Tom Schaller argues in the New York Times that Barack Obama should abandon the South, or at least the South outside of Florida and Virginia. I don't agree with the entirety of Schaller's reasoning. In particular, while I see the same inverse correlation that Schaller does -- the greater the number of black voters in a Southern state, the fewer white voters tend to vote for the Democrat -- I don't necessarily see a causation. Our regression model seems to do a pretty good job of explaining the Southern vote without any reference to some sort of racial interaction effects, by focusing instead on things like the number of white evangelicals in the state and income levels.
Nevertheless, I do tend to agree with Schaller's conclusion: the South (again excluding Florida and Virginia) is fairly likely to disappoint the Democrats again. We have a number of polls today to back that up.
Let's focus first on the results in Georgia, Louisiana and North Carolina. Obama did get a bounce from Strategic Vision's last poll of Georgia, where he had previously trailed by 14 points. But he remains 8 points behind, and while Bob Barr is pulling 3 percent of the vote away from McCain in Georgia, it doesn't appear to me that Barr will have the resources to improve that number significantly. In North Carolina, Obama has been stuck at 3-5 points behind John McCain for quite a long time; the PPP poll today confirms that conclusion. And in Louisiana, Southern Media & Opinion Research has Obama 16 points behind, just as it did in April.
It seems to me that Obama's numbers in states like North Carolina and Georgia are liable to come in within a relatively narrow range. He'll do better than a Democrat like John Kerry did there, with substantial support from blacks (although Schaller is right that African-American turnout has not been particularly low), students, information-sector workers, and new migrants to the region -- as PPP notes, Obama is leading by 6 points among people who have moved to North Carolina from outside the state, but trails by 13 among people who were born and raised there. But where Obama is disliked in the South, he tends to be disliked a lot; his "very unfavorables" tend to be pretty high in the region. There just aren't that many swing voters in the South, and the Democrats are left watching the paint dry and the demographics gradually become more favorable to them in states like North Carolina and Georgia. North Carolina could be 2012's Virginia, and Georgia could be 2016's, but it's probably too soon for a non-Southern Democrat to be winning states in the interior of the region.
Florida, however, remains its own demographic entity, and there an Obama win is more plausible. PPP has him leading by 2 there -- a big move upward from their only previous poll of the state, which had Obama 11 points behind in March -- although Strategic Vision has him trailing by 6. The fact is that Florida remains something like Obama's Plan C or Plan D for winning the election, but any state with 27 electoral votes and where the polling appears to be this volatile will need to be closely monitored.
And once we move entirely outside of the South, Obama appears to be doing quite well. SurveyUSA now has him 20 points ahead in New York -- up from 10 points before -- and he's holding onto a 5-point advantage in both major national tracking polls. From everything we can tell, Obama's post-primary bounce has plateaued, but not peaked, though it does appear to be concentrated in particular regions, some of which (like the Rust Belt states of Ohio and Michigan) have been quite helpful to Obama, and others of which (like New York and California) are fairly superfluous.
Finally, one quick methodological aside: the Strategic Vision polls were "leaked" today by Political Wire with a limited number of details. I have filled in my guesstimates of survey dates and sample sizes based on their typical patterns, but we will correct those tomorrow as needed.
7.01.2008
Today's Polls, 7/1
by Nate Silver @ 2:55 PM...see also deep south, evangelicals, florida, georgia, louisiana, new york, north carolina, race, south coast, southern baptists, today's polls
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

62 comments
Nate,
To what extent do you think that land-line only surveys introduce sampling bias into the data? Do you know if polling firms adjust data for demographic differences in households who are cell only?
Clearly, younger people are more likely to not have land-line telephones:
"Age is another factor in landline abandonment, as 18-24 and 25-29 year-olds were far more likely to go wireless (31 and 34.5 percent, respectively) than adults aged 30-44 (15.5 percent), 45-64 (8 percent), and 65 or older (2.2). Adults living in poverty (27.4 percent) were more likely to live in a household with wireless telephones than those with higher income."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080514-more-americans-snipping-landlines-in-favor-of-cell-phones.html
If, as we seem to be seeing, there is a large demographic disparity between Obama supporters and McCain supporters, do you think land line only surveys are biased towards McCain?
Interested in your thoughts...
Please not the cell phone thing again... wasn't talking about it everytime a poll came out in 2004 enough?
I'm confused. How did Obama's win % go up?
The net from the 2 FL polls raised McCain's average in FL. The new polls have him up in GA, LA, and NC and down in NY (duh!) which only lowered his NY win % from 3% to 2%. Random noise in the simulations?
Relative to the previous polls from the respective organizations, Obama got a 10-point bounce in NY from SUSA, a 6-point bounce in GA from Strategic Vision, and a 13-point bounce from PPP in Florida. He lost 1 point in PPP's NC poll, and moved neither upward or downward in LA. But, on average, that's a average 5-6 point improvement for him in the state polling (there are no trendlines to look at in Strategic Vision's Florida poll), plus he remains fairly close to his high water mark in the national tracking polls. So it actually was a fairly decent polling day for Obama, the way the trendline model tends to think about these things, but we are learning more about exactly which regions Obama is realizing the post-primary bounce in.
