Note: Over the course of the next two months, we will be previewing the Presidential Election matchup in each of the 50 states. The previews are built around a key set of demographic variables in each state. We begin this morning with the Hoosier State, Indiana.
PERHAPS NO STATE better embodies the difference in philosophy between the McCain and Obama campaigns than Indiana. For Obama, it represents a chance to rewrite the conventional wisdom and redraw the map: Indiana has gone Democratic just once in the past 15 elections, but Obama is serious about winning it, with intentions of opening as many as 30 field offices in the state. McCain, meanwhile, is acting as though he is calling a bluff; his campaign has not been advertising there, nor has it devoted any resources to the ground game. What gives each campaign such confidence about their prospects?
Key Demographics
Note: Factors colored in red can generally be thought to help McCain. Factors in blue can generally be thought to help Obama. Factors in purple have ambiguous effects. Except where otherwise apprent, the numbers next to each variable represent the proportion out of each 100 residents in each state who fall into that category. Fundraising numbers reflect dollars raised in the 2008 campaign cycle per eligible voter in each state. Figures for seniors and youth voters are proportions of all residents aged 18+, rather than all residents of any age. The figure for education reflects the average number of years of completed schooling for all adults aged 25+. The figure for same-sex households reflects the number of same-sex partner households as a proportion of all households in the state. The liberal-conservative index is scaled from 0 (conservative) to 100 (liberal), based on a Likert score of voter self-identification in 2004 exit polls. The turnout rates reflect eligible voters only. Unemployment rates are current as of June 2008.
What McCain Has Going For Him
History. Not only has Indiana voted Democratic just once since World War II, but it has also voted more Republican than the nation as a whole in each of those elections. Indiana voters are moderate on pocketbook issues, but conservatives on cultural ones, and as of 2004, the Republicans had a 14-point advantage in party identification. Indiana has a Republican governor who will probably win re-election, and Republicans control 33 of Indiana's 50 seats in the State Senate. Indiana also has one of the nation's toughest voter ID laws, which has been upheld in the face of court challenges. In addition, its polls close early, by 6 PM local time, which tends to limit participation, especially among shift workers. Indiana is among the top states in the country in vehicle miles per capita, so issues like the gas tax could prove to be an effective wedge.
What Obama Has Going For Him
A lot of little things, which might add up to a big thing. Indiana has the most manufacturing-intensive economy in the country, with 18 percent of its jobs in the sector; Illinois-based unions are used to working its territory. Approximately 20-25 percent of the state is in the Chicago media market, and Obama overperford in the Northern portion of the state during the Democratic primaries. Indiana has several major colleges and universities, and an above-average number of young voters. Obama has outfundraised McCain in Indiana better than 2:1. The Bayh brand name remains extremely powerful in the state, and Evan Bayh can be an effective surrogate, whether or not he is Obama's vice president. Obama has a head start, having focused intensely on the state during the primaries, and essentially keeping his organization intact since then.
What To Watch For
Democrats have not made a serious effort to compete in Indiana since at least 1988, when Dan Quayle was George Bush's VP nominee and effective cordoned the state off to Michael Dukakis. And since the state has usually held a late primary, it had not gotten much attention during the nomination process.
The essential question then is whether there has been some sort of latent Democratic vote in Indiana that the Democrats simply haven't bothered to fight for. Indiana has generally had one of the lowest turnout rates in the country, which might be a consequence of its early poll closing times, but might also reflect the apathy caused by the lack of attention paid to it. That alone might not be enough to make the state competitive. But when coupled with the fact that the Democratic nominee is a Midwesterner from a neighboring state, that the state's blue-collar economy is really struggling, and that one campaign is invested in the state when the other isn't, you might have the right mix of circumstances necessary to tip the state.
Geographically, Obama will need to carry Marion County (Indianapolis) -- which John Kerry won by just 2 points -- by perhaps as many as 25-30. He will have to do even better than that in the Northwest suburbs. And he will have to hold his own in the Northeast portion of the state -- losing by not more than 5 or 10 points -- while keeping Southern Indiana to within 20. If he is able to accomplish substantially all of those things, the math will be there for him.
8.13.2008
Road to 270: Indiana
by Nate Silver @ 8:19 AM...see also indiana, road to 270
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

227 comments
"Starbucks:Walmart Ratio" made me laugh. But when you think about it, it's really a fantastic, if stereotyped demographic measure.
McCAIN is betting on history, Indiana votes republican, so why waste the money. Instead of winning by 20 he may only win by 2-5 points but a win is a win.
If it`s a nationwide landslide Obama may have a chance otherwise I still see it staying red although I think it will be close.
This is a great idea. We have a lot of ill-informed or completely uninformed argument on here about certain states and their characteristics.
Just glad that there is a campaign in this state for a change. Neat stats.
This is an interesting way to profile the states! I'm interested in seeing more Starbucks:Walmart ratios.
One thing that's missing are units on the metrics. Without going to Wikipedia I wasn't sure if 10.6 "American" ancestry meant 10.6% or 10.6 million.
Also, in most cases it's obvious how the metrics benefit either of the candidates but an accompanying FAQ would be nice. For example, how does the Male percentage benefit McCain?
Nate,
I know you did a study of media markets and found that Ohio, Michigan and Indiana don't much overlap, but I still wonder if Obama is not trying to reap the benefits of intensive advertising in Michigan and Ohio (plus, being a Chicago-based Illinois senator) by also going for Indiana.
I mean, I would think the border areas of Indiana will get Michigan, Ohio and Illinois TV, and by advertising in Indiana, you also end-up advertising in Michigan and Ohio's border areas...
(Of course, the big reason to go for Indiana is demographic, but everything helps, as the old lady said when she pissed into the sea).
If IN is in play, then Obama will win in a landslide.
My concern is Nate's scenario analysis. I was playing with his numbers and discovered something worrisome. If McCain wins OH and FL, then he has an 81% chance of winning. That means that he only needs to concentrate on those two states and CO. If McCain wins those three states (and perhaps NV), then he will win the Presidency.
It's time to start worrying.
Frank--I don't think the scenario analysis should be used in quite that way. The simulations assume that the candidates are going to do what they're going to do. If McCain concentrates only on Ohio, Florida, and Colorado, then it changes the scenario analysis. For instance, in a mildly pro-Obama national environment, he might very well lose Virginia doing that.
For this particular purpose, it's useful to look at Josh Putnam's electoral college spectrum. The rankings broadly match up with 538 (although the methodology is different), but it's easier to game out scenarios. You can see there that Obama can replace Colorado with Virginia, North Dakota + Montana, Indiana, or Missouri. Most of those combinations are unlikely if the campaigns go as they're now going. But if McCain goes "all in" in Colorado, Ohio, and Florida, he becomes vulnerable to losing in one of these other ways.
This is great -- you're doing the best campaign reporting of any source.
Feature request: would you please consider adding a column giving 2004 numbers, or deltas from 2004 to 2008, on the demographics? Even an up arrow/down arrow/bar to show increased/decreased/same since '04 would be greatly informative.
IN seems like a pipe dream for Obama. Given its history and its demographics, I don't see much to distinguish it as an Obama state as any other. If he wins there it will be the product of a landslide, not b/c he managed to tip it into his column while McCain holds other traditionally Republican states.
Obama is no doubt encouraged by his narrow win over Mrs. Clinton in the primary (or was it a narrow loss?). His surprise there coupled with his big win in NC helped to lock down the nomination for him. I think at that point the primary voters had Clinton fatigue and were ready to let go.
The Obama strategy here, as elsewhere, seems to be treat the state as one giant caucus and just worry about getting your voters to the polls. I think that is a misplaced strategy.
There is a very high level of interest in this race caused by the state we find ourselves in as a nation (at war and with a seemingly faltering economy). And caused of course by the historic nature of Obama's candidacy and the polarizing figure he has become.
You either love the guy or you hate him.
Given the dynamics at play people will come out to vote en masse and turnout in IN will be high. If that is so, Obama will be swamped by the right of center, Republican leaning electorate. His field offices may serve to cut the margin some, but will not carry the day. Conversely, if Obama has “made the sale” generally, then he will win with or without IN, so the particular effort here seems pointless.
With Obama and these Republican states this may be just a vain play for a landslide, meant to feed his ego, perhaps.
I think this people-focused, grass roots strategy carries a lot of risk for Obama, whose campaign must manage all of these people in their widespread locations. This will absorb a lot of time and attention and money and each field rep becomes a potential wild card or lightening rod that can bring discredit to the organization.
It is an undisciplined way to approach the campaign in general.
xOlani,
Males usually favor Republicans, that's why that demographic is good for McCain.
History matters greatly. I imagine Obama doing better than Kerry or Gore, but still losing IN. Why? Southern Indiana will vote in record numbers too. He'll probably lose there by at least 20 points.
I think in a fair fight McCain would clearly have the advantage, particularly because of Obama's race and postmodern/youth appeal. However, I'm not sure this is going to be a fair fight. If McCain just refuses to run in Indiana, he's taking a terrible risk - even in states slanted towards the opposite party a candidate can win when his or her opponent just coasts along.
I don't see how you can talk about Indiana without talking about race. Whether or not McCain decides to take the low road w/r/t Obama's race and foreign upbringing will have a big effect in Indiana; whether he decides to double down on his opposition to affirmative action will as well. There's more (and more contemporary) anti-Black resentment, particularly regarding affirmative action and cities sapping state funds, in the midwest than anywhere in the country, and McCain might trade gains in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania for the losses he'd get in Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Montana, North Carolina, Virginia, etc by embracing a more openly race-baiting campaign.
Bill Clinton drove around rural Indiana bitching about Obama playing the race card on him day in and day out and regurgitating Obama's "bitter" remarks; man-on-the-street interviews with downstate Indianans were full of vicious racism. If McCain exploits this, he'll have a much better chance at the state at the risk of losing his reputation in others.
And caused of course by the historic nature of Obama's candidacy and the polarizing figure he has become.
You either love the guy or you hate him.
With no facts, as usual. Pete: we have fact-based discussions here. If you are unwilling to back up assertions like this with some type of data (hit the favorability polls and examine the breakdowns for Obama and McCain, at least) then please stop talking.
"It is an undisciplined way to approach the campaign in general."
Really "Pete Kent"?
How about the way that McCain does not actually speak for his own campaign? That is undisciplined.
Nate,
Word of advice. Stick to baseball. And poker. You were/are good at those thigns.
You are a joke of a political analyst. And you will wind up a laughing stock in this arena if you persist to lay your garbage out for the world to see.
Do us all a favor and hang it up, pal.
Frank - your comment is indeed correct. The more things change the more they stay the same. If OH turns Red in Nate's model, then Obama's chances drop significantly. Obots like to hypoth various "other" scenarios that "might" happen, but changing states that have traditionally gone Red is much harder than flipping a state that has been both Red and Blue in recent elections. NC and IN both have Red traditional advantages as does VA and CO to a lesser degree. Obots best hope is to put a nail in the GOP coffin by winning OH...otherwise they could find themselves speculating on the "off chance" of turning trad GOP states blue. Again, watch CO as the dems really have a chance in my opinion with the convention in Denver and the state trending blue of late. But yes, if OH goes pink Dem anxiety should and will grow.
Tybalt said: "With no facts, as usual"
What a joke. And a moron. Liberals rant day in and day out with "anecdotal" suggestions and it's okay, and as soon as a conservative makes a qualitative assessment, you start howling for "facts."
I agree that facts are facts and are good for making a case, but since when did it become so loathesome to offer a "gut feeling" or a hunch instead of a number. I agree with Pete on Obama. From what I can tell, people do have very strong feelings about him - one way or the other - and typically either love him emphatically or despise him mercilessly. Little in between. McCain draws the obvious ire from extreme liberals, but feelings are much more mixed from mainstream America relative to the feelings about Obama - not too much extreme love or hate. I'd say that's a fair and relatively accurate assertion.
One more thing: "Not everything that can be counted, counts - and not everything that counts can be counted."
Albert Einstein
Easy, Mule Rider. While Nate has some off the wall ideas, I think he has a good thing going here. At the very least it keeps an open dialogue on election speculation and I find that to be engaging. I appreciate his research and he deserves Kudos for throwing out the Harris Alaska poll that was clearly bias toward Dems.
Love this analyis.
Since the Obama ground game is so important, one great addition to the analysis would be voter registration numbers:
-What was party ID on election day in 2004?
-What was party ID at the beginning of 2008?
-What is current party ID
I am relatively new to analyzing polling data, and I am interested in finding out the demographics within each poll; however, I have yet to find this information within Rasmussen, Time, CBS, and Gallup Tracking polls. I understand how this information might be considered proprietary, but I find it hard to put blind trust into polls that are not 100% transparent.
Also, I have heard people attack polls for being PPP. What does PPP mean? Something partisan I assume.
Overrated: I have to disagree about the ease of flipping states in one sense.
