephardt as his running mate. I thought the two of them got along better than Kerry/Edwards and I respected Gephardt's competence better than I respected Edwards'.

But the main reason I liked the idea is that I thought Gephardt could have helped Kerry carry Missouri and neighboring Iowa. When the election results were known, I pointed out to people the fact that if Kerry had added those two states to his win column (and they were both pretty close) he'd have captured enough EV's to become president.

I guess my thinking was as suspect as those who think Pawlenty can deliver MN and WI to McCain.

Juris said...

Paul: While your argument is plausible with respect to Iowa and Missouri, I think if you're going to rerun history then you also have to consider whether having Gephardt rather than Edwards would have led to losing some other state that Kerry won -- say Pennsylvania, for example. (This is completely hypothetical.)

IOW if you think the VP matters, then you can't just add EV's in the way you do; you have to consider that you might also subtract them. I haven't gamed this out, but am just suggesting what needs to be considered.

bedir than average said...

Looks like we should expect a poll update soon, as the Left Margin numbers are showing that they were updated about 20 minutes ago.

I know of a Cali, Iowa and Newsweek National poll.

Anything else?

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised about the McCain (and Hilalry) supporters ranting about the supposed pro-Obama bias in the numbers...that's par for the course.

I am amused by the self-declared Obama supporters who are claiming skepticism of the numbers, as if they're actually afraid their candidate might do "too" well.

icebergslim said...

Minnesota is a quirky state.

I lived there for 5 years and have brothers and a sister who currently live there and raising their families there.

Pawlenty is viewed differently through different lens. He survived 2006 because the Dem candidate was viewed the weaker of the two, simple as that.

Many in Minnesota are angry at him right now about that bridge collaspe and he siding with the side of stopping folks from suing the state.

I don't know why the assumption is that Wisconsin will follow in Pawlenty's trail, that is a different state and just not so.

Especially Minnesota. Minnesota is the open to the west, that state is very independent and when people are mad at you they let you know at the polls. Bush right now is toxic in Minnesota. I don't care if they put Pawlenty on the ballot, folks will be thinking BUSH FIRST.

Clem G. said...

I note with irony how many comments the "unpopular" Sean posts consistently get.

MVRed.com said... (paraphrase) Romney for VP

Please, please, please. Nothing would make this Democrat happier than Romney on the ticket. It would guarantee an Obama victory in W.Va. and could sway several states with influential numbers of evangelical voters.

The evangelicals have spent decades warning their faithful that Mormon's are, literally, doing the devil's work. McCain's problems with the faith community will multiple considerably throughout the bible belt if Romney is chosen as VP.

Lizzy said...

I'm hardly the average/uninformed/whatever Wisconsin voter, but I definitely support Obama and Pawlenty as McCain's VP wouldn't sway that.

However, I do have a liberal friend who lives in Minnesota who told me that he'd vote for McCain if Pawlenty was his veep pick. Not because he likes Pawlenty but because, in his words, it would get Pawlenty out of the governor's mansion.

Anonymous said...

(Though I'm sure someone will entertainingly point out in comments how opinions like these are ruining the purity and sanctity of the site.)

As someone who probably-not-so-entertainingly pointed out the loss of sanctity on this site in the Ferrarro thread, I only did so because of the random, visceral insult. There's a difference between making a specific (and debatable) charge against a public figure and making a generalization about a group of people who are by definition ignorant. I appreciate most of what Sean posts, it's just the random, juvenile insults that occasionally pop up that degrade the rest of the writing.

Anonymous said...

It is seriously amusing to read all the blithe comments here about Nate's supposed bias, or (even funnier) need for some "technical help" in making his site more sophisticated. I'm a longtime BaseballProspectus.com reader who has over the years come to nearly deify Mr. Silver for his projections of baseball player performances... and well, let's just say the uninformed comments are quite rich to behold.

Stick around folks. You have no idea what a statistically thorough mind you are dealing with. None whatsoever. The guy's one of the best around, for both robustness of method and for cold objectivity. And one thing is for certain, he's doing this for the love of prediction. He'd probably have a website forecasting weather if he had any background in meteorology. It's an addiction, I imagine.

I am a Fractal said...

well Nate did say the other day that he has adjusted the super tracker so it will be "more sensitive..." which means "more of a roller coaster to drive us all zany."

personally I'd be happy if it just stayed 80%/20% in favor of Obama, and we can just coast with that through to November. that would be enough to overcome gop vote fraud wouldn't it? i mean this isn't Zimbabwe, is it?

Ted said...

Can’t realistically imagine McCain selecting anyone other than Palin as his Veep!

Richard said...

I am a Fractal said "...and now i was rewarded by obama's numbers even improving more, with a +12 lead in your super tracker..."

The Super Tracker shows no such thing. You seem to be looking only at the blue dot on the scatter plot representing the insane results from Newsweek's poll. If you want to read the Super Tracker, you need to look at the red regression curve which smooths out the data to compensate for outliers. That curve shows Obama with a modest gain, but still hovering at about +5.5%.

Richard said...