The flaw in Schaller's reasoning is that the Presidential race is not the only election this year. Registering voters and boosting turnout, even in deep red states, will have a favorable impact on downticket races for Democrats. For that reason, it's worth doing.
In regards to Schaller's piece. One thing that kept going through my mind while I was reading is that if you live in a Southern state that has no chance in hell of electing a Democrat, wouldn't you be more likely not to bother voting? If Obama can make a state at least appear competitive, could there be some interactive effect of bringing more voters out?
As long as Obama wins, I'm not going to be "disappointed" by losing the South. It will be Yet More Evidence that a lot of our problems have been caused by the GOP's deliberate embrace of racism.
Competitive races have higher turnouts on both sides, so I don't know how the perception of competition would shake out for this race.
It would be nice if Southern Media & Opinion Research were a Group. Then we could happily refer to them as SMORG.
If Obama wins Florida, it will be a landslide. As long as Florida stays close, Obama can force McCain to spend money there allowing Obama to use his resources to gain an edge else where(Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Michigan).
The republicans have out maneuvered Democrats the last two presidential elections, both were certainly winnable. (Hell, Al Gore did win)
The Obama campaign has shown maneuvering and strategy is one of their strong suits, just ask Hillary. If its close, the edge goes to Obama.
The second flaw in Schaller's reasoning is enthusiasm. He suggests that turnout and new registration will be a wash between dems and repubs, but all indications are (at least to date) that dems are much more enthusiastic this year than republicans and so likely to turn out and register in higher proportions.
The third flaw is Party ID shifts. Again, to date, we have had significant national movement in Party ID, from Republican to Democrat. That would need to be measured on a state-by-state basis, of course, but it doesn't seem impossible for Obama to do 7% better among whites in Mississippi, for example, netting 21% of the white vote and making the state competitive.
The general net 5% plateau that seems to have been solidified could be set in stone for several reasons:
1) Party ID Preferences
2) National Mood
3) Change vs. McBush (See Gallup)
4) Enthusiasm Gap
I think there are several things which will can cut into that 5% net:
1) Bradley Effect on Election Day
2) GOP Bounces post Convention/Veep
3) Obama mistakes/ Wright flare up
4) Unknown information
5) Terrorist strike
1 and 2 would pull things even, 3-5 could give McCain a 3-5% lead.
At the end of the day, the election could be very close, but more likely as 3-5 are very unlikely possibilities though not impossible, is that the 5% stays put until the Dem Convention which we'll then see the 5% grow to 8-10%, then settle in after Oct 20th back to the 5%.
If Obama wins with 5% of the vote against a war hero, as the first Black President, it'll be considered a Landslide due to the odds..
Nate...
Great comment on NC being the 2012 Virginia and Georgia being the 2016 Virginia. I continue to hold out some hope that North Carolina may shift barely to Obama as a result of high turnout, but it's a stretch.
As far as other states are concerned, as the nation goes, so goes Florida, I think. Though no state adequately mirrors the nation's electoral demographics, Florida comes closest, I think. The GOP "tilt" in the state is similar to Rasmussen's traditional poll tilt.
BTW, this site continues to improve, especially in the quality of the comments.
One question I was interested in ever since Nate published his relative electoral history charts was how we could use them to gauge the “new map” claim for Obama. I’m still waiting for Nate to do this properly, but today I had some free time so here are some observations.
First, take the relative electoral result in each given state and compare it to the relative electoral result in the previous elections. NV was relative r0 in 04 after being relative r4 in 00; it thus moved, relatively speaking, by 4 points.
Now we can find the average relative movement from one election to the next. Note: elections can flip from +10D to +10R nationally, but they may still be relatively the same if the swing is the same in all states. Then it is fair to say that the public mood has moved but “the map” remained the same. Thus, average relative moment (ARM) from one election to the next is a measure of the “newmapness” of the elections.
I find, calculating by hand, that 92 to 96 had 5.2 ARM, 96 to 00 had 5.3 ARM and 00 to 04 had 3.7 ARM. This answers to the intuitive sense that 00 to 04 was especially stable, but note also that the gradual erosion of the Perot effect should create some ARM in both 92 to 96 and 00 to 04, as Perot was far from being evenly spread across all states.
Now I compare 04 with Nate’s projection from yesterday. I get 5.8 ARM which is indeed very high (especially as there’s no third party effect), but not unreasonably so. Thus there is some validity to the notion that the elections appear right now to be on the more newmappy side.
But it is interesting to see the fine grain of the new map. The bulk of it is a major relative pro-Obama in Big Sky and Prairie which falls far short of changing the competitiveness of states (ND 16 relative movement, UT 15, etc). There is somewhat significant relative movement against Obama in a couple of Appalachian states (AR 8, TN 7), which once again should go Republican anyway.
And then, the bulk of Obama’s improved electoral standing relative to Kerry stems not from newmapness but from states that are simply carried by the rising tide – states whose swing is almost precisely the 5-6 national predicted DEM swing from Kerry to Obama:
Small relative pro-Obama shifts which end up as either a close Kerry becoming a stronger Obama or as a Bush to Obama potential flip:
NH NC VA IA MN WI CO NV OR
Small relative anti-Obama shifts which however do not outright flip a Kerry state but do make it closer than it should be:
MI OH PA NM
There is precisely one significant “new map” state, with a big relative pro-Obama shift which makes a strong Bush state competitive: Indiana.