Traditional battleground states are used to attention. Commercials, GOTV, local strategems--they've seen them all before, so they don't have as big an impact. Battleground states will kind of do what they're going to do, with the outcome determined more by changes in demographics and national circumstances than individual campaign decisions.
Traditionally red or blue states that are contested, on the other hand, put more weight on the notion that "90% of politics is just showing up." I suspect this may be particularly true this time around for Montana, for instance.
Tybalt: I'm not in the same place politically as Pete Kent, but I have to agree with him on this one. Even a cursory glance at poll internals show that Obama has become a polarizing figure: his numbers for "very favorable" and "very unfavorable" are both quite high across a wide range of polls.
I'm not sure I buy the absolute "love him or hate him" line with Obama. I think that there is a large contingency who wants very much to love him, but are not yet sold that he's ready to be President. That's why McCain's got his "is he ready to lead?" meme going. If Obama can convince people that he is, in fact, ready, the independents and undecideds will break for him in a big way and it's going to be a landslide in the EC.
The thing that stands out in this chart is the high number of manufacturing jobs (nationwide 1st). I fear the early closing of the ballots will hurt the turnout of those low-middle income workers - in this state like nowhere else. On the other hand, there is probably a large share of shift workers among this subgroup. So these voters could be the key to Indiana - I am not sure if they prefer Democrats or Republicans.
Indiana smells of Democratic neglect. The sociological statistics describe Indiana as a state in the middle of the nation. The same is true with demographics. But the political states describe a Republican state. So my conclusion is identical with Nate´s, a state that could be a swing state - but one that votes Republican out of tradition. Yet, if the McCain campaign doesn´t support that tradition, the Democrats have real chance.
On this date in history August 13, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led President George Bush 50% to 47%.
for final results, please see Presidential Inauguration January 2005.
There is a reason why states tend to stay blue or red over time. The tradition of a state is huge and generational voting patterns are very difficult to break. States like Montana will probably revert back to form as both sides drive the GOTV effort and polarization once again aligns the trad GOP and Dem themes. We are already seeing that in the South and in Northeast/Far West. This is why MI and PA will likey stay blue (although MI has a curious anti-Dem move worth watching) It is also why trad Red states will fall in line. Obama's post-race and post-pol hype is BS. He is a big city Lib that lines up along traditional Lib lines: Taxes, abortion, environment, etc... If Obots think they have some kind of hybrid "uniter" of all political pursuasions, you will be saddenly mistaken. The only difference between Kerry and Obama is that Obama has not been in office long enough to develop a voting record. People in places like Montana will trend red once Obama is ask to fully articulate his positions over the duration of the fall campaign. Indeed, things will heat up considerably the last 60 days of the campaign. This is the lull before the storm. It is my belief that Dems will then realize the huge mistake of not offering up Clinton as the party nominee.
I think one reason McCain isn't campaigning in Indiana is that he knows Karl Rove's voter suppression campaign has succeeded there in passing a "voter ID" law to suppress turnout by new voters, minorities, the elderly, etc. That, combined with the early poll closing that makes it tougher for workers to get to the polls will make it very difficult for voter registration efforts to have much effect. Obama will come close in Indiana, but it will be very difficult for him to overcome these barriers. Although Rove is gone, his illegal and immoral legacy lives on.
"Presidential adviser Karl Rove and his allies, who have been ghostbusting illusory dead and fictional voters since the contested 2000 election, apparently mounted a two-pronged attack. One part of that attack, at the heart of the current Justice Department scandals, involved getting the DoJ and various U.S. attorneys in battleground states to vigorously prosecute cases of voter fraud. That prong has failed. After exhaustive effort, the Department of Justice discovered virtually no polling-place voter fraud, and its efforts to fire the U.S. attorneys in battleground states who did not push the voter-fraud line enough has backfired.
. . . . But the second prong of this attack may have proven more successful. This involved using the "American Center Voting Rights" [an organization founded by Mark "Thor" Hearne, national election counsel to Bush-Cheney '04, and staffed with other Republican operatives, including Jim Dyke, a former RNC communications director] to give "think tank" academic cachet to the unproven idea that voter fraud is a major problem in elections. That cachet would be used to support the passage of onerous voter-identification laws that depress turnout among the poor, minorities, and the elderly—groups more likely to vote Democratic. Where the Bush administration may have failed to nail illegal voters, the effort to suppress minority voting has borne more fruit, as more states pass these laws, and courts begin to uphold them in the name of beating back waves of largely imaginary voter fraud."
http://www.slate.com/id/2166589/
pagenum/all/
Jack,
Your annoying reminders of Rasmussen's 2004 tracking numbers will end next week. Kerry only lead Bush by a very slim margin during the first three weeks of August of that year elevated by his Democratic convention bump.
I can't understand why you think this data is meaningful. Since 1952, most candidates leading in the polls at the end of August were elected POTUS. Reagan was an exception in 1980 with a virtual tie at this stage and Gore another in 2000 when he made a comeback over the last month to win the popular vote but not the presidency.
So, at least 12 out of the last 14 national elections had the eventual winner leading in the average poll of polls at the end of August. If Obama still has the lead September 1, I would put all my money on him. Unexpected events might still change that projection but I wouldn't bet the farm on it if I were you.
Looking at the regions where Obama is going to win.
It will be in the
New England- MA,CT,ME,NH,RI,VT
Mid Atlantic- NY,NJ,VA,MD,DC,DE
Rust Belt- PA,OH,MI,IN
North Central- IL,WI,MN,IA
South West- CO,NM,NV
Pacific West- CA,WA,OR,HI.
Pete,
Thanks for making an intelligent post that was worth reading for once. Stay with it.
And yes, it's clear Obama is in fact a more polarizing politician. I've seen many Rasmussen state polls with something like 30% very favorable, 25% very unfavorable for Obama, with McCain 10-15% for both. For better or worse, a lot of people already feel very strongly about Obama either way. That plays into McCain's only winning strategy of making the election entirely a referendum on Obama.
Nate,
Will you also do a demographic analysis of DC?
Indiana will only be a realistic Obama state if Evan Byhe is on the ticket. Even republican brass believe that scenario would render the state a toss-up.
It seems to me that the Obama-win scenario can be put quite simply as follows.
The Kerry states plus Iowa and New Mexico (both of which seem comfortable at the moment) is 264.
He only then needs one of Nevada (+5=269, but the tie break will go to Obama), Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, or Florida; or both of Montana and Alaska (which seem in play).
The McCain formula is more difficult, since essentially he either had to break into the Kerry states (New Hampshire is likeliest, Michigan next) or win *all* of the Battlegrounds.
A couple of minor points:
1. Flipping states just ain't that impossible. There is zero evidence that states do not change how they vote (red vs. blue) over time. The relative stability of the two Bush elections this century is an abnormality when compared to history, and it has made it harder to see the historical shifts that voters have undergone over longer time periods. Just take a look at Nate's electoral history maps, linked above. Prior to Nixon, there were states in the South that hadn't voted Republican since the Civil War! Now, those states vote reliably red. What changed? Certainly not demographics. Rather, people's views of the two parties changed. Or take Michigan. The state voted red for five straight elections, but since has gone blue. In 2006, several democrats won in Indiana congressional districts that hadn't voted democratic in the same length of time that Indiana hasn't voted democratic. "They've always voted Republican before" just isn't a good argument.
2. Several people have said "McCain just has to win OH/FL (and maybe CO)". Sorry. He has to win OH, FL, CO, VA, IN, MO, and every other Bush state except for Iowa and New Mexico. Yes. It's true. Now that Minnesota, Iowa, and New Mexico are trending blue, McCain has a very simple electoral map. Unless he can win MI, he has to win all of the rest of these states. If he loses any one of them, he loses. Just a different way of looking at the exact same truth.
3. Nate's theory about a latent democratic vote has potential resonance, especially given the recent elections for Congress in Red districts in Indiana, which voted blue. There are a lot of fiscal conservative, social moderates among the folks I know in Indiana, especially in the suburbs; they're very tired of Bush and unimpressed by McCain so far. Indianapolis has been growing like crazy, as has Gary, and these voters are not the kind of deep Red folks that have made up Indiana rural communities, which, like the rest of the Midwest, are rapidly depopulating. If there's a lack of enthusiasm among evangelicals, or Obama even manages to convince some of them to vote for him over, say, climate change, which has grown substantially over time as an evangelical concern, maybe Obama's got a shot. Subtle demographic shifts like this can quickly change red/blue ratios.
Besides, when was the last time a democratic candidate ever thought he could win Indiana? Carter and Mondale both faced harsh electoral maps and were concentrated on a narrow slice of the electorate. Same goes for Gore and Kerry. Dukakis was a NE liberal and was never going to win Indiana. Clinton/Gore were focused on a southern strategy and managed an R+6 in Indiana. Have things changed enough, and is it enough to have another midwesterner on the ticket, for Obama to pick up the extra 6% he would need to win. Hard to say yet, but the last democratic midwesterner, Harry Truman, only lost by R+1 in Indiana.
4. Last point: don't forget potential down ticket effects. Suppose there is a latent democratic vote. Suppose it's not enough to elect Obama. Nonetheless, Obama seems to actually care about the rest of the democratic party. By campaigning in Indiana and getting out the latent vote, he will help a bunch a freshmen democratic Congressmen compete for reelection. Moreover, he will help all democratic candidates in the future know the state's voters better, by collecting a huge amount of voter data. Someone's got to spend money to do this. Might as well be Obama.
I do love the way the Republicans on this site are thinking short term. I would love it if McCain concentrates all his attention on OH and FL. That's the kind of strategy that got democrats into the place they've been for the last two election cycles. Keep it up.
Mule Rider: Until you put together a better model than Nate does, shut your pie hole.
Jack Black: Enough of the annoying Kerry/Bush poll numbers. This election is way different for several reasons:
1. Bush was an incumbent and thus held many incumbent advantages:Bully pulpit, air time, terror alert warnings. McCain doesn't have these.
2. The economy was in a better state, right direction/wrong direction #'s were not as bad as they are today.
3. The Democratic base was not fired up about Kerry. The Dems are a lot more passionate about Obama.
4. Bush had a strong evangelical base sewn up, McCain has yet to prove this.
5. Bush had a way better GOTV and field organization. By all acounts, Obama is leading McCain in this realm.
6. There are way more Red states in play this year. NV, VA, OH, IN, CO, NC. Look at a state like Iowa: Bush won it in 2004, it would be a huge surprise if McCain wins it. The same can almost be said for NM. States like MN and WI, which Kerry barely won are tilting strong toward Obama. Kerry lost big in states like MT, ND, AK, but current polls show Obama is close.
If you want to keep drinking the McCain "Maalox" you can, and hold your breath for final results on 1/20/2009
A quick response to Cugel -
When minorities, the poor, and the elderly (the groups targeted by voter ID laws) all line up for democrats, then Rove's strategy works. Sadly, for your argument, the elderly seem to be big McCain voters this time around, and the poor in Indiana tend to be rural white poor, who also seem to be more inclined to vote for McCain than Obama. Would be a shame if Rove's strategy backfired against McCain in Indiana and lost him the election :-)
Morning Adam,
I'm sure Pete is just overwhelmed with pleasure. I mean really... the utter bliss of his post actually passing the Adam smell test?
It will probably be quite awhile until his next post for I'm sure he'll try extra hard. He won't want to let you down.
As for Indiana my advice to Obama is to annoint Evan Bayh, open up 150 field offices, and spend 400 million there. He has a damn good chance to double the liberal democrats there to at least 32.
And a quick response to Jack Black -
One point that hasn't been made about your innane comments is that, while Bush was polling reliably in the 45-46% range throughout the summer of 2004, McCain has been in the 40-42% range. It's a lot harder to come back from 4-5% further behind. He may yet do it, but I wouldn't count on it being automatic. Yes, relative vote totals matter. But so do absolute numbers of voters, and McCain is just way behind Bush at this point, on that front. By contrast, Obama seems to be roughly on par with or ahead of Kerry with respect to his absolute vote percentage.
musicman... "drinking the McCain Maalox"
LOL... love it! That's so good, it really should begin creeping into the national discourse.
Indiana's politics are much more complex than recent presidential elections suggest.
Its two southern congressional districts are competitive but only for very conservative democrats because the political climate is akin to the border south. Obama should do well in the college towns (Indiana, ISU, USI, Purdue, Ball State, and Notre Dame) as well as in cities like Gary, Indianapolis, Evansville and Ft.Wayne.
Turnout will be a problem for workers and minorities because of restrictive registration, voter ID, GOP vote suppression and early poll closings.
I don't think Obama will carry my old home state but it sure would be nice not to have to witness Indiana as the first state to turn red when I switch on my TV election night.
GOP vote suppression? What are you accusing here JRS?
That's right man, that's the master plan. We will be using food stamps and free drugs to lure all the Obama supporters in Indiana away from the voting booths.
Indiana will go Obama
McCain losing ground significantly among hunters and fishermen.