Ted - I'll bite. On what possible grounds would McCain choose a governor nobody has ever heard of with almost no experience who hails from a tiny state with only 3 electoral votes?

Anonymous said...

I've got to concur with Lizzy.

I've talked with several family who live out in Minnesota and they say they would seriously consider voting for a McCain/Pawlenty ticket as a way to get Pawlenty out of Minnesota for good. Of course they were more supportive of Clinton, and haven't quite jumped full on board with Obama yet (though they're strongly anti-McCain), so i'm sure that has something to do with it.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry, but voting for a candidate because you want your governor promoted to VP for doing a lousy job as governor... is probably the worst logic I've ever heard.

Priya said...

Romney would guarantee a McCain loss. I will concede that Romney might help in MI with his family connections, may add something in NH, and may elp in the Southwest with the Mormon base. Assumin that a VP can have an impact (despite much evidence against that notion) here is why Romney would be a disaster.

The South hates him. Having lived in Nashville now for a year, I can't tell you the number of people who voted for Huchabee because while they hated McCain could not vote for a Mormon. The Romney pick yould be seen as a big FU to evangelicals. WHile they may still vote for McCain rather than the
black Muslim radical" they will do so without intensity. Unlike Bush 2004, McCain would not have the base fired up and would lose.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous @22.55. I'm sure his baseball site is great. But baseball ain't politics, meaning his projections in baseball can't AFFECT the outcome. These projections, even if slightly biased, can AFFECT donations to campaigns, conventional wisdom, etc. That's the problem.

And a lot of people have been analyzing and projecting elections well before this site existed. He's still got work to do, and might want to read some political science.

I am a Fractal said...

@ anonymous

yes a lot of polling companies came into existence, for example in 2000 when "voter.com" consistently made bush friendly polls that probably were made up out of thin air.

plenty of posters in 2000 repeatedly gave bush an artificial 3%-6% lead that he never really had, resulting in the news coverage being 75% negative for gore, and far more positive for bush.

Now here comes fivethirtyeight, and nate is using actual math and science, which i know, most republicans fear quite a bit, as they'd like to conserve the idea of us living on a flat earth.

i'm glad that al gore wrote the high performance computing act of 1987 that commercialized the internet, and made it possible to fight the right wing owned media with actual facts and information.

now we have a fighting chance, and we don't have to resort to believing political cronies and their made up polls.

Anonymous said...

To Minnesota crazies:

Sorry to be obnoxious, but do any of these "liberals" in MN realize that by voting Pawlenty to become VP, you are promoting Carol Molnau to governor? It's like replacing Bush with Cheney...

Anonymous said...

A commenter on another post says it much better than I can:

"They say McCain reads the blogs, so here goes --

Senator McCain- Don't let the campaign kibbitzers muddle things up.

First and foremost, Sarah Palin shares your values. She killed the bridge to nowhere. Need we say more?

As for the politics, Sarah Palin transcends geography. Her constituency, like yours, goes beyond state lines.

She will get your ticket access to voters all over the country based on who she is and what she stands for. Because she's young, a woman, a mother with young kids, she will grab media attention more than any other potential candidate.

Gov. Palin also has a son in the active duty military. You have very wisely taken your son's service in Iraq off the table as a campaign talking point. That is and should be respected. But others can talk about it and reflect on what it means.

A McCain-Palin administration would be the first in memory which has family members in uniform during wartime from both the President and Vice President. That would be a powerful statement as to the importance of national service, especially in uniform.

Most importantly, any Vice President should be ready to step up and serve in the event she is needed. Frankly, who is really ever ready? Gov. Palin is as ready as anybody, she is a quick learner, and in her public career has exhibited the courage and decisiveness needed for a great leader.

Godspeed to you in your campaign and in making this important decision."

I am a Fractal said...

@ anonymous. There was a news story a few months ago about the candidates and their computers. hillary had a pc. obama has a mac. smart. but, sorry anonymous, mccain himself admitted he doesn't have a computer and doesn't even know how to use one.

John said...

Pawlenty only got 46.6% of the vote in his re-election campaign for Governor. Luckily for him, the Green Party and Independence Party candidates siphoned votes from the Democratic candidate, and he "won" re-election despite a solid majority of Minnesotans voting against him.

I don't think Pawlenty would guarantee Minnesota even if he was on the TOP of the ticket.

Anonymous said...

Obama is a fibbah, dontchaknow?

Anonymous said...

that's _F_*ckin' _I_llinoiz _B_astard, gollygosh.

Fibbah!

pastormike said...

I Love speculating about the VP, I found a site that has alot of info on all the veep candidates with videos and petitions you can sign for or against potential vp candidates, I signed a petition to ask McCain not to pick Romney, and I signed one asking McCain to pick Huckabee. Sweet site. Its www.TheVeep.com

信次 said...

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,

平平 said...

^^ 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,

平平 said...

^^ 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,

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作兼差打工假日兼職兼職工作酒店兼差兼差打工兼差日領工作晚上兼差工作酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工兼職兼差兼差工作酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領假日兼職兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領現領
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,