In short, it appears that Obama creates a wider playing field not quite by changing the kind of states where Democrats are competitive, but simply by riding a pro-Democrat wave; especially since the Bush electoral majority was so thin that a Democratic shift brings quite a few new states into play.
To what extent does voter registration efforts influence (or not) your and Schaller's analysis? While Af Am turnout in the South has been better than what people may think, what if that Af Am registration goes up significantly? Does that put the South closer or does that further increase the white "backlash" vote? (I'm thinking of the 500,000-600,000 of unregistered Af Ams in GA, for example.)
I wouldn't count on Obama winning Virginia this year, although I'd be so happy I'd dance all election night if he did. McCain's military/navy background will give him more votes than he'd get otherwise.
Nate,
Rasmussen asked the right/wrong direction question in their FL poll before the McCain/Obama question - given your sentiment on this subject, would that not suggest that Obama is actually further behind than the 7 points?
Also, and please pardon my ignorance on this subject, but does Rasmussen weigh the state polls by party identification on the state or the national level? Wouldn't the preferred method be to use state party identification numbers on a bigger sample redoing it about every 6 months and weighing the results by that?
Also, should you not introduce a debate effect e.g. Carter/Reagan, Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Dole based on perceived performance - it sealed Reagan's victory for sure as well as Clinton's in 92. Thought?
Usually I prefer to comment on methods, but this time kubla000's remarks call for an addition. There is a fairly high probability that Bush will start overt bombing of Iran, particularly if McCain seems headed for a loss. In that case adding a random number to the vote increases the chance of an R win. Furthermore, McCain will have an easy response- on to victory, blah blah. Obama will have a tough time. Either he takes a chance, reaches deep and comes out strongly against an ongoing military action, or he waffles or caves, eliminating the rationale for his election. It's time to start preparing the ground for opposing a new war now, and preparing a tough antiwar speech to give flanked by Hagel, Webb, Clark, and (we can hope) HRC.
Clearly Obama is spreading his net a little wide.
The conventional wisdom is that he is hoping to force McCain to do the same & waste the money Obama can spare but McCain can't. Others are talking about the nock on effect for lesser elections, as if direct intervention would have not been more efficient.
There is another possibility that is so breathtakingly lacking in cynicism that it has been disregarded. Perhaps Obama believes in the Democratic Party.
Obama is pushing to increase party membership for long term gain. As long as there isn’t an active membership base in a State it will never swing, never generate party activists, and never produce Democratic leaders for next generation.
A state may be overwhelmingly Republican, but its young need not be. Keep signing them up and in a generation it is Democrat.
kubla000's comments on how the margins might bounce after Dem Convention, then settle back after the Rep Convention, provoke a thought:
Nate - have you plans to take the probable convention bounce in the snapshot figure into account? It shouldn't be too hard to figure out how it works, and I would recommend getting the plan out there as soon as possible to avoid subconscious bias, and screaming from commenters. Essentially, I imagine that what you'll want to do is give McCain some bonus in the inter-convention period.
Schaller totally writes off NC way too soon in his piece. Any state where Obama is consistently polling within the low single digits is competitive. Especially since Obama has superior financial resources, more enthusiastic volunteers, a much larger pool of unregistered voters to add to the electorate, and demographic trends suggesting the state will be however slightly more favorable for him in November than it is in July.
Even with a +20 margin in New York, Obama is still losing men to McCain by 6. It's offset by a colossal 40 point lead for Obama among women, but that's one hell of a gender gap.
Anon@2:47p: In short, it appears that Obama creates a wider playing field not quite by changing the kind of states where Democrats are competitive, but simply by riding a pro-Democrat wave...
Nice analysis, Anon.
I tend to agree with what you see there, but suspect that there may be a positive variance (like the negative variance you noted in PA, MI, OH, etc.), maybe not showing up in the polls yet, that could eventually be influential in the SE and Big Sky states.
Variances - both positive and negative - that can be attributed to the candidate, rather than a drift in national party ID/sentiment, are likely to become more pronounced as the campaigns go on and voters become more familiar, and enthused or annoyed, with the candidates.
Just something you might want to keep an eye on for your ARM modelling.
.
MikeW: I don't think suddenly attacking Iran will help anything actually because it'll likely set off the sort of shit storm that a peace president is required to clean up afterwards. A few things about Attacking Iran:
- It'll be surgical, no land force offense
- It'll create a $50-$100 surge in OIl overnight
- Gas will shoot through $6/gallon in October
That sort of thing will totally erode Independents support. If Bush went into that war unprovoked, look for extreme backlash, and your thoughts on an anti-war speech is about what I'd expect from Obama.
John H: Great idea. I think the immediate bounce in the 5-7 days following a convention may be dampened by some sort of special buffer, some sort of receeding time factored depressor. But you'd need to see a bounce to begin with... this year the polls will be fascinating because as Obama's bounce in the poll begins to form, the GOP convention will be in full swing. HIs ends Thursday, GOP opens Monday. SO all in all it may not be needed.