I'm nor sure how much this matters in Indiana, but it definitely reflects what's goign on here in the western states.
Overperford = Overperformed
Wonderful analysis!
Great stuff Nate. I love the tour of the Union that the primary provided and look forward to the rest of this series.
I would also echo the comment above that showing changes in these key demographic stats since 2004 would be extremely informative.
Nate--
No time for me to go through the comments and contribute something interesting to this discussion, just thought I'd let you know that this is really interesting analysis, and I'm really looking forward to the other 49 (or 50? Dunno if you'll bother doing DC for completeness. Here's my analysis: OBAMA WINS) parts in the series.
Sportsman and other reliable GOP voters are switching sides because they own homes, have jobs, and kids like every other American. You can only vote "values" issues so long. Values are great until you lose your job, or your kids are fighting an unnecessary war 5000 miles away. It's not Obama whose changing the minds of these voters its George W. Bush.
I think I should weigh in here considering I've lived in Indiana, unfortunately, for about 16 years of my life.
Generally there are only three counties that go Democratic: Lake (unions), Marion (African-Americans), and Monroe (IU). The rest are fairly or extremely Republican leaning. However, I think that there is an extremely subtle shift going on for a variety of reasons. One being that the manufacturing sector in NW Indiana has been hit extremely hard and should be more blue than usual. Secondly, Indiana is full of farmers and they may not agree with McCain's positions on agricultural subsidies, thus siphoning off some votes to Obama. Thirdly, the colleges are going to be much bluer than usual. When I was a freshman at IU in 2004, the campus was for Kerry, but not solidly so. If you go around Bloomington now in the summer where there is no one there, all you see are Obama signs. It seems like everyone on the campus is going to vote Obama. At least in Bloomington it's going to boil down to having students register to vote in Indiana if they are out of state, which has been fairly successful in the past two elections. If you're wondering how blue Bloomington really is, I remember that in 2004 the Democratic nominee for City Treasurer was a pizza delivery guy and he only lost by 200 votes.
This is great stuff. Like one of those "Keys To Victory" graphics the commentators do before a football game. If you could somehow work in a Tel-e-strator video, that would be the icing on the cake!
There are two states that can truly swing this election cycle:
Ohio and Colorado
There are two states that Obama may be able to put in play:
Virginia and Nevada
An Iowa/Michigan/Wisconsin win for McCain would mean an electoral landslide for him. Bayh aside, an Indiana/North Carolina/Montana/Missouri win for Obama would also mean his landslide.
More people voted in the Democratic Primary in Indiana this year than voted for John Kerry in the general in 2004 - that's gotta mean something right? plus Dems won 3 house seats in 2006 - won the lower house of the state legislature and have an outside chance in the slightly competetive IN-03 race this year. On the other hand the republicans did win the mayor's office from a dem in 2007 and won a lot of city council seats - and McCain had already sown up the nomination by the time Indiana's primary came up which could account for the high number of voters in the Dem primary (was it an open or closed primary?) I don't think Obama's going to win this state but putting resources in the state is a good thing to help build the local party and maybe help in retaining those three house seats, helping in the governor's race and in legislative races.
Nate, a quick question:
Why is a Liberal-Conservative index of 12.3 pro-Obama? According to your explanatory comments, 0 is conservative, so that seems like a pretty big pro-McCain factor.
Virginia belongs in that the sleeper category for two reasons:
1) Huge number of educated single white women who have flooded the DC suburbs.
2) Pool of unregistered blacks in the Richmond area.
And Nevada belongs to that sleeper category for 4 reasons:
1) Obama did really well in rural Nevada
2) Yucca mountain is on his side.
3) Foreclosures in NV are extremely high
4) Reid's move to include NV in the caucuses was a decent investment. The workers in Las Vegas must be registered.
mule rider: keep riding those 'mules' - you suck as a blog commentator.
tybalt: Pete Kent meant you either love or hate Pete Kent (I think only his mother maybe loves him).
p.s. albert einstein can't count any more.
p.p.s. I would recommend Nate spend more time on the South Ossetia vs Georgia vs Russia vs US brouhaha- which I see as having a short term benefit to McCain even though the policy of antagonising Russia (energy king)at the expense of Georgia (crappy pawn) is mad. Indiana can wait for now.
I think this people-focused, grass roots strategy carries a lot of risk for Obama, whose campaign must manage all of these people in their widespread locations. This will absorb a lot of time and attention and money and each field rep becomes a potential wild card or lightening rod that can bring discredit to the organization.
It is an undisciplined way to approach the campaign in general.
I think you're mixing up cause and effect. If the campaign is undisciplined, then having a widespread organization could be a disaster. And if they were managing everything directly from the head office with no intermediaries, and no strong plan, it definitely would be. But it's pretty bizarre to describe as "undisciplined" a structure that's similar to every organization or corporation with national presence -- as many local staffers as appropriate to manage volunteers/employees, regional managers, state directors, and the head office. And all those are paid staffers, not guys who walked in and got a half hour of training. From what I've seen, it's a structure that effectively takes advantage of local knowledge to implement goals that are set by the campaign.
If you want to believe it's a mob of college kids winging it, more power to you. I hope the McCain campaign believes the same thing.
There is a very high level of interest in this race caused by the state we find ourselves in as a nation (at war and with a seemingly faltering economy). And caused of course by the historic nature of Obama's candidacy and the polarizing figure he has become.
You either love the guy or you hate him.
The first part was right. The second part is clearly wrong. The McCain campaign seems to be under the impression that there is an enormous amount of personal animus to Obama and that mobilizing that animus is the key to the election. Just make it a referendum on Obama and we win. I don't think its going to play out that way. I think it will be a referendum on Bush (most elections--even open seat elections are referendums on the incumbent).
"Regardless of whether you agree with him, do you like Barack Obama as a person."
Like a lot: 30%
Like Somewhat: 30%
Dislike: 26%
Not sure: 13%
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/econ04aug2008_tabs.pdf
Only slightly more than half the population has strong feelings on the subject. Among those with strong feelings, Obama is winning.
Here is the danger for Republicans: If you make the entire thing a referendum on Obama's personality, the "like somewhat"s are all going to vote for him. If you give them some other reason to vote, they might vote for McCain for another reason.
On Obama as a polarizing figure: I think any Democrat would be, because the GOP attack machine would turn him/her into one. That's the heart of the right's strategy. Would Hillary have been less polarizing? Edwards? Heck, if someone as bland as Richardson had won the nomination, he would've been painted as an "extreme Hispanic radical", "the most liberal Governor in the nation", and so forth.
On Indiana: Hopefully the Obama ground game can overcome the voting hurdles -- helping people verify that they are registered, providing carpools to the polls, etc. Also, Indiana offers both in-person early voting and absentee mail-in voting.
"I would recommend Nate spend more time on the South Ossetia vs Georgia vs Russia vs US brouhaha- which I see as having a short term benefit to McCain even though the policy of antagonising Russia (energy king)at the expense of Georgia (crappy pawn) is mad. Indiana can wait for now."
You'd think foreign troubles would help McCain, but so far there's no evidence of this.
Obama's up another point in the Gallup tracker today, which puts him at +6 (48-42) and he's +2 at Rasmussen, which is his high-water mark there since the Berlin bounce faded (and Ras adjusted down the Dem Party ID). If anything, Obama's recent upsurge in both tracking polls appears to coincide with the trouble in Georgia (and also the Olympics, so who knows what's causing it).
Any thoughts on how Obama's brother Cooter might influence the voters?
cowbat...
Robert Scheer thinks the Georgia situation is actually McCain's early October surprise.
The most bizarre thing about this theory is that it might just be true. After all, it wouldn't be the first time this gang started a war to help them win an election.
The Gallup daily tracking poll shows Obama increasing his lead to 6 points, 48-42.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109453/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-42.aspx
Obama has also taken the lead in favorable ratings in the Rasmussen poll.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/favorable_ratings_for_presidential_candidates
Clark Miller: It WOULD be a laugh if Rove's strategy of vote suppression voter ID laws ended up backfiring in this election, but it's not my argument. Rove's vote suppression tactics are a fact. And the right-wing has been backing these vote-suppression tactics for many years, going back to the Reconstruction Era,
Here's Paul Weyrich a founder of the conservative movement, co-founder of Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, etc., etc., in 1980 talking openly about this:
"I wonder how many of our Christians have what I call the 'goo-goo' syndrome. 'Good government.' They want EVERYBODY to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people, they never have been since the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=8GBAsFwPglw
It would be ironic if the tactic backfired in this election in Indiana, but the biggest losers tend to be newly registered voters, whose IDs may not match the precinct they're registered in for many reasons.
You'd think foreign troubles would help McCain, but so far there's no evidence of this.
I've sort of thought the opposite. That this whole thing will benefit Obama, although I admit it is a big wild card.
Here's the thought. Americans are typically hawkish. Normally, our instant reaction is "better to act tough than act weak". I think that is what McCain is counting on.
The problem is that this is exactly how we ended up getting into the Iraq war and I think most Americans now realize that. They realize it was a mistake and they don't want to make another mistake.
They see Georgia and they see another country they have never heard of and don't care about. They think about the underlying border issue and say "this has nothing to do with us, why should we get involved?".
I actually think this is a trap for McCain. He needs to play tough to make himself look like the tough guy, but playing tough ultimately means at least threatening to go to war with Russia.
If the election comes down to "Do you want to go to war with Russia over a tiny corner of the world you've never heard of before and that we have no real interest in?", most Americans will vote no.
Scheunamenn has made 300K from the Georgia(01/07 to 05/17/08) while making 70K from McCain campaign. He is still partner in Orion who represents Georgia, which makes him a foreign agent.
One wonders how this works as far as the US interests vs. Orion interests with McCain are concerned. And is the fact that a lobbyist counseling him is both a lobbyist and a foreign agent for a former communist country going to have political consequences? I am anxious to find out.
I'd be amazed if Russian tanks in Georgia had any lasting effect on the election at all. What percentage of voters do you suppose would know what you are talking about if you asked them: "What do you think about the Russian-Georgian conflict?"
"The what? The Russians are mad at Georgia? Why? Did the Bulldogs beat their team or something?"
Wow! This has been a really good thread for comments. A very high proportion of thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments on both sides, even if a little spurious invective is thrown in.
My thought on the scenarios for each candidates' victory is that McCain either needs a general shift in his direction or to pick off Michigan. Michigan, like Nevada, has state-specific issues that could swing it without being indicative of a trend. If McCain can get Michigan, he doesn't need Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, or Colorado.
Can Obama win if McCain gets Michigan? Sure. There are lots of plausible routes. (Here's one: CO + NV + VA) If McCain wins Michigan but the overall environment stays somewhat favorable for Obama, it's going to be a crazy spread-out battle all over the map, which could lead to an exciting election night.
If McCain doesn't take Michigan, I think it's a more traditional battle with McCain having to shift the national numbers enough to put more of the old battlegrounds into play.
A poll of IN in the last two months would be nice. Last poll is 6/22. Nobody really has aclue what's going on as there are no polls.
An Indiana victory is not beyond thr realm of possibility. At least 1/3 of the state's counties are in play for the democrat in presidential elections and many of them are among the more populous. A larger number of the 98 counties are competitive for local democratic candidates. Clinton only lost Indiana by -6 in 1992 and 1996.
Obama could be able to carry the river towns along the Kentucky boarder and the coal towns next to Illinois. He'll certainly get the manufacturing centers like Lake county in the northwest corner and the college towns scattered across the state. If he can get good margins in the counties with big cities like Indianapolis and Ft. Wayne, Indiana will be close.
Darien,
Indiana politics is notoriously corrupt. Both parties game the electoral process but the GOP is better at it and more systematic about it. The party regularly campaigns to purge voter registration lists with the help of republican clerks, limit the number of inner city voting centers and challenges potential voters on election day. It doesn't take too much to disrupt targeted polling places and discourage voters who have only early morning, the lunch hour or the time after the factory lets out to cast their ballot.
Surely I am not the first poster HERE with this from CNN's Political Ticker:
A Franklin & Marshall poll out of Pennsylvania shows the Illinois senator leads McCain by eight points (44-36 percent) among registered voters, while a Quinnipiac poll of likely voters in New Jersey puts Obama up by 10 there. The Pennsylvania poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points, while the New Jersey poll's margin or error is plus or minus 2.6 points.
Re: Georgia...
It would be gratfiying to see a meme begin to gain traction that "John McCain would rather start a war than lose an election."
Turnabout being fair play, and all that....
filistro - gee...those neocons, huh? And cunning enough to time it with Obama's Hawaii break, too! And all this time I thought they didn't get along with McCain - me so naive!
p.s. I agree with anyone who says long term Obama benefits from any situation but would that be in time for the election? If world war III breaks out, the electorate will at least give the status quo a chance to prove its mettle. That is unless, Obama starts expressing arguments that the last eight years are why Russia seems to have no fear now of the US. Maybe he should call for urgent talks with Medvedev to bring him to heel (and who can in turn chuck Putin out) or Medev-deved-what-ev-a as Hillary affectionately calls him!
On routes to victory: I look at OH and MI in the scenario analysis.
5713/10000 Obama wins both, and he's a 98% favorite to win the election.
2734/10000 McCain wins both, and he's a 96% favorite to win the election. Also note that over two-thirds of McCain's victories are by this route.
If the model is correct, these two states are 84% likely to vote the same way, and if they do, the winner of the OH-MI block is an overwhelming favorite.
1458/10000 Obama loses OH but wins MI, and the race is a toss-up.
95/10000 Obama loses MI but wins OH, and the race is a toss-up.
I know Obama is cultivating multiple routes to victory, but the correlation between OH and MI is so strong, and together they're so large, that those alternate routes only matter in the 15% chance that MI and OH split.
Lilnev-
Fina analysis, but the problem is it uses Nate's data only. I love this site, but it is untested. More important may be the pollling numbers for each state - and they look good for BO.
I hope he waits to announce VP until the last day of the Olypics. He is nuts if he does it before Phelps finishes swimmig - Phelps owns the news cycle right now.
I laughed at the Starbucks/Walmart ratio as well. Although I wonder, is that just a quick shorthand for a host of demographic factors (like the Economist's "Big Mac Index" for economic factors), or is it genuinely correlated with vote share or PVI?
I live in a small town in a very red district (Steve Buyer) in Indiana. An Obama win in the state does NOT seem preposterous to me. The local organizing does matter -- there are plenty of Democrats who've never felt that their Presidential vote mattered before; the disenchantment with Bush does matter -- Hoosiers value common sense and that virtue is seen as sorely lacking in the current administration, nor does teh current McCain approach evidence much of it; and I know a number of long-time Republican voters who are planning to vote Obama. Hell, I know some who are WORKING/VOLUNTEERING for Obama.
Are there racist parts of the state? Yes. (We had a Ku Klux Klan governor in the 20s and the most famous lynching picture around is from Richmond, IN.) Is it an uphill battle? Yes. Is it impossible? No.
Something I think may being undersold at this point:
Look at the top tier race(s) besides the presidency in all of these lean or toss up states (either Gov or Sen). Incumbents listed first for sake of simplicity, if no incumbent, then the present leader
AK--Stevens v. Begich
CO--Udall v. Schaffer
GA--Chamblis v Martin
IA--Harkin v. Reed
IN--Daniels v Thompson
MI--Levin v. Hoogendyk
MO--Nixon v Hulshof
MT--Schweitzer v Brown, Baucus v. Kelleher
NC--Perdue v McCrory, Dole v Hagen
NM--Udall v Pierce
NH--Lynch v Kenney, Sununu v Shaheen
VA--Warner v Gilmore
Democrats are leading everywhere except GA, IN and the NC senate race (12 out of 15) and in most races outside of the margin of error. Does anyone really think there are THAT many ticket splitters out there?
Obama's greatest strength may well be the coattails of the down ticket offices, not the other way around.
Insider Advantage Virginia:
McCain 43
Obama 43
The headline result is pretty much what you'd expect... but the internals are all crazy:
Obama leads among African-American voters 57-23, and trails among Hispanic voters 35-52. Among white voters he trails by only 47-40, much better than the SUSA poll the other day that had him at 58-37 with whites.
As much as anything, that's probably a good reminder not to place too much weight on the internals in any poll, given what a high margin of error they're subject to!
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/downloads/uploaded/55_InsiderAdvantage%20Majority%20Opinion%20Research%20VA%20Pres%20Poll%20Cross-Tabulations%208%2013%2008.pdf
lilnev;
Michigan and Ohio have split many times in the past and could split again. Obama could win MI and lose OH like a typical democrat. McCain would pick Romney and take MI due to the lack of popular Democrats in that state but lose OH if Obama picks Bayh and OH votes on its economic woes.
I think the model is wrong if it says it is 85% likely that OH and MI vote together.
I think the candidates split these states; real battlegrounds are Colorado and VA.
The Georgia-Russia conflict has showed us that the American people have matured greatly with regards to foreign policy over the last eight years. This is the exact kind of event that Bush and Rove would use to paint democrats as "weak" with their "diplomacy".
You see McCain trying to do the same by using over-the-top language against Russia showing himself as the strong steadfast leader. However, the media's coverage of this as well as the publics reaction seems to be very measured, with an understanding that we are in no position to irritate Russia, and that we need Russia whether we like them or not.
This thoughtful approach of the "Big picture" shows how much the American people have learned under the Bush years about not overreacting, listening to others, and preceding with caution. The American people have learned how costly mistakes can be, and the price we pay for them.
This change on behalf of the American people serves the democrats and in particular Obama very well. Obama likes seeing issues as not black and white but shades of grey needing to be approached with moderation.
While our American values teach us that there is "Right" and "wrong" in the world, out government policies cannot be based solely on that premise. Foreign Policy is complicated. While it is easy to say the Russians are reverting back to their "Cold war" ideals and should be isolated and treated as tyrants, the facts are they are a major player on the world stage with regards to oil, they have great influence over Iran (Which we need), and we are in no position to issue threats with our own military overstretched.
John McCain's tough talk will fall on deaf ears. Even more so, it risks portraying him as the one thing he cannot afford to be, an ideological neo-con when it comes to matters overseas. Even as the bush administration has softened their views the past 12 months, McCain has only hardened his. On this matter McCain may very well be more Bush than Bush. If the American people recognize this, he's finished.
Those crosstabs are insane. There is no way that he wins AfrAmer by that small a margin. We talked about this with another VA poll.
VA appeared to have a very large reverse Bradley effect in the primary. Obama won by 10.5 points more than the RealClearPolitics poll average said he was going to.
I'd also point out that this poll is very small sample size. McCain's large numbers of AfrAmer actually equals 18 people. Small sample sizes can really reak havoc with numbers. Of course, Obama's good numbers with whites are based on a reasonably small sample size as well.
ajbeecroft: Also note that the Insider Advantage VA poll has McCain winning the 18-29 vote 46%-35%, and winning the 65+ by only 43%-37%. McCain winning Republicans 93%-2% is also very suspicious.
Also, the sample size of 416 voters is really tiny. No indication of whether these are RV's, LV's, or just adults.
This poll is close to worthless.
Has anybody read the new Pew National Poll. Obama now down to a 3 point lead.
McCain enjoying eye popping numbers for leadership and experience. These are the numbers that will drive the undecided, and Obama is onthe wrong side.
That said, has anybody seen a good Indiana poll?
Can Obama win if McCain gets Michigan? Sure. There are lots of plausible routes. (Here's one: CO + NV + VA)
Here's another that is looking better all the time : Kerry - MI + CO + IA + NM + NV + MT + 2 of (ND/SD/AK).
Or another : Kerry - MI + IA + FL for a 269-269 tie, or add CO for a straight-up win.
Or Kerry - MI + OH + IA + CO + NM, of course. But I figure we're talking about MI following OH.
If Obama loses MI and NH from Kerry's states, he needs CO/IA/NM/NV and either VA or NC.
Obama will win Virginia. Quote my post.
There are more than 200.000 new voters since January(67% under 30) and the Obama camp works for register 85.000 new voters for the next 2 months.
I wonder why they published such a poll with such wacky results?
McCain enjoying eye popping numbers for leadership and experience. These are the numbers that will drive the undecided
Voters have been reporting for months now that only three issues matter to them : 1. Economy 2. Energy 3. Iraq. Every single issues/priorities/concerns poll mentions these three at the top.
Leadership/Experience or social issues barely register by comparison. It will hardly swing anyone. Obama's winning all three key issues (McCain's making headway on Energy though). You can see where this heads.
If Obama loses Michigan he's done. Sure it's possible he could still win but seriously he's done. Its like McCain needs both Ohio and Florida or he's done. Is it possible for McCain to win without Ohio, sure, anythings possible but we live in reality. MI,PA,OH and FL are must wins for their respective sides.
"That said, has anybody seen a good Indiana poll?"
Indiana prohibits robocalling, so Rasmussen (and others I assume) don't do it. Still, you'd think *somebody* would. Nate's regression is way off from the most recent polls, so it'll be interesting (I'm expecting an actual value of something like M+5 or 6).
new rasmussen KS poll, mccain up 15 down from 20, doesnt really matter though. NV, and VA poll's from him will be released at 5.
McCain is in fact running PLENTY of adds in Indian, so I don't know where he is coming up with "not spending any money" here. As an Indianapolis Hoosier, I can honestly say that Obama has a great chance here. The reason why this state has gone red has less to do with being a republican "strong-hold" and much more to do with democrats feeling disenfranchised. Indiana's election process is skewd to a republican advantage by closing so early, the voter ID law and historically low turnouts. Add that to the fact that NO DEMOCRAT has even tried in decades and you have a situation that exists today.
Voter registration is huge this cycle, Obama has been running tons of adds and the situation over gasoline and inflation is hurting this State. Add that to the loss of our manufacting sector and you have a lot of people that think the republicans hung them out to dry. All Obama has to do is carry Indianapolis, Northwest Indiana, the college towns and factory cities (Ft. Wayne, Anderson, Muncie, Terre Haute) and the elction is his.
Nate,
Hon, you looked marvelous on the Countdown with Keith. Just wanted to drop a note and let you know.
Chow.
icebergslim
McCain is in fact running PLENTY of adds in Indian, so I don't know where he is coming up with "not spending any money" here.
During the Olympics??
Both candidates are running national ads during the Olympics. McCain is (to my knowledge) not running any ads in Indiana outside of his national buys.
I have to ask this question.
Has anyone here ever voted for any presidential candidate because of the content of an ad?
I haven't. I like the one's that are funny but they have never, ever, swayed my vote. For the most part I would prefer not to see any at all because they annoy me, much like socialists.
How about- McCain wins all of the Southern States including FL,VA,and NC. The big three Battleground states MI,OH,and PA.
It will be IA,NM,CO,NV,AK,MT,the Dakotas,IN,and MO.
"Has anybody read the new Pew National Poll. Obama now down to a 3 point lead."
At the risk of being the stereotypical Obama supporter on this site who cherry-picks poll internals to make all polls pro-Obama, here goes:
In July, Pew showed the following:
GOP - McCain led 86-7
Dems - Obama led 81-11
Indys - McCain led 43-42
Overall, Obama led 47-42
In August,
GOP - McCain's lead shrank to 82-10
Dems - Obama's lead grew to 82-9
Indys - Obama overtook McCain, leading 45-41
Add it all together and what do you get? Obama's lead shrank by two points.
Why? Well, the share of Dems in the poll fell from 39.1% to 35.0% and the share of Republicans grew from 28.7% to 32.2%.
"Has anyone here ever voted for any presidential candidate because of the content of an ad?"
Anyone here? Probably not. We're virtually all many, many times more well-informed than the average voter, and it's probably pretty unlikely if more than a couple posters here are undecided at all.
Now, people that just watch American Idol and couldn't identify Iraq on a map? I'm not so sure about them. Stuff like the Harold Ford "Call me" ad, Willie Horton, etc, seem to have had a noticable effect. Outside of situations like that, though, I'd say in most people's minds all political ads just blend together and don't really do all that much.
New Harris national poll just released:
Obama 44
McCain 36
Nader 2
Barr 1
link
Will have a look at the internals soon.
Random observations on said Harris poll:
No likely voter screen; claim they don't know enough about who will vote. Probably a good call, but this might tilt results 2-3 points for Obama.
Two-point gender gap: a lot of national polls I've seen have something like M+2 among men, O+10 among women. This is pretty surprising...would have loved to see a white male breakdown.
High school education is M+4, but <$35k is O+17, $35-50k O+10. Is there some massive pool of high-income people who didn't go to college? Hard to see those numbers adding up.
11% of Independents currently prefer a third party. I think that's the largest I've seen (and another 12% undecided). Means there's a lot of room to break one way or the other.
All in all, the age/race crosstabs look a lot more accurate than many polls we see. Very large sample size.
jack black
McCain enjoying eye popping numbers for leadership and experience. These are the numbers that will drive the undecided, and Obama is onthe wrong side.
Didn't Kerry enjoy eye popping numbers for leadership and experience on this date in 2004, and for final results we should see the Presidential Inauguration of January I No Longer Care About Accurately Lampooning You?
Seriously, you have nothing to say and you keep saying it over and over again (and not in the cool John Cage of way, but rather in the obnoxious Pat Buchanan kind of way).
How sad is your life?
It is amusing watching the McCain troll crow about polls that still show their man losing. They still show their man drawing 42-43% of the vote, which is not enough to win an election. Yet somehow the fact that the poll is not quite as favorable to Obama as the previous one is a sign of impending victory.
"New Harris national poll just released:
Obama 44
McCain 36"
To offset the bias of my review of the Pew internals, I looked at these internals and would have to say that, if anything, this poll is probably biased toward Obama.