Andreas: Also, should you not introduce a debate effect e.g. Carter/Reagan, Clinton/Bush and Clinton/Dole based on perceived performance - it sealed Reagan's victory for sure as well as Clinton's in 92. Thought?
Hard to say how a debate will influence the election until it's actually occurred, much less create a mathematical model for it.
If debates do have an effect, they'll probably show up in the polls within 3-7 days. It seems best to wait for the polls to reflect the outcomes of debates, rather than trying to model such predictions in the regression analysis.
.
I think there are four reasons for the Democrats to campaign hard in the South.
1. Possible victories. Obama could take FL and maybe NC. Maybe GA, although it's a longer shot. Also, a Democratic presence there would help further down the ticket.
2. Pin down McCain. If Obama campaigns in the South, it will force McCain to devote more of his scarce resources there.
3. Symbolic. I think Obama made a mistake to ignore Appalachia last spring. Sometimes you need to show the flag; the country isn't as hermetically sealed as political consultants believe. I think it's important to be seen trying.
4. Future. After 2010, FL and TX are going to gain 7 electoral votes at the expense of the North. Even if the Democrats never take TX, it's important to compete there. There will be more congressional seats at stake, and the TX Hispanics will be influential over time.
A more general thought: Obama needs to do a lot more than Clinton did to attach himself to the Democratic Party. Not only will this help his chances, but there are long-term synergistic benefits. Democratic strength this year will help Obama, and an Obama victory will boost the Democratic brand.
Another Mike: Schaller totally writes off NC way too soon in his piece. Any state where Obama is consistently polling within the low single digits is competitive.
I agree. IA, NM, and NV all polled pretty consistently for Kerry in 2004, but by low single digits. Clearly - given that Bush won them - they remained competitive.
You can't count on a win in NC, but it certainly seems worth the investment. Especially this far out from the election. Even a loss is worthwhile if it improves Democratic prospects there and helps make NC competitive in the future.
.
Nice analysis anon at 2:38. Correction, though: NM was a close Bush state, not a Kerry state.
While I agree with the many people who have suggested that concentrating on Georgia is a long shot, I can see at least one reason to try for it that I haven't seen anyone else mention. While it may not make the difference in actually winning the election, I could imagine winning Georgia would result in a payoff for Obama once he was President. Winning Georgia (coupled with much easier to accomplish victories in Colorado & New Mexico) would give Obama an electoral map with victories in all parts of the country. It would make it easier for him to claim that his election has unified the entire nation.
While I would be nervous if we were talking about Obama spending time in the last week of the campaign in Atlanta, , I think investing a little here at this stage makes sense. If a few things go his way, having a state like Georgia for him can be useful, even if he already has 270 electoral votes.
Nate Silver: Tom Schaller argues in the New York Times that Barack Obama should abandon the South...
I think Schaller is right, in general sense. But when the Democrats have a southern candidate - as they did with Clinton, Gore, and Carter - then abandoning the south would seem pretty silly.
Similiarly, Obama is our first black candidate for president. It's a historic event, and we can't know for sure how that will play out over the next 4 months.
Given the much higher concentrations of African-American populations in the south, I think it's important for Obama to campaign there. Win or lose, the symbolic importance of campaigning in the south is enormous. As are the potential down-ticket effects of registering and re-enfranchising those voters, and making them feel like their voice, and their vote, still matters - that an African-American can even become president of this country, and that they can take part it in.
.
looking at the Southern State.
AL,MS,OK,SC,and TX are Safe Republican States. Clinton lost both of these states in 1992 and 1996. Gore and Kerry lost these states in 2000 and 2004 by a double digit margins.
AR,GA,KY,LA,TN,and WV are Southern States Clinton won in either 1992 and 1996 but. Bush won in 2000 and 2004. From 2000-2004 these Southern States have been trending Republican. McCain is strongly favored to win those states.
Florida is a battleground state-
Virginia and North Carolina are red States trending Democratic.
Obama should target Florida,Virginia,and North Carolina.
Is the HUGE spike at 304 (Kerry States + OH, IN, IA, CO, NM)?
As of today, that certainly feels as if it is the current electoral map.
Any comments?
Kerry States + Iowa + Indiana = Victory
Evan Bayh, Evan Bayh, Evan Bayh.
Nate,
The simulation run seems much more concentrated in the center than previous recent runs.
Is that just a result of the new polls? Or did you make another adjustment to the trendline or regression analysis?
.
It's calibrated now by 20 simulations, not 10. But the point remains that a few focal combinations seem to reach each the 1% region, whereas in the past .5% was about the maximum for any given combination.
The other reason I take Schaller with a grain of salt is that "abandon the South" is his thing, and since he's been pushing it since 2006 at least, so I'm skeptical that it's a conclusion and not a premise. While I don't entirely disagree with that thesis for presidential campaigns, I think it's possible to turn it around and say that a bigger problem for quite a while is that the Democrats have been treating the presidential election as something entirely independent from congressional elections and party building. The Obama campaign seems to be thinking in broader strategic terms, so I'm not sure Schaller's thesis is as applicable.