To wit:
1) This is an online poll - I'd guess all such polls probably have a pro-Obama bias. (note: this could explain all of my subsequent issues)
2) There's no gender gap at all in this poll. Obama leads among women 47-37 (which seems reasonable) and 48-40 among men, which seems way too pro-Obama.
3) Obama leads across all income levels (they only show 4 breakdowns, but still).
4) Obama leads among independents 44-33. That seems way too high to me.
5) Obama gets 17% of the vote from self-described "conservatives" (McCain gets 8% of the "liberal" vote).
Taken together with the Pew poll, we see an excellent argument for averaging polls as the truth, as in most cases, is likely somewhere in between - say, a 5-6 point Obama lead?
"This is an online poll."
Say no more. Personally, I think that if Nate automatically disregards semi-internal polls, then he should disregard online polls, which are usually seriously out of wack.
Personally, I doubt that Indiana will go blue - but it will certainly be closer than in previous years, and may be a real possibility in 2012 (that's what Obama's 50 state strategy is partly about).
"1) This is an online poll - I'd guess all such polls probably have a pro-Obama bias. (note: this could explain all of my subsequent issues)"
Yep, this explains a lot. Online polls tend to level out the differences between income, gender, etc. for some reason - not sure why. The large sample size is nice, but they don't disclose the margin of error, and they don't give you hard number breakdowns for each category. For example, I was curious to see how many 65+ people responded to an online poll, but that wasn't available. We also don't know how they weighed party affiliation, which is an important piece of info for a poll like this.
So like the Insider Advantage VA poll from earlier, there's not much you can conclude from this one way or another.
Lesson learned: Men who can use a computer are much more likely to vote for a President who can also use a computer. Women and computer agnostic, although their choice of pet may have an effect.
Dear Robby,
You read my post! I'm so glad I could bring comfort and joy into your life. But, it seems to me if my post bothers you that much, how sad is your life? Also, Kerry did not have eye popping numbers in the Pew August Poll 2004, but he has more points than BHO does in the August 2008 poll. Again, for final results, please see Presidential Inauguration January 2005.
PS
I love Pat Buchanan! But who is John Cage?
Wow, I somehow completely missed that it was an online poll.
Yeah, that kinda....somewhat compromises it.
One point that commenters have overlooked in Obama's strategy here is that by putting resources & money in Indiana, he is forcing McCain to play defense here.
I don't think it's seriously disputed that Obama will carry the same states that Kerry did 4 years ago; recent polling shows that he will likely carry Iowa & NM, which brings him to 265 EV, 5 away from winning the election. And there are many states that are iffy for McCain to hold onto -- NV, MT, ND, CO, MO, OH & VA -- all of which he has to defend. Increasing this number by working states like IN & FL only forces McCain further on the defense.
And McCain is fighting these offenses in the most expensive manner possible: buying media time. Which doesn't make much sense, since Obama is raising more money than McCain is.
There's a feedback loop here, & it doesn't favor McCain.
Geoff
this might interest you guys. it's obama's blueprint for winning North Carolina. 19-page powerpoint presentation.
http://projects.newsobserver.com/sites/projects.newsobserver.com/files/obama-blueprint.pdf
ajbeecroft: "Also note that the Insider Advantage VA poll has McCain winning the 18-29 vote 46%-35%, and winning the 65+ by only 43%-37%. McCain winning Republicans 93%-2% is also very suspicious.
Tomthress:"Has anybody read the new Pew National Poll. Obama now down to a 3 point lead."
Why? Well, the share of Dems in the poll fell from 39.1% to 35.0% and the share of Republicans grew from 28.7% to 32.2%."
More screwy polls. We know what the Voter ID really is because Rasmussen measures it constantly. And Republican voter ID hasn't moved off of 31% for almost a year now. McCain's numbers and the Dem. Voter ID go up and down, but the # of Republicans stays very constant.
Right now, Rasmussen estimates Democratic voter ID for August at 40.6%, exactly a 9% lead.
"For the month of August, the targets are 40.6% Democrat, 31.6% Republican, and 27.8% unaffiliated. For July, the targets were 41.4% Democrat, 31.5% Republican, and 27.1% unaffiliated."
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/
politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_
election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Since Rasmussen measures this on a daily basis, it's much more likely to be accurate. Voter ID is generally pretty stable during a campaign. It might go up or down a few points over a period of a 3 or 4 months, but not swing wildly, if it's measured properly.
In 2004, Rasmussen measured Republican voter ID at 34% and it went up to 37%, matching Democratic voter ID, over the last 3 months of the campaign.
In 2000, Democratic voter ID was around 39% which is what about what it is now.
After 9-11, it went down for a while, which impacted the 2002 and 2004 elections, but by 2006 it was back up again, and Republican voter ID was depressed by voter dislike and hatred of Bush.
The pew poll was started in July during the height of the Paris/Britney hype, as well as the race card stuff. Obama's numbers took a slight dive during that time.
Nate,
In Ohio, 3 of the 4 remaining polls showing McCain ahead are by Rasmussen. In fact, their polls have all gone to McCain, at least the ones still showing.
Any thoughts as to why? Do they have different party ID stats than the other pollsters?
"And McCain is fighting these offenses in the most expensive manner possible: buying media time. Which doesn't make much sense, since Obama is raising more money than McCain is."
To be fair, McCain has to spend all his primary money before the convention, at which point he gets his federal funds. So he might as well fight in the most expensive manner possible. Though I don't really think it's the most effective one.
Has anybody read the new Pew National Poll. Obama now down to a 3 point lead.
McCain enjoying eye popping numbers for leadership and experience. These are the numbers that will drive the undecided, and Obama is onthe wrong side.
How is being down to a 3 point lead that big a story?
His average is 4.6. That average has been pretty consistent. With an average like that, you'll see some 3s and also some 6s.
The Repub. talking points on this board seem to be every McCain friendly poll is a sign of clear change. Every Obama friendly poll is an outlier. Its getting annoying.
As for undecideds, did you just make that up or do you have some legitimate reason for how they are likely to break?
I would point out that the vast majority of undecideds remaining disapprove of the Bush administration and that Obama has been winning Bush disapprovers 3-1.
jack black: I find the "who is better at" questions in polls nearly meaningless. If voters felt McCain would be the best foreign policy President ever and that an Obama Presidency would end with us as a province of Switzerland, that would be important. If they think there's a sliver of difference, then not so much. The political point of Obama's trip overseas, for instance, was not to convince undecideds that he was better than McCain on foreign policy so much as that he wasn't a lot worse. The same goes for the categories where Obama leads, by the way. McCain doesn't need to convince undecideds that Obama is more or a "typical politician" than he is; he just has to make Obama's "new kind of politics" seem like not such a big deal.
I'll follow tomthress' lead and cherry-pick a couple of internals from the Pew poll to show that it's not all bad for Obama:
Gained 5 points among people 65 and older; McCain only gained 2. I've noticed this trend in a lot of polls lately.
Gained 4 point among white, non-Hispanic Catholics; McCain lost 1.
Gained 2 points in the Midwest; McCain stayed even.
Lost 5 points among whites in the South; McCain gained 7.
That set, combined with the independent number tomthress mentioned, is almost stereotypically the recipe for winning traditional battleground states.
I'm not saying this was a good poll for Obama. Frankly, I'd say it's mostly noise, and should just be averaged with everything else. But it wasn't a particularly bad poll for him either.
Barack Obama has been right on every recent international issue and yet voters perceive him as weak on foreign policy. That's a problem. Voters are assuming that he's weak, and since American voters know nothing about foreign policies, they're convinced he's wrong, despite that both Bush and McCain have been following Obama. So Obama will have to change the image, and he needs to do that by a foreign-policy VP pick, like Clark, Biden or Hagel. I say Clark.
And McCain is fighting these offenses in the most expensive manner possible: buying media time. Which doesn't make much sense, since Obama is raising more money than McCain is.
There has been a lot of talk about ground offices vs. air time.
I think people really need to remember that to a certain extent, you need to play the hand your dealt.
Deploying volunteers is far more effective if you have the volunteers. If McCain had tens of thousands of volunteers to deploy, he would. Obama has an advantage in volunteers. He's maximizing that advantage. Since he can't make volunteers appear out of thin air, McCain is doing the only thing that he can.
"Barack Obama has been right on every recent international issue and yet voters perceive him as weak on foreign policy."
Two things here:
Is there any evidence voters actually perceive him as *weak*? I'm assuming you're going off the Rasmussen polls here asking who's better at foreign policy. That doesn't necessarily mean they think he's incapable, just that McCain would be a bit better. That's not necessarily a huge downside, because:
Foreign policy just isn't important this election, or at least much less so than the last one. The economy and energy are by far the biggest issues, and I somewhat doubt Georgia is going to change that. So, regardless of what voters think about a candidate's foreign policy credentials, if that's not a high priority for them then it's just not going to influence their vote.
Another way he could change his "weak on foreign policy" image is to speak up about it.
Hammer it home. Repeat, over and over, the many times he's been right and they've been wrong. The many times they've come around to his way of seeing/doing things after screwing it up their way. The reality is, Obama is so much better on foreign policy than McCain, it's scary. Literally, scary. They should sink McCain the way they sunk Goldwater, with a "daisy" type ad blitz. The truth is, McCain is frighteningly incompetent on foreign policy.
Jack, you're a troll; you really have no bearing on anyone's life. But you post anyway, so...I guess, good for you?
As for John Cage, have you never heard of Google? Senator McCain just figured it out; maybe he can give you pointers.
"Barack Obama has been right on every recent international issue and yet voters perceive him as weak on foreign policy. That's a problem. Voters are assuming that he's weak, and since American voters know nothing about foreign policies, they're convinced he's wrong, despite that both Bush and McCain have been following Obama."
I'm not sure this is true. As we talked about earlier, there's no evidence that the Russia/Georgia conflict has hurt Obama in the polls. His tracker numbers are actually up around 3 points or so in both Ras and Gallup since that conflict started (although that also coincides precisely with the Olympics, so I'd probably be just as reluctant to say that the Russia/Georgia conflict is the reason for this improvement).
Rasmussen also released their monthly survey of which party Americans trust more on key issues: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues
The first sentence, "This month, voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on nine out of ten issues, including National Security." Dems win on Natl Security/War on Terror 48-44. That doesn't necessarily translate directly into trusting Obama, but at this point, he's pretty much the face of the Democratic party, so I'd have to think there's a pretty strong correlation.
Also, I think Adam's got a point that it really is the economy, stupid, again this election.
Just wanted to echo the comments of some of the other Indianans who've posted here. I've lived in South Bend for 8 years, and I think Obama does have a serious chance here. Like an earlier poster said, Indianans value common sense more than ideology, and this administration (and the Republican congress up until 2006) has seemed very heavy on the latter and very light on the former. Many Hoosiers, even quite conservative ones, thought that the Republicans needed a good hard kick in the pants in 2006 (hence three congressional districts that flipped), and many still feel this way now. If McCain looks similar enough to Bush, I think it really hurts him here.
There are also some local issues, at least in the north of the state, where the lease of the Toll Road, and the switch to Daylight Savings time were both very unpopular, and are seen as the work of the Republican party. (When Chocola, the Republican who was ousted in our district in '06, was campaigning, he actually found himself forced to point out that both of these policies were state issues and things he hadn't voted for, as a US congressman. People still wanted him to answer for them.)
One other point that I'd add, since you mention the gas tax as an issue: Indiana actually experimented with a gas tax holiday on a statewide level several years ago and it was a disaster. Because of lost revenue, they ran through what had once been a surplus, without any serious effect on the price of gas. So Indianans (at least, those whose memory goes back far enough) are somewhat inoculated against gas-tax demagoguery. (Apparently no one on Hillary Clinton's staff knew this, when she made that pitch during our primary.) So although Indianans are very unhappy about gas prices, a simple appeal to lower the taxes may not play as well here as it might elsewhere.
Regards,
Beren
Congrats you guys.
Just heard on Fox that it looks like Colin Powell with endorse Obama and speak at the Dem convention in Denver.
This is very big for you guys and could very well turn things big for you.
Again Good Job. This is bad for McCain.
Regarding the Virginia poll, I don't really believe that 23% of black voters in the state are going to vote for McCain. We need some more polls in Virginia.
Thanks, Nate. This is a very good series to be running "in the background" for the remainder of the pre-election period.
Do you have any specific plans to cover the Conventions? I know there's no mysterious "delegate count predictions" an so forth to do, but would look forward to your coverage. P.S. Will you be there at the two conventions to play it "live"? It would be neat if you could "live-blog" the conventions.
McCain is a relic. He's got this America the true hope of the world foreign policy where we can do almost anything we want in the name of righteousness. Thats the same stupid thinking that Bush believed in.