Admittedly, Schaller can't really abandon his thesis now. But I'm still interested in the LV models for the south-east, especially NC and GA. (The PPP poll of NC is LV.)
I also think that it's important that the Obama campaign isn't seen to cherry-pick the low-hanging states in a region. The ideal situation when you have a financial advantage is to offer the same message down the I-85 corridor Charlotte, Greenville and Atlanta, even though SC is off the map and Georgia's a stretch.
Competitiveness in the south is really based on two factors.
1. Getting a very strong black turnout.
2. Narrowing the gap among evangelicals.
#1 is fairly simple. #2 is where the story is. Bush won about 90-10among white evangelicals. Obama needs to get up to around 20-25% to have a chance to pull this off. I don't think it is as difficult as it appears to be.
McCain is not Bush and Obama is not Kerry. In '04, you had the religious Rep vs. the queasy on religion Dem. This year we have the opposite.
I remember looking at 1988 polls that showed Jesse Jackson polling extremely well among Pat Robertson supporters. The opposite was also true.
I think this comes down to a faith issue. Obviously, Obama will never win evangelicals. Still, not all evangelicals are obsessed with abortion and gay marraige. Quite a few feel strongly about Darfur, the environment and Iraq. They also feel very queasy about McCain. Its a tough challenge, but I believe there is enough low hanging fruit to get to 20% among them.
Regardless, I think we should be honest and realize that religion and not race is the key variable for most white southerners.
WINNERS AND LOSERS
I like to keep track of Nate's state-by-state Win %. Sometimes you see some interesting trends. For example, lets compare today's numbers to Sunday's:
IN is 14 pts more likely to go Obama (41% to 55%). Counsellor Ben noted the big spike at 304 EV's. Sunday the big spike was at 293 (same states minus IN). Why should IN go up so much when the last new poll came out 6/22?
LA is 19 pts less likely to go Obama (28% to 9%). I suppose the last poll, showing him down 16 pts, devastated his chances.
MO is 10 pts down from the Obama perspective (42% to 32%). The last poll there was om 6/21. Two days ago, MO was more likely to turn blue than IN. Now it's not even close.
GA is six pts redder than it was on Sunday(22% to 16%). The latest polls weren't good for Obama. Why are we even talking about trying to turn GA blue? If Obama carries GA, and all the states where he has a better chance of winning than he has in GA, he'll get 436 EV's.
Is it worth it to try and get 436 EV's when 270 is sufficient? The way I see it, there are two 'games' going on at once. One is the win-the-election game where PA, OR, MI, OH, CO & NM are the focus. The other 'game' is see-if-Obama-can-get-a-landslide. That game focuses on the Dakotas, Alaska, Texas & Montana (as well as Georgia).
I suppose both games matter. It will be awsome if Obama wins the election. It will be more awesome if he gets a landslide. An Obama landslide, coupled with a 60+ vote majority in the Senate will mean that the Democrats can actually implement some of the plans they've been talking about.
Keep your thoughts positive!
Reasons for competing in NC and GA besides winning:
1)The "force McCain to spend money in previously safe states" argument someone mentioned above , to which I would add that Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro/Winston-Salem are not exactly the
cheapest media markets in the country (all four are top 35 or so markets size wise, so McCain will have to spend a decent sum there).
2) The long-term party success factor - if Dems want to turn NC and GA into the next VA by 2012 or 2016, spending time and money there now is a great first step. Even if Obama lost NC by 7, it
Would be less than half the margin in the 2004 Presidential election in NC , and a 3 or 4 point loss would really get people's attention. Perceptions of a state based on that state's electoral competitiveness have far-reaching implications - ask any of us who have to defend our "red" home states constantly to friends and coworkers.
3) Minimizing popular vote losses in large states like NC and GA could help in the event of another Florida 2000 crisis or a 269-269 nightmare scenario, in both of which you want to have the popular vote on your side, and any additional margin you can claim helps your argument (e.g. - even if a court or other body rules in your favor, having a popular vote margin helps legitimize your win . Writing off big states like NC and GA would give McCain two more places to make up for Obama's popular vote landslides in NY, CA, etc. with
Landslides of his own.
4) This is less of a realpolitik argument, but Obama recognizes his unique place in history as the first black nominee. I think he and his campaign would feel like they were ignoring that place in history, to some extent, if they didn't try to compete in the Southeast's more purple states. Not only do NC and GA have large black populations now, but they make up a huge part of the black American experience - in both the obvious negative ways, and in many positive ways (think of the tradition-rich historically black colleges and universities, the institution of the Southern black church that created leaders like MLK, and the roots of almost all American music, etc.) Obama has a deep appreciation for that history, and he also understands how big of a change it represents just for him to be out there campaigning as a black candidate for President in former confederate states. I don't think Obama would have it any other way, even if McCain's lead builds in late summer NC and GA polls.
... there's also the Obama-does-really-well-but-not-quite-a-landslide game where the goal is to get 375 EV's. In that game IN, VA, NV, FL, NC & MO are the states to fight over. That game is a lot more winnable than the 'landslide' game.