There is right and wrong, but foreign policy is much more complicated than that. The American people give McCain a big lead on foreign policy experience, but do they actually listen to what he stands for?
He's more hawkish than Bush. A McCain Presidency would be dangerous for the US as well as the planet. We could be at war with Russia, and Iran before he's done. Can you say "Draft"?
Wow, Obama got Powell. Instant credibility.
"Just heard on Fox that it looks like Colin Powell with endorse Obama and speak at the Dem convention in Denver.
This is very big for you guys and could very well turn things big for you."
Yeah, if true, this could be a pretty big deal. A couple lifetime Republicans in my office mentioned last week Powell is the only man they'd really like to see as president. Pretty similar to Zell Miller in '04.
Rasmussen Poll of Nevada:
McCain up 3: 48-45 w/ leaners, 45-42 without.
Another big concern for Obama, his favorables in the state are only 47% (v. 58% for McCain). If that's accurate, Nevada may be unwinnable - how many people are going to vote for somebody they have an unfavorable view of over somebody for whom they have a favorable view.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election
It's not clear anybody here knows much about Indiana. Some considerations, not yet mentioned.
1. The key to winning Indiana comes down to St. Joseph & Elkhart counties.(SouthBend/Mishawaka/Elkhart)
People mistakenly think of South Bend as just a college town so simply a source of African American voters. But South Bend's relationship to Notre Dame is really far more complex and its African American's are just one of many "ethnics". See below.
2a. South Bend is not a Chicago extension but is its own metropolitan region, aka "Michiana".
2b. Someone suugested that parts of IN would get MI tele market. But really it's the other way around central southern MI is part of the SB market. The area is known as "Michiana". People live in MI and commute to SB/Notre Dame. Its a counter weight to Grand Rapids.
3. It is heavily Democratic locally, but crosses over in national (and state wide) elections starting with Reagan. Its no coincidence that it has the kind of classic Reagan "ethnic, mostly catholic" Democrat demographic profile: There are actually distinct Polish, Italian, Hungarian, Belgian, Mexican (since 80s) and African American neighborhoods in SB and Mishawaka, as well as Suburban. Elkhart County has 12% Mexican American.
Obama can only win in IN if he wins these counties. Notre Dame is only part of puzzle, necessary but not sufficient - it can supply the organizational man-power, but ultimately the county is one because of what happens outside the campus, because the school is not that big in terms of numbers.
4. One might also want to look at the demographics of Vigo County, IN because it is one of those national bell-weather counties. There are also a couple in DE and MO. This is part statistical fluke and part that those places have "average" demographics.
Rasmussen Reports 5:00pm Polls
These are the leaner numbers, since that is what RCP and 538 use. VA is Obama +1 before leaners.
Nevada:
McCain: 48%
Obama: 45%
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election
Virginia:
McCain: 48%
Obama: 47%
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/election_2008_virginia_presidential_election
Rasmussen Poll out on Nevada and Virginia. McCain up 3 in Nevada and up 1 in Virginia.
Also, great for Obama with Powell, but McCain does have the 2000 Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate. Looks like each has an A in their hands.
Fox is indeed running the story that Powell is going to endorse Obama, but the statement is attributed to Bill Kristol, and I'm hesitant to take ANYTHING he says at face value, even if it is potentially good for my preferred candidate (as someone astutely mentioned elsewhere, think 13th stroke).
CNN hasn't picked it up yet, nor has MSNBC, but I don't if that's because they're waiting for confirmation or if Kristol leaked it to just his employer and not their competitors.
As a side note, I wonder how powerful a Powell endorsement would be. Yes, it would assuage moderates and independents of Obama's foreign policy bona fides, but after Powell's contemptible U.N address on Iraqi WMD "programs," the Powell name is not as venerated as it once was in many quarters.
Further, the optics of it aren't great; this could be easily spun as "yet another black guy supporting the black candidate," a charge that would be difficult to contradict.
On the other hand, Powell supporting McCain would make headlines could possibly dominate a news cycle. So, I suppose this is better than the alternative, just...not as salubrious as our resident GOP trolls might fear.
As for Lieberman, he's a low value endorsement; he stomped out of the Democratic Party toys in hand, he probably won't be in the Democratic Senate Caucus in 2009, and his own state doesn't even like him right now.
Oh well; that's what they get for voting Republican-lite when a real Democrat was in the race.
Jack, if you are referring to either Lieberman or Powell as "A"'s in the context of the VP role, I'd say you are gravely mistaken.
Lieberman is the worst possible VP for McCain in terms of electoral help- just ask VC
Good news from NV and VA...
NV
McCain 48-45
VA
McCain 48-47
Thats from Rasmussen w/leaners.
Interesting polls out today from Ras.
The fact that McCain cannot move into a lead in VA is worrisome, but some of that is deflected by the fact that leaners in the poll break for him 3 to 1 and he winds up outpolling Obama. I think that pattern will prevail on Election Day, if the race remains close.
The NV poll shows a small McCain lead, but here leaners break 1 for 1. I think McCain can take comfort that he is not been blown out in the West.
The PA poll from Franklin & Marshall has the race surprisingly close, with O up 5%. Lots of interesting stuff to chew over in it. What caught my eye was that their sample had 50% Dems and 38% Reps and 10% Inds. Doesn't seem right to me: too few Indies, but PA may be that kind of state.
Stop the stutter
Nevada now has a five point dem registration edge. Enjoy the pre-season numbers while you can.
Also, great for Obama with Powell, but McCain does have the 2000 Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate. Looks like each has an A in their hands.
I think Powell is a much better get for Obama than Lieberman is for McCain. Powell remains very popular with Republicans while Lieberman isn't that popular anymore with Democrats. I think Powell has more of a pull with moderates as well.
I'd also point out the subtle way this helps. Powell was vocal in defending Obama during the Rev Wright ordeal. If this story comes up again (and we all know it will), expect Powell to be the number one surrogate on defending Obama. I don't think anybody on the Republican side wants to be debating racial issues against Colin Powell.
Bad news in Nevada and Virginia. I wish Rasmussen gave the crosstabs on Vegas area vs everywhere else. Thats what I'm curious about.
In both NV and VA...Obama has a relatively poor favorability rating. IMO he may have reached his ceiling there. Obama's "celebrity" can only take him so far. He needs McCain to screw up in order to win these two states. VERY big polls for McCain. Now he only needs to hold onto his lead in OH, and take one of these three states: CO, MI, or NH...I'll even throw in a longer shot that is still very possible for him...IA.
I think things may start falling into place for McCain. The only thing worrisome for him should be the direction of the national poll for the last week..
But even with party IDs so heavily tilted in the Dem's favor, they STILL can't shake free to a decent lead...
Imagine what could happen if the Republicans start coming back...
I like Rob Portman for McCain's Veep, but could live with Lieberman. I am not putting any litmos test on McCain. Maybe NOBAMA should be my mantra.
I read Dick Morris' column about Lieberman as VP. he likes the idea as it will dramatically demonstrate how post-partisan McCain really is.
Still, I wonder if he would not attract enmity from the base and what the ultimate impact of that would be.
If McCain picks him it may be b/c he sees himself hopelesly behind. The campaign's internal polls prefigure things in a way that the media polls do not. A Lieberman pick would suggest that McCain really feels he needs to shake things up to win.
I don't think he does. I think the race is moving in a decent direction for him now.
The interesting thing about Mccain is that he might just pick Lieberman b/c he wants to, not b/c he has to!
"The fact that McCain cannot move into a lead in VA is worrisome, but some of that is deflected by the fact that leaners in the poll break for him 3 to 1 and he winds up outpolling Obama. I think that pattern will prevail on Election Day, if the race remains close."
Leaners actually break 4-2 for McCain, but your point is well taken.
If this poll is to be believed, I think that Virginia is going to be a good bit more difficult for Obama to win than some might like to believe. Obama's favorables/unfavorables in Virginia are 51/47 while McCain's favorables are at 61%. If these are accurate and don't change much, Obama's got a very narrow window in which to win - basically, he's got to get nearly all of his favorables to vote for him to offset his high unfavorables. On the other hand, McCain's numbers without leaners are lower than Obama's unfavorables, so some of these voters may not be locked into their unfavorable view of Obama (and/or may simply have unfavorable views of both candidates) and may still be persuadable by Obama.
We are all mostly shooting in the dark with Indiana. Other than a few in-house partisan surveys, the last real presidential polls were released in June (and one of those by Zogby).
Still, even without any polling data I would guesstimate that Evan Bayh's nomination as vice president would add 2 to 4 points in the final vote for Obama and give him the state's 11 EVs. While Kerry was losing Indiana by 21 points and all but 4 of its counties in 2004, Bayh was being reelected to the Senate with 62% of the vote. Bayh's elevation might also help tighten the race for governor.
Fox is indeed running the story that Powell is going to endorse Obama, but the statement is attributed to Bill Kristol, and I'm hesitant to take ANYTHING he says at face value
Well said Robby. Bill Kristol couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a map; he also has a fair history of lying outright. He might well have heard something from a Powell associate (if so, a great scoop) but I'll wait to hear it from someone trustworthy.
In comment about the Powell-Lieberman comparison.
No real comparison there because democrats hate Lieberman because they only care about the "D" and republicans tend to prop him up as a battle standard but still see him as a traitor to his party.
I like Colin Powell, always have and always will, no matter what. In my eyes, he too is a war hero and deserves nothing but respect.
"I read Dick Morris' column about Lieberman as VP. he likes the idea as it will dramatically demonstrate how post-partisan McCain really is."
While he may pick Lieberman, I really don't think it'd be for this reason. Lieberman has very obviously morphed into a neocon in the last few years. He got elected pretty much entirely off the votes of Republicans (like 75/15 I think?) and his approval ratings are dreadful for a sitting senator. Plus, nothing McCain could possibly do would rile up the Democratic base like selecting possibly the most hated person in the netroots. Not sure what he'd bring to the ticket other than help with old Jewish voters in Florida and being an excellent attack dog.
If these are accurate and don't change much, Obama's got a very narrow window in which to win
True... those numbers are changeable though. McCain's favorables are likely to go lower, in my view, as his smear tactics draw more and more opposition.
Here's my projections for the Electoral College here in August. I know the liberals won't like it since it's closer than most sites, but I did give you the benefit of the doubt in two swing states of PA and NM. I gave McCain MO because he looks to be doing strong there.
CO-OH-NV-MI-NH-VA are the 6 true battlegrounds from what I see here in August. IA-NM-PA are awful close to moving into the battleground after the Convention. Many polls show Obama's big leads in the midwest starting to fall apart, although I expect Obama to win those three state I mentioned.
CLICK FOR MY:
August Electoral College Projections
Further, the optics of it aren't great; this could be easily spun as "yet another black guy supporting the black candidate," a charge that would be difficult to contradict.
I can't disagree more. Most blacks feel that the Republican party is intrinsically racist. A number of moderate whites have asked themselves that question. I suspect a few Republicans have some self doubt on a couple of things they tried. For years, Colin Powell has been the Republican political answer to "some of my best friends are black".
When they try to reraise the Rev Wright issue (and we all know they will), it is going to really hurt their optics to have Colin Powell standing on the other side calling foul.
Putting money into Florida and Indiana makes sense in that it forces McCain to play an expensive defense. But, I'm not betting the farm or the gate to the farm that Obama will carry either and I hope that the candidate and his major surrogates aren't going to spend a lot of time there other than the minimum required to keep the Field motivated and McCain honest.
My mantra remains. Protect MI, NH and PA. Pick up IA, CO and NM. Pack the moving van.
I feel that IA, CO and NM represent our best chance of winning this thing. If we can't carry them, then we're not going to carry FL, IN, OH or VA, let alone GA or NC.
Unless something happens to suggest that Obama can break away, this is going to be a slog all the way to Election Day and we'd better be slogging in the right places or we're gonna get our proverbials handed to us...
I like Colin Powell, always have and always will, no matter what. In my eyes, he too is a war hero and deserves nothing but respect.
A lot of Democrats agree there, even despite Powell's despicable role as a Bush lackey in the buildup to the Iraq War. Powell would be an asset to the Obama campaign if he could be persuaded to come aboard as an official adviser.
Lieberman has very obviously morphed into a neocon in the last few years.
Only in terms of foreign policy issues, and there really only in terms of Iraq and Israel. Otherwise he's a centrist Democrat in terms of his voting patterns. He's reviled by the Republican base, for good reason. I'd love it if McCain picked him - it would tear the Republican party apart.
"Putting money into Florida and Indiana makes sense in that it forces McCain to play an expensive defense."
Well, you'd think so. But McCain has 0 offices in Indiana and isn't planning to open any, and I highly doubt there'll be any advertising either. He's basically assuming if it goes blue he's losing big anyway, which may well be true. Florida's a different case I think, which is why he's spending a lot of money there.
(finishing my comment above...got cut somehow...)
I take the view, contrarian out here I know, that state polls are virtually meaningless until the middle of September, so I'm not worried or elated at this point by polls that show PA or VA trending respectively towards McCain and Obama. The fundamental contours of this race, as they will impact undecided, soft and swing voters state by state, have yet to materialize and won't until after the conventions.
I tend to agree with you about it tearing the GOP apart.
The base would go off the edge revolt and I don't believe enough independents would follow the ticket to result in victory.
I really hate the extreme left and extreme right.
Gee... can't we all just get along? lol too funny
Regarding the polls in VA and NV:
Looking at the polling estimates (rather than just the one poll that cherry pickers select) and factoring the 2 new polls, in both states Obama is running ahead of Kerry in terms of the two-party split - about 1.5% in NV and about 7% in VA. If Mcain is forced to play defense like that he is likely going to lose some Bush states as it stands now (notably IA, NM and CO - yes CO is close but Obama is ahead) and go down. As the current averages suggest, Obama is up in Ohio - and he might not even need it.
The betting odds suggest that those who pay attention to these things believe that Obama will win.
Speaking of Alaska being in play:
http://www.adn.com/election/story/492122.html
It's funny like the trolls republicans are happy than McCain lead by 3 and 1 in NV and VA.
These states are a must win for him, not for Obama.
If McCain has 1, 2 or 3 points lead before the election in Virginia, Obama will win the state. Quote my post.
Adam wrote: "McCain has 0 offices in Indiana and isn't planning to open any, and I highly doubt there'll be any advertising either. He's basically assuming if it goes blue he's losing big anyway, which may well be true."
I didn't know that about McCain in Indiana. It sounds almost like a page from the Mark Penn "This'll be over on Feb 5" playbook. Scary if you're a Republican. Good news for us. Thanks.
For those who command of the English language is overrated, "bias" is a noun, and "biased" is the adjective.
A poll can either be biased or reflect bias, but a poll cannot be bias.
Not to pick on any individual poster - I have seen this mistake all over the sites I visit and, as someone who is anal-compulsive about word usage and grammar, I was annoyed and just scratched that particular itch. (Given my ineptitude at proofreading and poor data entry skills, I can hardly complain about typos).
There, the itch is gone.
As of last night, the state that Nate's current snapshot and November projection looked most off the wall to me was Nevada, which he had Obama winning today or in November -- even though the polling has favored McCain for some time. Nate's demographic regression for the state needs tweaking.
Today's Rasmussen finding that McCain leads in NV by 3 confirms my suspicions.
It'll be interesting to see what the new poll does to Nate's snapshot and projection for NV.
I see the race breaking the way Stopthestutter does. Once McCain locks up VA and NV he need take only one of CO, NM or IO (on my map NH only gives him a tie, which I believe gives BO the WH).
Thomthress is right too to watch BO's negatives in some of these supposedly close states. Something lurking there. The Effect that dare not speak its name?
ALERT ALERT
BIG O polls at 40% and 37% with whites in VA according to recent Insider Advantage and SUSA respectively!!!
Kerry won 32% of the white vote.
5% white swing to Obama will be enough to give him the state W won by 9%
Same polls have McCain doing well with blacks (~14%) which will not happen in real life.
These polls exclude altered demographics from recent registration drive which will yield 300,000 new voters (2:1) for OBAMA.
The old Dominion falls!!!
VA GOP = PANIC
If Obama picks Sebelius, will that help with the Hillary older women crowd? I would like some feedback from one of her supporters who's on the fence about Obama.
As a center left democrat, I love Colin Powell. I hope the guy endorses obama.
Second, Indiana is a long shot thats unrealistic unless Byhe is on the ticket.
Third, Nevada isn't New Mexico. Its redder and will be a tough climb for Obama.
Fourth, all the latest polling suggests Obama has a 3-4 point lead nationally. This is the same margin most experts believe Obama will win by.
Pete, I think it will be Colorado but all of them would be okay with me.
Pete said:
"Once McCain locks up VA and NV he need take only one of CO, NM or IO (on my map NH only gives him a tie, which I believe gives BO the WH)."
You have the numbers correct. I think you're looking at it a bit simplistically though. It's pretty unlikely, even if McCain wins the election, that he can "lock up" VA at all. Obama has 36% Very Favorable there; that's massive. Those are dedicated supporters who'll be registering and doing GOTV.
I find it very likely VA's going to end up within 2 points either way, and I think even most of the Republicans here agree. And even winning VA, McCain still has to take one of those states you listed that are now around O+5. Not the easiest task (and that involves holding OH and every other swing state), but it is a path to victory.
Correction, Colorado is O+2, not O+5. You're right, that's his most likely victory map.
Judas_Priest wrote: "The betting odds suggest that those who pay attention to these things believe that Obama will win."
Yes. I track a published average of 17 Bookies' odds as well as Intrade everyday. They've both got the P of an Obama victory in the 62--66% range. This is, of course, a distillation of the CW and not privileged knowledge, but it's noteworthy nonetheless.
It ain't over by any means but the next six weeks are crunch time for McCain. The numbers will either move him off the schneid by the third week of September or he's toast, barring an exogenous event. If soft/undecided/swing voters watch the debate at the end of that week (on 9/26) and decide, as they did with Reagan in 1980, that Obama belongs on the same stage with the other guy, it will be over for Johnny Mac, even if it's close the rest of the way. But, it ain't over yet and we shouldn't forget that.
I would see "36% Very Favorable" as just being the democrat base in the state... why would you think it's drooling at the mouth, rabid Obama supporters willing to sell their children for votes?
"I would see "36% Very Favorable" as just being the democrat base in the state... why would you think it's drooling at the mouth, rabid Obama supporters willing to sell their children for votes?"
I didn't say that. I said the 36% was noticably higher than most other states (much more Democratic Oregon and Iowa had 33 and 30). That means more people in VA are enthusiastic supporters instead of people that are going to vote and do nothing else. Enthusiastic supporters are more likely to donate and volunteer. So, even if McCain wins VA, it's fairly unlikely he'll ever open up a noticable lead there with such a large enthusiastic Democratic base. That's all I was saying. The state's still a pure tossup.
Two things:
1. The VA poll is good news for Obama. VA is the Republicans PA. If Obama wins VA, it's over. If McCain wins PA, it's over. How do you think the McCain camp would react to not just one poll, but a series of polls that showed him in a dead heat in PA over a period of a couple of months? In reality, he's trailing outside the MOE in PA, while Obama is in a stat dead heat in VA.
2. Don't be surprised if the slime ball Bill Kristol put the Powell story out as a ruse. I wouldn't put it past a Fox News Journalist to compromise journalistic integrety for political gamesmanship.
Sometimes in reading comments out here I wonder how much people know about the "swing states" that are under discussion, other than as numbers in pollsters' reports or blogs. I've been following Dem Presidential politics for a long time, including on the Trail/Plane, and I get nervous when people are talking at this stage about Obama "locking up" a state like VA. There's always that kind of talk at this time in August and we're always sure it's going to be different this time.
Don't get me wrong, it might indeed turn out to be different this year, but I'd be nervous about building a victory scenario for Obama around what polls are saying in VA in August.
"Don't get me wrong, it might indeed turn out to be different this year, but I'd be nervous about building a victory scenario for Obama around what polls are saying in VA in August."
I don't think anyone was talking about Obama locking up VA. In fact, I just said a few posts up it's very likely to finish within two points either way.
What we are talking about, though, is that Obama has a ton of winning maps, while McCain has very few. Kerry+IA/CO/NM is a win, and he's up in all of those. Same with IA/CO/NV. Now, those fairly likely scenarios aside, if he wins Kerry+IA (which he should) then a win pretty much anywhere else, like OH, VA, NC, FL, IN puts him in extremely good shape. That's why the 50-state strategy is such a better idea than the campaigns Gore and Kerry ran, and why people do think it's going to be different this time. It might not be, but the odds are a lot better at least.
Peter Kent says:
I see the race breaking the way Stopthestutter does. Once McCain locks up VA and NV he need take only one of CO, NM or IO (on my map NH only gives him a tie, which I believe gives BO the WH)
If McCain can't win MI or Pa, he 's in trouble. VA,NV and OH are toss ups, CO and NH are leaning Obama. This is a scary McCain map. If these dynamics do not chance, Barack Obama is POTUS.
JohnNYC -
You hit the nail on the head. The Obots are giddy with excite over August polls in traditional Red states while this race is a pure jump ball as we move into the conventions. Thanks for the reality check. A much bigger question is why BO can't develop any breathing room when generic GOP is getting trounced by generic Dem in this election cycle. My $$$ says Obama can't close the deal (see latest Pew results) and will lose this election. FL, VA, NEV, MT, IN, and all the other "but if" states the Obots offer up as "might flip to Blue" will slowly fall away from BO's grasp as we move into Oct.
Electoral-Vote.com
August 13, 2004:
Kerry: 327
Bush: 211
August 13, 2008:
Obama: 289
McCain: 249
about to be 285-254 after Nevada is factored into play.
This site was 1 electoral vote off in 2004 when it came to Election Day. It's not as good as 538 because it's just polling averages, but it gives you an idea of how polls show it right now.
Am I worried as a Republican? Hell No. Americans have two completely different choices, and in the end, if it comes down to Ohio, I doubt Obama can do it with so many HRC voters refusing to back him. Don't believe me, the most liberal people in my area aren't going to back Obama this year, they are backing McCain!
Great idea do all 50 states Nate, even though you should probably do an 18 state strategy lol. Indiana will be the first state to come out with a winner, and if it says "The results have come in and Barack Obama has won Indiana" this will be an electoral landslide, bank on that.
Continue to Spread the Word!!!
"Don't believe me, the most liberal people in my area aren't going to back Obama this year, they are backing McCain!"
Come on troll, that is just stoopid talk. Do you really want us to take your talking points seriously ? LOL
Even though Virginia is a toss-up, the atmospherics in that state seem in obama's favor. Warner will be the keynote speaker at the convention and will win in a landslide. The Governor is a huge Obama supporter and maybe on the ticket. The state is young, educated and has thrived under democratic leadership. The democrats in the state BELIEVE they can win it.
Obama is symbolized by three states, Iowa, Virginia and Colorado. Iowa is in the bag, they've adopted Obama as a native son, Colorado symbolizes the democratic growth in the West, and Virginia is ground Obama marked in the primaries where he destroyed Hillary. He outperformed polls by 10-15 points. An Obama victory in VA destroys the electoral college for McCain and the democrats in Virginia know it. This state has been blossoming the last decade with democratic leadership and it's about to arrive in prime time as thee swing state in the election. welcome to the party Virginia.
I have lived and worked some one-ane-a-half year in Georgia during the late 1990s, and returned there last autumn for a shorter mission. Over the last days, I have tried to figure out what really happened there, and must say that I am still somehow puzzled.
Let's start with a few observations from my trip there last autumn:
1. The Saakashvili government has in general done a quite impressive job in eradicating bureaucracy and corruption, and revitalizing the Georgian economy, reaching economic growth rates of more than 10%. Most of the officials I talked to (upper middle level - Head of Section, Vice Minister, Governor, MPs etc.) were relatively young and unexperienced, but well educated, open-minded and in general having a good idea of the situation and of ways to go forward. A strong contrast to the geriocratic, stagnating Shewardnadse period.
[http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/Georgia_Brief-Report-PWE_Zwischenevalu-2007.pdf]
2. The Saarkashvili government was, in spite of some flaws, generally well respected by the population, and I have no doubt that the 57% vote share he received in last year's election mirrored the actual mood of the electorate. While there were some signs of eroding public support, mainly due to the fact that economic growth had not yet reached down to the majority of the population, the dominant mood was optimistic, forward-looking and self-confident.
3. I noted some 'revanchist' feeling of "getting our lands back", which, however, was mainly geared towards re-occupying Abkhazia, at least the southern part of it, which always had been mostly settled by ethnic Georgians, and been subject to ethnic cleansing by the Abkhazians in the 1990s (some 200,000 internally displaced Georgians, of a total Georgian population of slightly less than 5 million).
4. As concerns South Ossetia, the mood was rather relaxed. There had hardly been displacements, i.e. some 20,000 ethnic Georgians lived alongside with some 70,000 Ossetians on the territory. The situation was described to me as "people have learnt again to live alongside each other, inviting each other to parties etc." I observed a steady stream of Georgain cars and trucks leaving the main motorway outside Gori northwards to South Ossetia, indicating a well functionning petty trade. Concerns were rather about issues like smuggling, tax evasion etc.
So, when the crisis started, I became really irritated: First of all, it was the wrong target (Abkhazia might have made sense from a Georgian domestic policy perspective, but not South Ossetia). Secondly, the Georgian re-occupation attempt was unbelievably stupid, and contrasted sharply with the intelligent policies I had seen being carried out there during the last year.
So, my first thought was that the whole thing had been set up by the Russians (I have witnessed similar events, including a staged coup attempt designed to get back Western support to the Shewardnadse government, in 1998, and if Shewardnadse, as former KGB head, knew how to stage such things, Putin, as former KGB deputy, knows as well).