Some thoughts on the "War in Iran" scenario:
Firstly, I don't see any international backup for a US war on Iran. Of those allies that have (at least initially) supported the Iraq war, I am pretty sure that Spain, Australia and Poland, with new governments elected in the meantime, will not join a war against Iran. I also think that the UK government, whith elections coming up in 2009, and the Iraq war being highly unpopular, will try all it can to talk the US out of such an adventure, and/or try to stay itself away from it. Berlusconi may become tempted to sideline with the USA, but he knows that this would drive millions of Italians to the streets, so he will probably as well keep low profile. Turkey has enough security problems with Kurdish North-Iraq, and is definitely not interested in more trouble along its southern border. China and Russia will clearly not be happy, and the Saudis are probably also not interested in having their domestic Islamists fuelled up further. That leaves Bush with the likes of Denmark and Bulgaria as possible allies, if at all.
Now, if you have a look at the current UN secdurity council (http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp), you can be sure that Lybia and Viet Nam will try to outpace each other to bring any attack on Iran there, and my guess is for something like a 11 - 1 (3 abstaining) resulution condemning such an attack (Italy, Panama and the UK abstaining, the US vetoing). This would make a pretty good press for any Democrats going against the war.
Next, you get a little logistic problem: While Germany opposed the war on Iraq, it nevertheless allowed (and is still allowing) the USAF to use their air bases in Germany for the war, which is logitically crucial. Now, we have elections coming up in Germany in 2009, and the CDU is still remembering pretty well that the main reason they lost the 2002 election was Schroeder's strong opposition against the war in Iraq, while the CDU created the impression they might join the USA there. So you can be pretty sure that the German government will tacitly but nevertheless clearly be asking the USA to make sure they don't use German bases for any kind of intervention in Iran. Spain, Turkey, Usbekistan and Saudi Arabia will probably do the same, which leaves the USA with Italy, Israel, Iraq and (arguably) Pakistan as logistic hubs. This will probably not be sufficient for managing larger attacks, in particular since bases in Iraq will be under constant threat of terrorist attacks and tie up substantial US forces. If Iraq has already been a military failure, imagine what an attack on Iran, under these conditions, would be!
The next question mark is, how major actors on the financial markets will react. The USA are running huge budget and trade deficits, which are primarily financed by China, and oil exporting countries (Gulf states, Russia). If those countries decide they don't like an attack on Iran at all - which is not unlikely - they may just shift their foreign currency reserves into the Euro (or, in the case of China, just release the Yüan's pegging to the USD and have it become a major world currency in itself). This will mean some financial loss for these countries (in the case of China also a loss in international competitiveness), but the loss for the USA would be much larger. You would probably within a few weeks have the USD going down to 40 Euro-cents, the price of oil more than doubling on a USD-base (while remaining relatively stable on a Euro base), and interest rates in the USA sky-rocketing to above 10%, as the budget deficit needs to be financed domestically, instead of by the Chinese and Gulf countries. Not a scenario that looks like an election-winner for the Republicans.
In short: An unjustified attack on Iran, which is only carried out for domestic / electional reasons, would be political and economic suicide for the Republicans, and for the USA as a whole. Let's hope that there is some brain left with the Bush government to realise this, if they ever seriously thought about winning the elections by starting war with Iran.
Nate you have some real problems reading polls, you focus on the top lines but do not dig down deep and look at the cross tabs. Case in point NC. You keep saying Obama has consistently been 2 to 5 pts behind McCain. Here's the rub McCain has consistently been at 45% in NC. Why is that important Nate? Becuase if you look at the cross tabs McCain does not have much room for growth in the state other than the numbers he now has. Most of the undecideds in PPPs poll were either Dems (9%) or Indies (14%). Obama is winning both groups in PPPs poll, so it stands to reason that he will gain most of these undecided voters come election day. Next Nate look at PPPs cross tabs for AAs. PPP has them as only 21% of the electorate but most observers see AAs as closer to 25% of the electorate. Even more important PPP has McCain/Bar winning 23% of AAs; that does not jive with Quin's polls (with much larger subsample sizes of AAs and hence lower MOE) showing Obama winning close to 90% of AAs. Flip those numbers and what do you have Nate? A consistent OBAMA LEAD in NC! Please stop reading just the top lines Nates and look more closely at the interior numbers they speak volumes.
As a response to Alex, I believe Southern Media & Opinion Research should be an Enterprize, and be renamed S'MORE.
Although I doubt Nate reads this far down into the comments, this is another request to have the large spike scenerios listed.
And as for campaigning in Georgia, here is one thing that was only touched on briefly in one other comment. Being a black man campaigning for president in Atlanta, New Orleans, or Birmingham you would be treated like a rock star. Candidates rarely get to campaign in their home state where their roots are. Although his roots are not in the South, Obama has made a concerted effort to inherit the modern black history. There are only so many stops you can make in PA, OH, or IN, and it might be refreshing to see such support. Additionally, the GOTV efforts will be much more fruitful if Obama makes it clear he is campaigning everywhere.