However, that does not make sense for a number of reasons:
1. The last thing Russia wants is opning the "Pandora's Box" of small Caucasian territories declaring independence. It would lend legitimacy to Czechen independence claims, and probably motivate a number of other South Russian rebublics such as Dagestan to ask for independence as well.
2. Russia's main geopolitical interest in the region is control over oil transit from the Caspian Sea. Out of the four main transit routes to the Black Sea / Mediterranean, three (2 pipelines, plus the Baku-Poti railway) run through Georgia. With South Ossetia and/or Abkhazia becoming independent, Russia loses political leverage on Georgia. In other words: The status quo before the South Ossetia conflict was exactly what Russia wanted.
3. If the whole thing was set up by Russia, they wouldn't have started it at a day when Putin was in China for the Olympic opening ceremony, while Medvedev took vacations at the upper Volga.
4. As it appears, part of the EU-Russian deal last month that kept Georgia and Ukraine out of NATO was Putin's commitment to support the gradual re-integration of South Ossetia and Abkhazia into Georgia under a semi-autonomous status. As a first, symbolic step towards this commitment, before the upcoming meeting between Merkel and Medvedew, Russia last week withdrew some of its troops from Abkhazia (to send them back over the weekend). You don't do this when you plan an attack. Furthermore - say what you want about Putin - I don't think he is the kind of guy that is flip-flopping within the course of less than one months on international commitments, even if they were only semi-official.
[Check out http://www.delgeo.ec.europa.eu/en/index.html on the pre-conflict EU approach to the issues, click also 'conflict resolution' on the left-hand side, under "Areas of Cooperation"].
So, my current line of thinking goes something like this:
A. The self-declared Abkhazian and South-Ossetian governments are getting afraid of a loss in Russian support, and possible Russian pressure towards re-integration into Georgia. This would inevitably cut on income sources like "road taxes", smuggling, product falsification etc., especially given the strong track record of the Saakashvili government on cracking down on such activities. So they decide to stir up some tension - bomb attacke (including the July 6 one in Abkhazia in which one UN interpreter was killed), occasional mortar fire on Georgian villages etc., with the hope of luring Georgia into some kind of 'anti-terrorist' operation, which would re-instate Russian support.
B. Georgia decides it is time for a crack-down. It selects South-Ossetia as the weaker and less important target, hoping Russia will not react. They carefully select the opening day of the Olympics, hoping the Russian government will be paralyzed by the absence of Putin and Medvedew for long enough so they can create a 'fait accomplis'.
C. The 'crack-down' gets out of operational control, resulting in a virtual distruction of the South-Ossetian capital of Zkhinvali, the death of several Russian peace-keepers, and mass flight of Ossetians across the border into Russia.
D. The regional command of the Russian army, unable to get any guidance from Moscow, takes out the pre-defined 'reaction scenario'. They send tanks into South-Ossetia, conduct air strikes against Georgian army and air bases in Gori, Varziani (near Tbilissi), Senaki, Oni, Khoni, and the Poti seaport. They furthermore start a sea-blockade of Georgian ports, and send additional troops into Abkhazia.
E. The Russian counter-attack, following a pre-described scenario, is also over-shooting. They open a second front around Abkhazia, which was never attacked by Georgia, invade Georgian territory, and accidentally bomb Georgian civilian buildings in Poti. Moreover, they start bombing the airport of Tbilissi shortly before the French foreign minister arrives, and attack the town of Gori while the Georgian President is taking the French foreign minister plus a lot of TV journalists there.
F. Medvedev, who obviously has an image problem not only in the West, uses the opportunity to present himself as a hard-liner, able to take tough decisions, to the Russiam military command, and encourages swift counter-attack.
G. Putin learns about everything in China. After having sorted out that Bush is obviously not looking for WW III, he returns to Moscow in order to send Medvedev back to vacation, and commences damage control. He somehow manages to keep the Russiam army from bombing the French foreign minister [I am pretty sure that some senior Russian army officers in the Caucasian command will be sacked over the next weeks], gets the Abkhazians from marching into Georgian territory after having re-conquered the Ozori George, orders his troops to retreat, and discusses a ceasefire agreement with Sarkozy.
What is the outcome? Many losers, few winners:
- The self-declared South Ossetian leadership has re-gained Russian support for (semi-)independence, as intended. Unfortunately, their territory (including the leaders' nice houses) have been destroyed, and the income sources they wanted to maintain are probably gone.
- The Saakashvili government has been defeated, lost domestic credibility, and the target of maintaining / restoring territorial integrity has become far more difficult to achieve, if at all.
- Medvedev has been shown his place, and been re-degraded to Putin's puppet (if he had ever been more).
- Putin's standing with the EU is severely damaged, and his Caucasus policy is lying in shambles. He has hardly any possibility to maintain the "territorial integrity" theme he has so far used to defy Chechzen independence, and has now to decide between annexing South Ossetia (with serious international backlash) and promoting its independence (with serious domestic backlash). He is surely, and understandably, pissed.
- The USA (Bush) have proved to be a toothless tiger.
- Last, but not least, there are around 100,000 displaced Ossetians and Georgians. Those 50,000 Georgians from Gori will probably return soon, since the city appears to have remained relatively intact, but the Ossetians and ethnic Georgians that lived in (and around) South Ossetia have their homes destroyed, and face an unsure future.
The winners? The self-declared Abkhazian government, which was able to take another ethnic-Georgian part of Abkhazia under their control, and can hope for further Russian support; and the Sarkozy government as 'peace-makers'.
O.K., now on the US role in the whole story, and posssible implications on the presidential elections:
1. I am not prepared to go as far as claiming that the US government actually promoted the Georgian attack on South Ossetia. However, they have seconded around 150 'military advisors' to Georgia, and conducted a military exercise on mountain warfare with Georgian troops last month. Moreover, the last high-ranking foreign official to visit Georgia before the conflict was Condolezza Rice, in mid-July. Whatever was discussed in these meeting, it is pretty clear that the Georgian government expected to have US support for their actions. In that sense, I think the US government encouraged, willingly or unconsciously, the Georgian attack on South Ossetia in a quite decisive way.
2. I appreciate a lot of the policies of the Saakashvili government, and also think that it would be unjustified to blame McCain for its support to this government, or the fact that a lobbyist for this government is now part of the McCain advisory team.
3. Having said that, I think that Putin is pretty much pissed about what has happened. He has also made very clear whom he blames for the escalation, and that is Saakashvili. While there are surely more culprits (including the South-Ossetian leadership, and the Russian Cauacasian army command), I don't think it would be wise for any Western politician, and especially not for an US presidential candidate, to currently associate too closely with Saakashvili. In other words: McCain is currently risking his last litte-bit of foreign policy credibility, and about to make sure that he will hardly ever be able to get a sensible deal struck with Putin.
[Footnotes:
a.) What the hell is Brzezynski doing in the Obama advisory team - this guy is nearly as disastrous as McCain, caught up in cold war thinking. One of the reasons for the strong international support for Obama was that he did not look like bringing the Clintonian foreign policy bunch back in play!
b.) Please, keep Wesley Clarke as far away from the US foreign policy as possible. The Kosovo war does not go well with the Russians, the Chinese will hardly forget who ordered bombing their embassy in Belgrade, and I still recall the German Minister of Defence lamenting five minutes on prime-time TV about the lousy information policy of the USA towards its allies during the Kosovo war.]
Hold on a second... I have a chapter from War and Peace I need to post as a comeback to that last comment
Kristol did indeed put that out there so that Powell would be contacted for confirmation, then deny it, making it news that "he's not going to the Democratic convention." In so doing, Quayle's Brain (heh) probably hopes to blunt the impact of any Powell endorsement of Obama. Of course Joe Voter doesn't know or care about these "Inside Baseball"-style games. Silly Billy.
Those NV and VA polls look pretty good to me. First of all, they're ScottyRazz polls, which are always biased in favor of the Gooper by at least two points. However, even assuming that the polls are DEAD-STRAIGHT POLITICALLY NEUTRAL (peals of laughter), then McSame has some problems, considering that he cannot win without both of these states. (The Michigan Hail Mary isn't happening.)
And more national polls in favor of Obama. Hmm. Perhaps looking like an absolutely insane maniac over the Georgia situation - - while your "foreign policy advisor" was a pid lobbyist for the country until five months ago - - wasn't the best move. Obama's back from vacation in two days and the Olympics are half over - - looks like time's running out for McSame to make his big move.
Continue to Spread the Word!!! said...
Electoral-Vote.com
August 13, 2004:
Kerry: 327
Bush: 211
August 13, 2008:
Obama: 289
McCain: 249
about to be 285-254 after Nevada is factored into play.
This site was 1 electoral vote off in 2004 when it came to Election Day. It's not as good as 538 because it's just polling averages, but it gives you an idea of how polls show it right now.
Am I worried as a Republican? Hell No. Americans have two completely different choices, and in the end, if it comes down to Ohio, I doubt Obama can do it with so many HRC voters refusing to back him. Don't believe me, the most liberal people in my area aren't going to back Obama this year, they are backing McCain!
Look at the numbers on the site, they give McCain Ohio and Virginia and McCain still loses by 20 electoral votes. Sure, why not give him Michigan and Pennsylvania too.
DCM how am I a troll on this site? I am simply posting facts.
I live in Youngstown, OH, the most liberal Democratic city in Ohio. Gore got 66% of the vote here, Kerry got 62%, and the local media is saying Obama may STRUGGLE to get 56% here.
HRC won this area with 68% of the vote, may I remind you its the 7th largest area of the state.
People in my area do not like Obama. All the local talk show hosts on the 2 talk stations, either registered Independents or Democrats, have come out to attack Obama. They don't like McCain much either, nor do I really, but he is the best of the two according to them.
If Obama can't win 60% of the vote here, something that hasn't happened since 84, he'll lose Ohio!
sorry people, I fed a troll...aka "Continue to Spread the Word!!!"
gotta remember - DNFTT !
Well Clown I can only hope you are right about that. I don't want to see Powell at the convention, an endorsement entirely on skin color is bad enough.
Yo DCM - Is that you, again? You sound cool and like to talk smack, but I don't see any cogent argument from you. Why don't you engage the debate? I bet you are one smooth dude.
Frank:
I'm late to the party here, and someone else has probably already addressed this (I don't have time to read all of the comments), but per the 538 projections the liklihood of McCain winning both Ohio *and* Florida are: 0.42 * 0.72 = .3024 (30.2%). Per the overall projections on this site, McCain's liklihood of winning the election is 34.7%. You've presented one such method by which McCain can get the necessary EC votes, but not anything that should "worry" any of us on the blue side.
__________
Starbucks:Walmart Ratio = Awesome! :)
I got news for "Continue to spread the word", Ohio was so 2004. Get over yourself. Its all about Virginia and Colorado this year. The DNC wants to get the hell away from the working class redneck white folk who always lean right. The democrats are looking at their new majority with YOUNG PEOPLE.
The next generation are much more progressive that their parents. They are not Liberal, but they hate Bush and right wing doctrine. Even the young evangelicals like Obama. Ohio and Florida are the past. They're "gravy" states for Obama. As long as mcCain stays busy there, Obama will take Co and maybe Virginia and the Whitehouse.
Spread the word -
You provide interesting commentary on OH. I'm of the impression that OH will go Red as the SE counties along KY and WV border that typically trend blue are a very poor demographic for Obama as it is mainly a non-college blue collar crowd...would you agree with this assessment. It seems Dems need this group along with Cleveland, Columbus, and all the big cities to cobble together for a flip Blue. What is your assessment?
re: Overrated...
nice post. THANKS for the [in]sincere props !
wit does get credit, but exactly
what is this 'debate' you allude to ???
"CONTINUE..." is merely spouting nonsense with no facts or real data to support his 'concern' for his liberal brethern.
I try to reserve my posts for serious discourse - not to engage GOP talking points or trolls, although at time I do feed those poor pathetic creatures...
so, "Overrated"
see, you showed your hand again. almost cledver with your 'concern' in complementing "CONTINUE"
as usual, your chosen name does fit ever so much...
try 'KarlRove.com'
Matt JH -
Young evangelicals like Obama? Since when do evangelicals (young or old) support a candidate that is as far left on abortion as you can get. Are they aware of Obama's voting record on abortion, especially as a IL state sen? Do they care?
The next generation are also more pro-life and socially conservative than their parents were at the same age. IN and OH are going red because if Obama couldn't beat Clinton in these two states, he is not going to beat McCain.
PA might be a difficult state as well for Obama. It is elderly and has a large number of Appalachian counties in the state. Kerry held serve here but Obama is underperforming in these counties by 15-20% from Kerry's total. Since Kerry got a legendary turnout in Philly in 2004, Obama is not going to improve much on these margins (81-19% in Philly, 97-2% in the AA vote).
Post a Comment