Finally, I do realize that running for president is and should be a difficult task, but it could also be enjoyable. Make that trip to Alaska. Go fishing. Go hiking in Colorado. Watch an Atlanta Hawks game with Shirley Franklin (first black female mayor in the South, and rising Dem star). Sometimes during the primary Barack looked tired. Tired people don't get those extra undecided votes, and changing some of the campaign stops to out of the ordinary places may have a larger than expected to effect.
I agree that in the future nc, and ga, will be more in play, but i dont think it'll be as close as 2012 more like 2020 for nc, and farther down the road for ga. being from nc i know alought of people that wont vote obama, alot dont trust him, true raleigh,durham area are growing rappidly, but the outer areas are also growing and increasingly turning republican and stronger every day, so i see no real way for obama to win nc, or ga no matter how much everyone say's they are in play sure the aa vote can grow but the whites would come out agenst obama, so i'd give mccain a 80-85% chance of winning and probly higher as the election get's closer.
One article from Schaller and we suddenly dismiss the influence of black turnout? Come on guys! Obama has said black turnout could increase by 30%, 50%, even 200% in some states (by busing Chicago voters into Iowa I'm guessing). I'm not ready to give up Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Haiti! Remember, Politico told us the Dems have those special programs in Florida and elsewhere to register ex-felons. Don't let Schaller throw you off. Blacks make up 130% of the population in many states and we just need to increase their vote share to match and we win!
Some reasons I think NC will remain competitive, despite polling:
1. Eight populous counties control 40% of NC's votes. Obama won all of these in the primary by *wide* margins - and the Democratic primary turnout in these counties dwarfed the Republican turnout, in some cases by a factor of 3- or 4-to-1.
2. In the 2004 election, 14 counties collectively provided 50.54% of NC's votes, while the remaining 86 counties together accounted for the remaining 49.46%. In the top-voting 14 counties, Bush's margin of victory was 2.77%. In the remaining 86 counties, his margin was 9.87%, for a combined statewide win of roughly 12.64%.
Now, in 2008, it is *not at all unreasonable* to think that Obama could win those "top 14 voting counties" by 10 point margins, because those counties - given both current polling and the demographics of those counties. What seems far less likely is that McCain can carry the "remaining 86" by the 10 pts he would need to offset a strong Obama showing in the "top 14" - especially given that Obama has some strength in the Eastern parts of the state which went to Bush in '04. Even in McCain managed Bush's 10%, we're talking about a toss-up, not a 4% lead as current polling suggests. The regional breakdowns in polling have not yet been specific enough for my liking - voting in NC is very much a county-by-county business, and Obama has visited (in some cases multiple times), sent surrogates to, delivered major speeches in, and otherwise intelligently targeted the key locals that he will need to win.
3. NC has "One Stop" Early Voting with on-site registration. The Obama campaign worked this masterfully in the primary, and so has the technique down for the general. Based on their ground game with Early Voting, they came into the NC primary with enough of an early vote advantage that even if he had polled even with Clinton on election day proper, Obama still would have won by 5%. Expect to see this again in November. Obama will come into election day with a huge early vote advantage, and only a massive election day turnout for McCain (which won't materialize) would allow for an upset/close finish.
The FL Strategic Vision poll has McCain by 8, not by 6.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/SV_FL_July08.html
Survey USA had Kerry down by only 3 in NC in mid-October. I think NC is a Dem tease, much like NJ has been to Republicans.
With Obama having massive leads in the first (CA), third (NY), and fifth (IL) largest states, don't they account for his entire 5-point national margin in the polls right now?
If so, Obama and McCain are even in the other 47-states combined.
Entirely off topic but this whole Wes Clark manufactured spat has really got me incensed. Now I'll be the first to admit that Clark was stupid for phrasing his point in the way he did which made it appear as if he was being dismissive of McCain's war service. His underlying point was however entirely correct.
Now we all know that the McCain camp are feigning outrage to keep this in the news cycle as long as possible and I guess that is just politics. But they have now badly overreached by suggesting that Obama should (to use McCain's own words) cut Clark loose.
If Team McCain want to set that standard, I say fine. The Obama team need to remind everyone that McCain's leading campaign adviser, Charlie Black, said that a new terrorist attack on America would be a big advantage for McCain. This is McCain's top adviser, not some informal supporter like Clark who only recently was supporting Clinton. Yet McCain seems to think it's fine that this piece of trash should remain his top adviser. Now ask yourself which is worse. Seeing a terrorist attack that kills Americans as a political opportunity or questioning a candidate's executive experience? Yet McCain thinks Clark should be "cut loose" and Black should stay.
Obama's team need to take the gloves off and fire back hard. Not by defending Clark but by nailing McCain's hypocrisy in holding onto Black but calling for Clark's head. I find it concerning that McCain is driving the media narrative on this and the Dems need to learn the lessons of the Kerry campaign and not sit there hoping it will go away. I don't know anyone on the Obama team but if any of you do, make sure you speak with them. Never ever underestimate the ability and willingness of the Republicans to lie and scare their way back into the White House
I have been checking the polls from Florida. I am beginning to suspect bias.
The Rasmussen (June 26) skews the 1’st question “How do you rate the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?”
Few people wish to give the top or bottom mark to a question, so the range of possible answers counts. In this case there are 3 positive answer (Excellent, good, fair) and only one negative (poor). The result is an unbelievable 51% rating of fair or better. 48% gave the answer poor. One can only speculate what would have happened if the answers had included very poor & dreadful.
That Rasmussen knows how to ask an unbiased question is shown in question 3 “I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.” Here you see a matching of negative to positive answers.
Now we come to the drilling question “John McCain favors drilling in offshore oil wells to help reduce the price of gas. Barack Obama opposes offshore oil wells and says it would not reduce the price of gas. Should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?”
First drilling is presented as an Economic question, avoiding the environmental arguments. This is against the most basic rule of polling - Not to ask leading questions. But it gets worse. It refers to “gas”. No mention of crude oil. The Strategic Vision poll (06/27 - 06/29) asks the question much the same way “Do you favor or oppose increased exploration and drilling of natural gas off the shores of Florida?”
There has never been a case of beaches ruined by an accidental spill of natural gas, but crude oil is a very different matter. Is there a proposal from ether candidate to drill for offshore natural gas but keep the ban for crude oil? Alternately is there convincing evidence that there is no crude oil to drill? If not then these questions are nothing less than fraud.
I can only believe that these polls have been paid for by Big Oil or Republican interests with the hope of convincing the uneducated (ok I was fooled too) that Floridians favour drilling in general. No doubt the word “gas” will be misapplied so that it appears to be an alternative to “petrol”.
Rasmussen & Strategic Vision…. Shame on you.
Kublaa000 and Frank: I agree with almost all your points, except one. No attack is ever presented to the people as "unprovoked". A series of minor and/or fictitious outrages and insults can be and always is invented first.
Perhaps the enormous effects on the price of oil will keep the Bush administration from doing this. However, that restraint is much more likely if Obama and friends are out making the case soon. If the R's calculation is that Obama will cave, then a carefully timed 'limited' war could be a winner for McCain. (Sorry for this whole side issue, just got going from Kubla's scenarios.)
I am sorry, Nate, but you must either "plateau" or you must "peak". They are mutually exclusive. I think he has peaked, based on his failure to move in the Rasmussen survey and the narrowing trend in the Gallup.
I am beigning to like the polls of registered as opposed to likely voters as they seem less susceptible to pollster bias and give us a better sense of the acutal political mood of the country.
The news cycle had itself stalled over the past two weeks with the focus on Obama's clinching and his moves toward unitfying the party.
Now we seem enmeshed in a new cycle brought on by left wing angst over Obama's so-called moved toward the center (abandoment of priciples?). This is coupled with the club-footed behavior of Gen. Clark and the Obama campaign vis-a-vis McCain's war service and the degree to which it qualifies him to be President.
Obama does not want a debate on expereince and while he is trying to burnish his own patriotic patina he does not want to be associated with an attack on a honored and decorated serviceman who happens to be his opponent.
McCain curiosly choose to be in latin America this week, further evidence of a campaign that does not seem to want to do itself any favors, but net, net a good week for him.
Expect him to bounce in the national polls and see further erosion of Obama support in the purple states.
The fact that the South votes Republican is not a case of "GOP's deliberate embrace of racism" as was stated above. Southerners vote Republican because the GOP embodies their moral values, gun rights, and way of life. City Democrats still think the South is a racist, seperatist nation run by the KKK. This is not at all the case.
There is an argument for campaigning in Georgia and a few other States that Obama will, nevertheless, likely lose, and that argument rests on the strategic effect on McCain's messaging.
Georgia, in particular, is a State, where McCain's efforts to look centrist elsewhere in the country, will alienate Republican voters. The Barr candidacy increases the opportunity to leverage this effect.
McCain can be forced to choose between reiterating a conservative message that alienates people in, say, Ohio, or moving to the center and losing Georgia to the dissatisfaction of Republican conservatives.
People are saying that McCain can kill Obama's bounce after the Democratic Convention by waiting until after that to name his choice for VP. McCain's birthday falls right in there, and I wonder how that will impact things, and if you believe it will hurt McCain in that time period? Being over sixty myself, I know that my mental acuity is definitely reduced from where it was even ten years ago. I have been watching McCain's fumbles and stumbles and I think that might be a major problem for him IF the media pay any attention to his birthday. They have refused to focus on his fumbles and stumbles so far, and will possibly continue in that vein.
Also, since McCain is breaking the law daily on public funding (since he is technically still in the primary mode until after his nomination at the Republican Convention) while carrying on over Obama's refusal to go with public financing, do you think the media will ever wake up and point that out, or will it be another of those things that are totally ignored and that McCain will get a free pass on it?
Thanks.
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,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
帶著簡單的行囊,來花蓮旅遊走走,順便體驗一下各種花蓮民宿帶給你的不同感受,品嚐道地花蓮美食的特別花蓮小吃風味,也可以騎著單車來品味花蓮 ,呼吸著新鮮的花蓮空氣,所以來花蓮住宿就帶著輕鬆的心情吧!!花蓮黃頁擁有各種不同風格的花蓮民宿,歡迎您來花蓮旅遊放鬆心情體驗美麗的花蓮民宿!!
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,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,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和特種行業內容,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~!!
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,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment