This afternoon our Road to 270 series continues with the Natural State, Arkansas.
HOME OF WAL-MART, Arkansas ranks predictably lowest on our vaunted Starbucks:Walmart ratio. This state likes its schmoozy, charismatic governors from Hope, having elected and re-elected both Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee for over 22 of the last 30 years. It likes its politics socially conservative (Democrat Mark Pryor, running unopposed for his first Senate defense, is a creationist) but economically populist (see: Huckabee). In terms of the presidential race, this is not a state where Barack Obama was competitive in the primary against Hillary Clinton, and also looks like an easy win for John McCain in the fall.
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 apparent, 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
The highest percentage of white evangelicals in the country is the biggest reason McCain will win this state. One of the most conservative states on the Likert index, Arkansas also has the 3d-worst education rates. High gun ownership, high “American” ancestry reporting, 5th-fewest same-sex household rate are all sociological factors weighing in the Republican’s favor. This is another state where McCain outraises Obama, though it’s not because his fundraising is anything special (8th-lowest per capita), it’s because Obama’s is dead last.
McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin will play extremely well with the evangelical base here. Already, there is indication that McCain’s biggest convention bounce is in the South, in large part due to Palin’s selection. McCain also benefits from a relatively male and relatively older voting population.
What Obama Has Going For Him
Barack Obama hasn’t been to Arkansas since 2006, and it’s unlikely he’ll be there before November 4. There are a relatively high percentage of black voters as well as under-30 voters. In theory, Obama should be able to be competitive in Arkansas, as Democrats outnumber Republicans by a significant margin, both Senators are Democrats, the governor is now a Democrat and three out of four House members are Democrats. Moreover, the state’s Democrats have very little else to do with so many races unopposed. But the state’s distaste for Obama personally is reflected in his fundraising numbers. Obama is to Democrats in Arkansas and West Virginia what Hillary Clinton is to Democrats in the Mountain West.
What To Watch For
The biggest thing to watch for is the role Arkansas plays in the post-election analysis. If Obama loses, Hillary Clinton supporters will point to Arkansas as Example #1 of six electoral votes that, they claim, would have swung the other way had she been the nominee. This argument would gain credibility if both (1) Obama fails to win any of the Mountain West states like Nevada and Colorado and Montana - states Clinton would have not even bothered to compete in; and (2) the overall defeat is a narrow one. It's easy to forget that Hillary Clinton was minimally targeted once it was clear in mid-February Obama would be the nominee, and indeed even today the McCain campaign is reduced to avoiding both Hillary Clinton (for voter-wooing purposes) and Teddy Kennedy (for illness/backlash purposes) as puppet arguments to vote against Obama. (Instead the bogeyman is Patrick Leahy? He was in Dark Knight! Is Dick "Go F%^* Yourself" Cheney behind that one?)
As for what to watch before the elections, not much. It wouldn't be a big surprise to see Arkansas - for lack of almost any competitive races anywhere on the ballot - have the lowest voting turnout on the mainland, if not in all 50 states.
9.10.2008
Road to 270: Arkansas
by Sean Quinn @ 5:30 PM...see also arkansas, road to 270
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

177 comments
Hi Sean. I prefer your posts to Nate's (he's a bit of a loser if you ask me).
Nice analysis. Not been there but I think I'll leave Hawaii at the top of my vacation destination wish-list!
A populist state?.
Please see below -- was selecting Biden just a red-herring to get McCain to name Palin -- and then Biden drops out and Hillary comes in? I mean, why else would Biden say what he says below??
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee, said this afternoon that perhaps Senator Barack Obama should have chosen someone else as his running mate.
Responding to a question at a town hall-style meeting at Nashua Community College, Mr. Biden said, “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.”
He added, “She’s qualified to be president. I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate.”
Mr. Biden did not elaborate and it is not clear whether he was being genuinely (or falsely) modest. He may also have been responding to suggestions from some analysts that Mrs. Clinton’s selection would have protected the Democrats from some of the apparent defections of women voters to the Republican ticket after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was tapped to be Senator John McCain’s running mate.
According to a press pool report, Mr. Biden said at a fund-raiser earlier in the day that he had offered to defend Mr. McCain during the 2000 campaign when he was being smeared by Republican operatives working on behalf of President Bush’s election.
“What really disappoints me is the very tactics used against him, they’re trying to use against Barack Obama,” Mr. Biden said. “It’s literally saddening. I didn’t expect it. But I guess I should learn to expect everything.”
Might re-energise his campaign if he did go to some of these unlikelier states. He's just way too predictable at the moment -no thinking outside the box- even the meatheaded Republicans are outwitting him.
"But I guess I should learn to expect everything.”
This very reason is why the "Enough" argument does not mean anything.
As for what to watch before the elections, not much. It wouldn't be a big surprise to see Arkansas - for lack of almost any competitive races anywhere on the ballot - have the lowest voting turnout on the mainland, if not in all 50 states.
I'd bet against that, personally -- voter turnout seems a lot more closely correlated with demographic and economic variables (per capita income, percentage of evangelicals, negatively correlated with percentage of minorities) than with the closeness of House/Senate races. Arkansas is middle of the road economically, and has a huge proportion of evangelicals (who, if not as fired up as they were four years ago, should still turn out in higher proportions than the population as a whole).
So, Sean -- friendly wager (for the bragging rights, of course)? :D
I wonder if Hillary! would have made a difference to Arkansas. Today Slow Joe Biden seemed to think so when he said, "“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be Vice President of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be President of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate.”
You gotta hand it to gaffe-a-minute Slow Joe, at least he's willing to speak truth to power.
Ha!
Oz.
It's amazing how all the Republican trolls come in here at the same time spouting the same stupid talking point-of-the-day.
Maybe if she hadn't dragged her campaign out so long, Oz.
Oz, you have got to be kidding me. There are Democrats that speak truth to power? Clarify.
I am a highly-educated (JD from Yale), Obama-supporting, unabashed liberal from Arkansas, and as such, I think I have standing to comment on your exceedingly negative characterization of my home state. My comment: You got it exactly right, buddy, this place is a Hell hole.
geothean;
Nice one. That could be a new slogan for Slow Joe: So good he writes the Republicans talking points for them.
Real mike;
Slow Joe is speaking the sad truth to his own power. You gotta wonder how mad his advisers are getting. How much longer before they take him out of the townhall environment?
Oz.
According to an inside source in the Obama campaign, they are encouraging their minions to go to Intrade and place bets in favor of Obama to keep him as close to McCain as they can.
One aide said, It is ridiculous to have our contributors placing bets for a ridiculous online betting site when we could use the money for the campaign. There is big dissention over this issue. Their campaign manager is threatening to leave over this and the decision to use the Lipstick line.
I saw the Biden comment. He was being humble. I really appreciate the humility that Obama and Biden show. I wish McCain and Palin understood that feeling and could express it.
You've had too many lattes today, surely, ss.
I agree with Jonkers, Biden seems to be going all out for God's vote.
Slow Joe?
I thought Obama chose Biden, not Lieberman.
OK. I wanted you to be clear there. We all know that you don't believe that any Democrat speaks the truth and that any Democrat has any power. Thanks for clarifying there, chief.
According to an inside source in the Obama campaign, they are encouraging their minions to go to Intrade and place bets in favor of Obama to keep him as close to McCain as they can.
One aide said, It is ridiculous to have our contributors placing bets for a ridiculous online betting site when we could use the money for the campaign. There is big dissention over this issue. Their campaign manager is threatening to leave over this and the decision to use the Lipstick line.
I'm guessing this was fabricated from whole-cloth, troll?
Not sure I agree but always interesting and thought provoking.
Thanks!!
This is an interesting question.
Assume that Obama loses.
Would there be much traction to the theory that this was because Clinton stayed in the race for so long? No doubt quite a few of the strongest Obama supporters would feel that way, but would this view be widely shared? One has the impression that Clinton would be blamed very little at all (once again, outside a small circle of Obama's strong supporters.)
This is interesting indeed, because a few months back the feeling was that if Obama loses then SURELY Clinton would be the first to be blamed. It's a good case for how perceptions shift once you move away from a race.
Just to clarify: I am an Obama supporter myself, and I am not at all sure her electoral chances would be better than those of Obama; nor am I persuaded that she should have been picked for VP.
Why do you list the fact that Arkansas has the 3rd worst education rate as something "McCain has going for him"? There is generally a positive correlation between education and preference for the GOP (with the notable exception of voters completing a PhD many of whom end up in academia): Highschool drop-outs are most likely to vote Democrat, followed by those with Highschool degree only, while voters who attended college are more likely to vote GOP.
There is a strong positive correlation between income and preference for the GOP, and a weaker but nonetheless positive correlation between education and preference for the GOP, especially in the southern states.
Nearly two weeks, and the Obama campaign is still flat footed.
Why? STILL panicked?
"Lowest voting turnout on the mainland, if not in all 50 states"? We have a Hawaiian and an Alaskan on the ballot. Methinks the turnout in the non-continental US will be high.
According to an inside source in the Obama campaign, they are encouraging their minions to go to Intrade and place bets in favor of Obama to keep him as close to McCain as they can.
One aide said, It is ridiculous to have our contributors placing bets for a ridiculous online betting site when we could use the money for the campaign. There is big dissention over this issue. Their campaign manager is threatening to leave over this and the decision to use the Lipstick line.
This was overhears on an open microphone during the taping of the Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow Shows. It was during the transition time between the shows. The audio can be heard online recording.
"Please see below -- was selecting Biden just a red-herring to get McCain to name Palin -- and then Biden drops out and Hillary comes in? I mean, why else would Biden say what he says below??"
Hey, that's *my* stupid theory. LOL.
"There is generally a positive correlation between education and preference for the GOP"
Um, just the opposite.
Can you back up the claim?
I can . .
Link?
Libertarian, I think you are right.
Maybe Sean meant intelligence, as opposed to 'amount of education'
it's knotty, humanist. obama himself has to be partly to blame for not finishing the job off decisively by winning one of texas and ohio (the former was within reach but he hedged his bets and lost both). hillary has to shoulder blame as much for the manner of her campaign (late feb onwards) as well as for continuing at all when there was only a fractional chance of victory, draining both her own supporters and Obama's of money and energy.
real mike;
We all know that you don't believe that any Democrat speaks the truth and that any Democrat has any power.
Oh, I think Mike Gravel did all right on Pacifica the other day.
Listen and weep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpBXYcgXV8M
Oz.
When Obama loses the campaign autopsy will blame Hillary and Palin.
Palin, in particular, will haunt Obama the rest of his life. She will be known as the woman that ended the Obama phenomenon.
Fitting to blame the women since Obama has been running a sexist campaign.
Humanist: I *guarantee* that if Obama loses that there will be a bloodbath in the Dem party before the next election. The whole pro-Clinton / anti-Clinton war will start all over again. And yes, she *will* get some of the blame if Obama loses, especially if she doesn't really give it her all in the next two months.
Many of us said this as early as March.
Greg-
Can you give one example of Obama running a sexist campaign?
Ask the PUMAs shap.
I believe PUMAs are now on the endangered species list.
Any PUMAs around here want to speak up and enlighten me?
Are you a PUMA, Greg, or just a wingnut troll?
...or are you a McCain surrogate, here to play the gender card on Obama supporters?
Shap must be feeling panicked over Palin and the Republican Resurgence.
Palin--the woman who defeated Obama.
The idiotic crap about dumping Biden for Hillary can stop NOW.
Obama's sexism, via Jim Geraghty:
For example, during the primary, he said, “You know, over the last several weeks since [Hillary] fell behind, she’s resorted to what’s called ‘kitchen sink’ strategies. . . . She’s got the kitchen sink flying, and the china flying, and the, you know, the buffet is coming at me.” It's simply coincidental that he's never accused a male opponent of throwing china at him.
When he said, after a particularly tough exchange with Hillary, told a crowd, “You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out.” It's an apt and completely non-sexist metaphor... if he had he been running against Wolverine from the X-Men.
When he said, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal." Sure, to the untrained ear, "periodically" and "feeling down" sure do sound like references to the menstrual cycle and PMS, and yes, he's never used that line to describe a male opponent.
As he assured us after the whole "sweetie" incident, calling women around him "sweetie" is a bad habit he's trying to break.
Finally, it's just unthinkable that a guy who punctuates his speeches with gestures from Jay-Z videos could ever exhibit a less than appropriate level of respect for women opponents.
You don't want to believe it, but Obama has a problem with opponents, and if those opponents are women then sexism will do, thanks.
Oz.
Greg-
I asked for a single example of 'sexism' in the Obama campaign.
Everyone reading here can clearly see that you couldn't come up with one.
But, yeah, I'm panicked!!! Save me Jeebus!!!
Lipstick on a pig was clearly sexist, shap.
@capt: It's all Andrew Gelman's new book "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State". It's a bit counterintuitive: Though Democrats tend to do well in rich, educated states, and Republicans tend to do well in poorer states, it's also true that rich, well educated inividuals tend to vote Republican.
http://redbluerichpoor.com/
So beware of what is often called the "fallacy of composition". Or would you derive from the fact that the GOP does well in states with a high percentage of black voters that the GOP does actually do well among black individuals?
The DEM to GOP voter ratio means squat in Arkansas. These are really old-school southern democrats (like in Louisiana) that can trace their roots back to the civil war days of anti-abolitionists. The Democrats in Arkansas are purely for the GOP presidential candidates -- these DEMS simply didn't change their voter registration cards to GOP in the 60s (due to LBJ's integration efforts) like most of their southern brethryn did.
I mean, for goodness sake, this state voted for a 3rd party anti-segregationist presidential candidate (Wallace).
Residents of Arkansas are good people, but their guns are more important to them than any social issue and they have a bit of disdain for northern liberal thinking.
Oh, and the girls in Arkansas get pregnant at 17 -- this is a huge plus for McCain/Palin.
Er, who should be dumping Biden for Hillary? Not Jill Biden, shirley? (Although, I'm sure Lieberman would approve.)
Hey OzJohnnie:
He didn't use those phrases against a male opponent because, for the heated part of the campaign, he didn't have a male opponent.
I assume you're a Republican, and up until about two weeks ago it was Republicans who were all against identity politics and gender-neutral language. But when McCain picks a woman, you all turn into Paranoid Feminist Theorists.
What's next, a screening of the Vagina Monologues? A bra burning?
Rasmussen
New Mexico M 48, 0 44 = M+4
North Dakota M 55, 0 41 = M+14
Alaska M 64, O 33 = M+31
Greg - sorry to wade in on a private debate but is it sexist for McCain to call Hillary's healthcare plan a "pg with lipstick"? Or did "lipstick" only become politically charged when Palin claimed she was a pit-bull with lipstick?
IMPORTANT and FUN!
--Folks: May I suggest you go to TalkingPointsmemo.com and check the ad they have made up in honor of our very own Nate Silver of this site!!
You will find it very instructive!
Definitely quantitative, in honor of Nate!
Greg-
Was lipstick on a pig sexist when McCain used it to describe the Clintons?
Mazza, it was sexist because the previous week Palin had used the phrase "pitbull with lipstick". His audience laughed. They knew what he meant.
Surely, Palin's 'joke' was more sexist than Obama's. And to say that only men can be sexist towards women is sexist. Me dost think.
jonathan;
You ask for one example, I give you many. You dismiss them because they are used against a woman.
You may think this is a zinger on your part, but you are mistaken.
As mistaken as Slow Joe was right when he said Hillary! would have been a better pick.
Oz.
it was sexist because the previous week Palin had used the phrase "pitbull with lipstick".
Great! So calling her a bitch is A-OK now!! She called herself one first!!
Obama wasn't even talking about Palin ,he was talking about McCain's economic plan. Economic plans as a rule have no sex, greg.
Oh, I get it. Democrats are NOT allowed to compare a woman (or group of women) to a filthy, crude animal.
It's OK if you are Republican.
A woman can make that joke.
A man can't.
Same way a black person can call another black person the N word, but a white person can't call a black person that. Mason should already understand this, and shap should understand it too.
Greg:- this morning Meghan McCain (bless her little heart) confessed that her dad says "lipstick on a pig" a lot. Is he, therefore, sexist now that Palin has claimed the word lipstick? I don't quite follow the logic.
keepsake;
Surely, Palin's 'joke' was more sexist than Obama's. And to say that only men can be sexist towards women is sexist.
Now that is purely stupid. Yes, please do you best to get an Obama surrogate to argue that Palin is really more sexist for the pitbull joke. I love that idea.
Oz.
No, I didn't dismiss them because they were used against a woman. I dismissed them because they were used against his only serious opponent at the time. Imagine if John Edwards and Obama had been squaring off and Edwards was attacking him with everything. Do you really think Obama would have not used the words "kitchen sink"?
And I ask you again, have you always been into political correctness/identity politics paranoia or is this just a post-Palin hobby?
Oz-
You like to stretch the facts to cry 'sexism'! I could easily stretch your Jay-Z comment to call you racist, but I'll hold back.
I think everyone else can judge for themselves.
I'm not asking whether Clinton *should* be blamed, but if she *would*. I think the "we should never have nominated Obama" would be much much stronger than the "Clinton shouldn't have stood in the way".
mazza;
Keep going the ignorance and mean spirited route. Try to shame Palin and MaCain on this.
It's a huge electoral winner. Great idea, dummy.
Oz.
Greg-
You're too clever by half.
A woman can make that joke.
A man can't.
A woman can't make that joke and then whine when a man does. You want equality? Fine. No sexist/racist jokes, even about your own sex/race.
Oz - I didn't resort to abuse. I'd be grateful if you didn't either.
Thanks
So Mason believes it is racist when a black person uses the N word?
jonathan;
Do you really think Obama would have not used the words "kitchen sink"?
As you are fully aware, Obama did not let the saying going at kitchen sink. He tossed in thrown china as well. And the buffet.
No, it was sexist. He was painting Hillary! as an emotional woman smashing dishes because she didn't get her way.
And the best bit of this argument: you can't win. Obama should apologize for the unintended slight and move on. But Noooooooo, all you idiots have to argue it wasn't really sexist, making you look all the more sexist.
Humility? Obama does not know the meaning of the word.
Oz.
MCain's fake outrage just gave Obama a 2-fer.
The news cycle is all about Obama and what he said... most is positive although it cuts both ways. So today Obama can actually be heard above the din of Palinmanis.
The second gift is that they keep showing Obama saying what he meant... McCain/Palin = Bush/Cheney, despite their recent change/reform campaign message.
lipstick on a pig, indeed.
So Mason believes it is racist when a black person uses the N word?
Fuck, yes! And doubly so if they do it and then get up in a white guy's grill for doing the same.
Thanks for that link, Ozzie. That was, um, something.
I don't cry for politics or politicians.
@shap:
Libertarian, I think you are right.
I am indeed! ;-) The upshot: The typical Republican tends to be wealthy and well educated, but lives in a poorer state (but normally with higher than average growth!). And the typical Democrat tends to be poor and of low education, but lives in a wealthier state.
Maybe Sean meant intelligence, as opposed to 'amount of education'
Maybe he does - if he considers it "intelligent" to vote for a party that favors protectionism over free trade; a party that favors unionized state schools with strict catchment areas over school choice and school vouchers; a party that favors marginal tax rates of more than 60% (including payroll tax that Obama wants to uncap) and the second-highes corporate tax in the world over low taxes that incentivize savings, investment and entrepreneurial spirit; a party that is led by a candidate who voted against the Born Alive Children Protection Act, a bill that even NARAL supported; a party that favors justices who legislate from the bench over justices who interpret the constitution and protect the preexisting individual rights.
"Intelligent"? ;-)
Mason may believe that, but many on the left don't. When the angry left drops it's double standard maybe conservative women will, too.
mazza;
Oz - I didn't resort to abuse. I'd be grateful if you didn't either.
Thanks
Ok. Apologies.
Oz.
Good numbers for 0 today from PPP sans Virginia:
Michigan: Obama 49%, McCain 45%
Missouri: McCain 50%, Obama 45%
New Hampshire: Obama 51%, McCain 45%
Virginia: McCain 50%, Obama 46%
Greg-
Don't you mean a woman or a Republican man can make that joke?
I don't remember if you said that it was OK when McCain said it about Hillary Clinton.
What the fuck happened to the comments on this page? Who the fuck cares what Obama said. Who the fuck cares what the "Truth Squad" says?
Talk about the polls or go to some other site!
Another dreadful gaffe by Biden .. pretty much stating that Obama blundered terribly when he picked him for VP.
I feel for Matt JH as we both wanted Clinton this year but we will win in 2012. The combination of two Westerners on the R side will probably sweep up all of the Mountain West states, except maybe NM and there aren't enough other states to flip besides IA.
OH? VA? MI is more likely to flip than OH or VA.
FL? PA and WI will flip before FL.
We picked a raw neophyte to be our standard-bearer and instead of taking the sure win, we got greedy.
Do you think NJ may flip to McCain/Palin NJ moderate? I think that's where the playing field should be expanded next.
Mason may believe that, but many on the left don't. When the angry left drops it's double standard maybe conservative women will, too.
Damn you a foo!
Look, there's a bunch of people in the black commnunity that hate the word "nigger" and don't ever use it. You really think BHO walks into the bodega on the corner and says to the guy behind the counter, "Yo! Wassup my nigga?" Ignoring that the guy's probably a Pakie, people don't talk like that just because they're black.
Then there's some people that hate the word, and use it to describe a subclass of AAs. And yeah... that's racist. See the Chris Rock routine "Black People Vs Niggers." It's funny, true, but it's still a racist/classist word.
We wonder why we are a divided nation because of the Republicans. They spout such crazy nonsensical shit about sexism and sex education. The way that McCain has gone about trying to win this election is disgusting. He once made me feel comfortable as a democrat that if he were to win i'd feel okay about his presidency, but when he chose Palin he lost all credibility as a good commander in chief with that pick. Now crying foul everytime someone lays a good hit on his little pet Palin, this is a disgusting way to win an election from a man who "loves" this country so much. Can a republican tell me what is going to happen when a Saudi prince spits in her face and refuses to hold her hand or shake her hand? What will the McCain administration do then? This election is our moment and the world will lose all it's faith in us as Americans if he refuse to put Obama in office. And for you Republicans who want to bash international support as something "french" how is that war or terror, 'go it alone' strategy working?
Glenn-
Aren't those the CNN numbers that came out earlier? Was that a CNN/PPP joint effort?
Then there's some people that hate the word, and use it to describe a subclass of AAs. And yeah... that's racist. See the Chris Rock routine "Black People Vs Niggers." It's funny, true, but it's still a racist/classist word.
I guess thats why Whoppie defended its use on the view. Because its a classist and racist word. More great commentary from whites telling blacks how to act. For your information when Chris Rock was talking about "Niggas" he was specifically talking about "Ignorant Niggas".
note2self-
You don't know me. You don't know where I live. You don't know my neighbors/friends.
Keep your assumptions to yourself, please.
@greg: I doubt we'll win NJ this year, sadly. Am more optimistic about NH and MI though. We'd need a good Republican year, a good Republican ticket and a poor Democratic ticket to see NJ flip. Only two of these three conditions apply this year.
New NC poll that is VERY encouraging to DEMS!
GARITHARTYANG RESEARCH GROUP
202-234-5570 605 LIKELY VOTERS 09-05-09-07-08
McCAIN 49
OBAMA 46
OTHER 5
DOLE 48
HAGEN 46
OTHER 6
PERDUE (D) 46
MCCRORY(R) 40
Oh... and Note2Self?
I'll see your Whoopi, and raise you a Richard Pryor and a Muhammad Ali.
Hey Note2Self...
Haven't you looked? There have been some excellent comments today. Some posters have said the polls indicate that McCain has now taken the lead in electoral votes. Some posters have even postulated that McCain will have a 225 electoral vote win on Election Day.
What polls do YOU want to talk about? Or methodology? Speak your mind... someone will answer.
Oh... And probably an Oprah. But I could be wrong about that.
Libertarian said...
@greg: I doubt we'll win NJ this year, sadly. Am more optimistic about NH and MI though. We'd need a good Republican year, a good Republican ticket and a poor Democratic ticket to see NJ flip. Only two of these three conditions apply this year.
--------------
Libertarian in name only, I guess (/shrug)
LINO?
Spare me the "My best friend is black" garbage. I'll go out on a limb here. You are WHITE.
Does anyone find these polls incredibly odd? Never have concurrent polls shown a victory for either side. Interesting.
Had Obama been ahead in the Rasmussen poll today he would have 269 basically in their projection..
Looks like media and whoever stands to make a profit doesn't want this one to end.
McCain/Palin should at least campaign in NJ now, and CT as well (with help from Lieberman).
That would turn the already panicked states in the left up to new heights.
This thing is going to be tight.
The tighter, the better. ;-)
NJ Moderate wrote, "The combination of two Westerners on the R side will probably sweep up all of the Mountain West states, except maybe NM and there aren't enough other states to flip besides IA. OH? VA? MI is more likely to flip than OH or VA.
FL? PA and WI will flip before FL."
0's structural advantage is holding up pretty well and this gives McCain peeps like me pause when I see giant Red state widenings.
What has happened is that the probabilities of an 0 blowout have diminished. BUT
Kerry + IA + NM + CO is still intact ... 0 peeps need to be a little worried with today's Rasmussen showing NM at M + 4, but this is probably got enough bounce in it to come back to a slight 0 lead by month end.
PPP today has McCain still soft in two places that matter; Michigan -4 and New Hampshire -6 ... and Yesterday from Strategic Vision, Wisconsin -3 and Michigan -1.
Average McCain at -2.5 at the top of the bounce in Michigan and McCain still lacks a Kerry state to flip to offset Colorado, although New Mexico is interesting. We need to get some Nevada numbers.
This thing is going to be tight.
McCain's Colorado fundraising is being sent to MO, MI, PA, and OH state parties ... very weird.
I appreciate the commentary Mike. And I have followed it since the conventions. But what we are starting to see on this board is NOISE.
Kind of reminds me of the General Election. Who the fuck cares that Palin's daughter is pregnant? What can she bring to the table as McCain's VP.
Spare me the "My best friend is black" garbage. I'll go out on a limb here. You are WHITE.
Yep.
But I lived in PG County, MD. I still work there. Still spend most of my time there. Still don't here anyone but the hoods on the corner throwing that word around.
Glenn in CO,
Good analysis. I would say that an Obama optimist would argue that we are in the peak of the McCain RNC bounce and Palinmania will eventually wear off.
The race does seem to be settling in some sense into pre-convention/pre-VP pick levels.
A McCain optimist would say that this is a new set point and there have been fundamental changes.
We'll know in a few weeks who is correct.
I have no doubt that if things look bleak for Obama they will change strategy. Same for the McCain team.
I fear this election is going to get very ugly in the last 5 weeks.
I appreciate the commentary Mike. And I have followed it since the conventions. But what we are starting to see on this board is NOISE.
Stop adding to it then, dumbass!
greg, if McCain wins NJ he will already have 350 EVs anyway. Yet, this is Clinton country so it won't be a complete blowout.
McCain will LOSE Florida and thereby lose the Election in Nov!
McCain's current strategy will ONLY work to make red states redder and maybe win a MO, VA, OH etc but not the states like CO, NM, NV, NH or FL.
Glenn-in-Colorado said...
Good numbers for 0 today from PPP sans Virginia:
Michigan: Obama 49%, McCain 45%
Missouri: McCain 50%, Obama 45%
New Hampshire: Obama 51%, McCain 45%
Virginia: McCain 50%, Obama 46%
Rasmussen
North Dakota M 55, 0 41 = M+14
Alaska M 64, O 33 = M+31
+ New Mexico McCain 49 Obama 47
Florida 48-48
Florida 50-45 McCain
Virginia 49-47 McCain
Pennsylvania 47-45 Obama in two polls
Michigan Obama +1 in two polls +2 in another
Colorado 49-46 Obama
The state polls are confusing for the first time this whole cycle. Has to be hard to come up with good strategy for the campaigns. They're mostly within the MOE, so hard to know what they say really. But, all of the analysis we've done is kind of in a state of chaos. Best bet is Colorado is still your most important state.
This is only loosely related because the poll I'm about to reference is from Arkansas.
Yesterday, some were complaining because question 1 in the NBC poll was about GWB's approval rating, and people cried foul because "no other agencies" do this.
One of the more recent Arkansas polls by Rasmussen also started off with the "Rate George Bush's performance" questions.
Awww... Mason. Looks like I touched a nerve. Mission accomplished!
It actually seems like Rasmussen often starts off with this question, FWIW.
@realistxxx: I'm a libertarian-minded Republican. Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter, Milton Friedman are my heroes. From a libertarian perspective, the GOP is far more reasonable than the Democrats on about 80% of issues.
I hear what you're saying, N2S. What I do is focus on the following words: poll, method(ology), percent (or %), party, focus group, swing, ideology, or cross-tabs. When I see epithets, hate, red/blue state, any denigrating nicknames or words at the extreme edge, even like LOSE or WIN or all or nothing, I just move on. The noise here is like the noise in the polls. Sometimes it's worth testing, but most times, not at all.
I must have watched way too much C-Span. I try to think "If I said on the floor of the House or the Senate what I post here, would my words be taken down?"
Also, I try to include the title of Senator for Senator McCain, Senator Obama, or Senator Biden, and Governor for Governor Palin. They have each earned that right.
Glenn, you're wrong about the new Rasmussen poll. It is actually M+2, not M+4 in New Mexico (49-47).
I still think Obama is going to win NM, but I am wondering about his chances of winning Nevada as a backup in case he doesn't. What are the most recent polls saying about NV?
dbnwsnc,
That's a Dem poll...slant it about three points the other way and that's probably where the race in NC stands...
Slant the Strategic Vision polls in MI, WI, and PA about three points to the Dems and that's probably where those races stand...
I am totally befuddled by all this "Michigan is red" talk...since we went into general election mode in June, we haven't seen a single poll showing McCain ahead, even at the height of his convention bounce...at least with Ohio, we can say the state will go either way because one pollster (Ras) has McCain ahead
@greg: I agree CT is most likely to flip in New England (apart from NH of course) but if McCain wins CT (and NJ) he'll lead Obama by at least 5% in the popular vote amounting to a GOP landslide in the electoral college.
For what it's worth...
...what we're seeing now isn't a "bounce" but rather where this race is now settled. Palin was a game changer. I'll admit, as a socially liberal man I'm not a big fan of her but she sure as hell turned McCains campaign around.
"I still think Obama is going to win NM, but I am wondering about his chances of winning Nevada as a backup in case he doesn't. What are the most recent polls saying about NV?"
IMO Obama won't win Nevada and McCain wont win New Mexico. If I were Obama I'd concentrate on the Kerry + IA + NM + CO path because I think that's his only shot.
I realize I might get some heat for saying he wont win VA, OH, FL etc but I think, come election day, he's not taking those states. IA + NM is almost a lock in my mind so it comes down to Colorado which, at the time, favors Obama slightly.
No recent polls in Nevada. Statisticians are saying Obama has about a 60% chance to win Nevada in a couple different websites that do that kind of thing.
The polls have been split pretty evenly, see this website, far right column.
Bush won in 2004 by 10,000 votes, Registration is +60,000 for Dems since 2004
Yucca mountain should help Obama and hurt McCain, since nuclear energy is more a part of McCain's energy plan than Obama's.
Neither did particularly well in the primaries there. Obama split it 50-50 with Clinton. Romney played much better in Nevada than McCain did.
All that being said, if Obama doesn't win New Mexico, he probably won't win Nevada. Nevada is probably more likely necessary if McCain wins Colorado than being a replacement for New Mexico.
The polls that are coming in appear to indicate a sea change in the electoral map. McCain/Palin are showing surprising strength in the Western US as indicated by the polls in MT, AK, NM, ND and, to an extent, WA. Likely, CO is still artificially high for Obama given the recent DNC convention.
Obama is holding serve in the Midwest as he has a slight advantage in the states that Kerry won and a disadvantage in states that Bush won, excluding IA where the home-field advantage should see this state in Obama's column.
In the old Confederacy, it is all McCain .. including VA and FL as the high % of veterans and evangelicals will be too tough a 1-2 punch to overcome.
The Northeast is all Obama, even NH. The McCain camp doesn't have the money or the message to compete here.
Essentially, McCain has a 60%-65 chance of winning TODAY as I don't see a reasonable path to victory if MCain flips any of the Kerry Midwest states and McCain is holding serve fairly well in the Bush states.
"No recent polls in Nevada. Statisticians are saying Obama has about a 60% chance to win Nevada in a couple different websites that do that kind of thing."
LINK?
Arkansas is a historic anomaly. One could believe the Solid South is still intact. It´s the Democrats´ Maine. I wonder, if they turnout is "really" low...could African-Americans have a real impact on the race?
IF anyone is DREAMING of McCain winning NJ, they do NOT have a clue.
These are mostly NYC linked people.
Second, these people are scared as heck of anyone who so FAR right as PALIN.
As PALIN makes red states REDDER, more NJ people who may like simply because she is a woman, WILL FREAK out over her NO exception for Rape/Incest, LIbrary Book censorship in coordination with the Church and the right wing folks.
Will 40% of NJ go for McCain, yes BUT no way McCain will win.
NJ is NOT VA. NJ is NOT Ohio.
Folks need to get a CLUE!
Eric wrote,
"The state polls are confusing for the first time this whole cycle. Has to be hard to come up with good strategy for the campaigns. They're mostly within the MOE, so hard to know what they say really. But, all of the analysis we've done is kind of in a state of chaos. Best bet is Colorado is still your most important state."
I agree that Colorado is priority #1 for Senator Obama. I didn't see New Mexico going McCain if Colorado went Obama ... but I now think this may actually be plausible if Obama got an extra 2ish points by having the DNC in Denver. We should see New Mexico's tipping % rise significantly in Nate's model.
It apprears that McCain is going to spend some time trying to play for a MI or PA flip, rather than trying for the block in NM or CO. This may be a huge tactical error ... time will tell.
The McCain team must have some intenral polling showing that Obama's vulnerable in the Hillary purples ... but I would feel a lot better if McCain was actually up in MI or PA coming off his bounce.
topshelf1205 said...
"No recent polls in Nevada. Statisticians are saying Obama has about a 60% chance to win Nevada in a couple different websites that do that kind of thing."
LINK?
Here's one:
http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx
There are two others I ran across, I'm looking for them to give you.
The conservatives who hang out here couldn't find a clue if you gave them a map and sent them out at the height of clue mating season.
Eric, that link gives Nevada a 46% of going to Obama and 43% for McCain. Hardly "solid." Intrade also has it going for McCain 60% of the time. RCP also has it going for McCain.
@quantman: Please check your facts more closely. Many of your claims do not hold water.
IMHO Palin is a great pick to signal to libertarians that they are still a vital part of the GOP. She is a fervent supporter of the First and Second Amendment, a small-government conservative, and she vetoed legislation that would have banned benefits to gay couples in Alaska.
"The Libertarian Case for Palin"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_libertarian_case_for_palin.html
NJ_Moderate said... Essentially, McCain has a 60%-65 chance of winning TODAY as I don't see a reasonable path to victory if MCain flips any of the Kerry Midwest states and McCain is holding serve fairly well in the Bush states.
I disagree. I'd say if the election is a 50/50 popular vote split Obama wins Colorado, New Hampshire, and at least one of New Mexico or Nevada probably 80% of the time. If your popular vote is 50/50 it's unlikely Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Oregon, Virginia, Florida, or Ohio flip. Maybe 20% chance McCain wins Pennsylvania or Michigan. Take that out of my 80% assumption, your left with 64% chance. If Obama's ahead in popular vote, that number increases dramtically. If McCain's ahead it decreases substantially. You could definitely argue with my 80% assumption or 20% or even that it will be dead-even popular vote, but I've done a lot of analysis and that's my best guess, though I recognize there's no sabremetrics or hardcore statistical analysis. Maybe you have a better guess of the numbers. The key to my analysis that a Republican might disagree with is I think Colorado flips and Michigan doesn't in a tied popular vote.
If McCain loses, he's going to be kicking himself realizing he should have been defending NM and CO instead of futilely going after MI and PA.
Polls may show MI race as tight, but auto manufacturing is hurting too much out there for them to vote McCain.
My apologies to the board for the typo on the New Mexico number ... no intent to deceive, it is what it is...
I should add that McCain's block in the west in NM and CO would also need to include NV until we see evidence to the contrary ... That's a really a game with three paths for Senator Obama
Kerry + IA + CO + NM (the main path)
Kerry + IA + CO + NV (the path over Yucca Mountain)
Kerry + IA + NM + NV (the path to 269-269 and an Obama win in Congress)
Maybe the odds of blocking those three are less than flipping MI or PA but neither in my mind can be seen as better than 50-50% for McCain ...
topshelf1205 said...
Eric, that link gives Nevada a 46% of going to Obama and 43% for McCain. Hardly "solid." Intrade also has it going for McCain 60% of the time. RCP also has it going for McCain.
The website has it as a 78.21% chance for Obama to win Nevada. Intrade is based on lightly traded bets, it's not statistcal analysis.
Since comments seem to be about everything except Arkansas, I'll bring us back to the subject. Arkansas has a history of voting Democratic in most state races and even most congressional (House and Senate) races, in part because we have a fairly long tradition of former governors going to the Senate. But for president? When Winthrop Rockefeller was elected governor (as a moderate Republican like his brother in New York) and broke the old -- Democratic -- Faubus machine at the state level, Fulbright, a patrician but old-South Democrat, was re-elected to the Senate -- and Wallace won the presidential vote in Arkansas! This is perhaps typical of the Arkansas vote -- conservative and populist no matter which party prevails.
"The website has it as a 78.21% chance for Obama to win Nevada. Intrade is based on lightly traded bets, it's not statistcal analysis."
And nate has it at a 64% chance of not flipping.
The race is 50/50, a tossup, a nail biter, coin toss... use whatever cliche you want.
Only a fool on either side would call it anything else.
Of course that is today... there are 7+ weeks left.
Different pollsters are sending different messages at the moment. I don´t get why Obama should be 20 behind in NC but only 5 behind in Missouri, and if you know anything about Obama´s ground game in Missouri - it will be close. Personally, I thought Palin would boost McCain´s results in the mid-western/southern states. I did not expect the result in North Dakota. On the other hand, New Hampshire and Michigan look as leaning/likely Obama as ever.
Maybe North Dakota is more religious than I previously thought. Or it is Palin´s accent and geography - the most shallow reasons to support a candidate. By the way, the best way to take that support away from her is to characterize her as "different" and radical. She is a radical in most aspects.
Also the swing in New Mexico... unlikely. And I don´t know why Hispanics should be impressed with Palin - guns? Certainly not northern values or religious fundamentalism. I don´t know Palin´s stance on immigration, but the Republican stance is not theirs.
On a side note, if we end up with a Obama win with either:
Kerry + IA + CO + NV
or
Kerry + IA + NM + NV (plus Congress breaking the 269)
McCain will be defeated for his position on two issues which play in two states - his opposition to ethanol (IA) and his support of nuclear power and its waste going to Yucca (NV). Ironic
topshelf1205 said...
"The website has it as a 78.21% chance for Obama to win Nevada. Intrade is based on lightly traded bets, it's not statistcal analysis."
And nate has it at a 64% chance of not flipping.
Maybe Nate's right, maybe this other website is more accurate. Bottomline is it's hard to say. You have very little polling there and a very small electorate. I don't think Obama has a 78% chance to win Nevada, but I also don't think McCain has a 64% chance. The last poll was done 8/24 before the conventions, it was a tie.
Since Sarah Palin started all this with lipstick and pitbulls, lets just bring it back there:
You can put lipstick on a pitbull, but she's still a bitch.
Hey, Palin's words.
Go ahead McCainiacs. You've already jumped the shark with the "sexism" defense now. Keep treading in the small stuff. The Obama campaign will talk to America about the issues that matter. Remember, adults vote - not sniveling little whiners.
Glenn-in-Colorado, you're a McCain supporter right?
Eric said...
"Glenn-in-Colorado, you're a McCain supporter right?"
Yes, but I enjoy this board most when its an honest assessment of the game by the political junkies we all are. The pajoratives belong elsewhere, this is a great site for people to discuss the game.
I may be a Yankees fan and many of you Red Sox ... but we can talk baseball at least here, right?
Cheers
Awww... Mason. Looks like I touched a nerve. Mission accomplished!
Nope. I just don't like people who don't recognize internal contradiction. Complaining about signal-to-noise when you're adding to the noise?
Oh.... and you were wrong. Rock usually goes, "Who's more racist? White people or Black people? Black people. Cause everything that white people hate about black people, black people really hate about black people. There's like a civil war goin on. There's black people. And there's niggas."
Ignorant doesn't come into it until later, as a quality that "black people" hate about "niggas".
Sure enough Glenn, you're the best blogger for me because I feel the same way, but I support Obama. I think you and me have the same basic assessment of this race. You said earlier you heard McCain was going to focus on Penn and Mich and let the West go. Is that based on something specific you heard or just a best guess. The polls would say that might not be their best strategy.
realistxxx said...
The race is 50/50, a tossup, a nail biter, coin toss... use whatever cliche you want.
Only a fool on either side would call it anything else.
Of course that is today... there are 7+ weeks left.
You speak the truth --- especially the line about "only a fool", but it must be fun to project stupid things since we see so much of it on this site.
I don't mind talking honestly about polling and such here, but the constant "McCain has it locked up" banter is NOT honest discussion. Neither McCain nor Obama has anything (except maybe the deep south and the coasts) locked up at this point.
The CNN polls are important because they takes Nader and Barr.
Obama +4 in Michigan with Nader with 4% is a very good news for him.
And the bad news for Obama was in Virginia, 3 consecutive polls with McCain leaning and in CNN McCain is up by 4 including Nader and Barr.
Conclusion at all:
Forgot to see Michigan red or Virginia blue.
Eric asks,
"You said earlier you heard McCain was going to focus on Penn and Mich and let the West go. Is that based on something specific you heard or just a best guess. The polls would say that might not be their best strategy."
It was in the footnotes of a fundraiser invite I got today in Colorado. The money goes to a variety of places including specifically the MO, MI, PA, and OH state GOPs BUT not the CO State GOP.
In New Hampshire and Michigan, both states won by John Kerry in 2004, Obama is leading McCain 51% to 45% and 49% to 45% respectively. When Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Independent Ralph Nader are added in Obama's lead narrows in Michigan to 45% to 42% and just slightly in New Hampshire, 48% to 43%.
The news for McCain is better in Virginia and Missouri, both states won by President George W. Bush in 2004, where the Republican nominee leads Obama 50% to 46% and 50% to 45% respectively. With third party candidates added in, McCain's lead in Virginia expands to 49% to 43%, though it narrows slightly in Missouri, 48% to Obama's 44%.
As a someone who just a little about I'm talking about, please let me say that:
--IT's LOOKING more and more like
the stock market will REALLY REALLY crash in the next 4-6 weeks.
Lehman is about to go under, or AT BEST sold for $2/share like Bear Stearns.
-- IF that happens, pls be prepared for a cascade of bank failures starting with Washington Mutual. Maybe even Citigroup!!
-- GM and or FORD may also go into bankruptcy due to their auto loan business, where credit losses ar so steep, and falling off the cliff, every 2-3 days.
-- Credit card and auto loan defaults are currently going thru the roof, vs. their ability to cover the extra losses from their current capital base.
--- Commercial reals estate is also going into a downturn, at a quicker rate than anyone expected 90 days ago.
THIS COULD REALLY REALL AFFECT Nov 4th, IF we have Black October collapse in the stock market!!
People, you ignore this at your peril!
Glenn-in-Colorado said...It was in the footnotes of a fundraiser invite I got today in Colorado. The money goes to a variety of places including specifically the MO, MI, PA, and OH state GOPs BUT not the CO State GOP.
Interesting, I would note that I think both campaigns are keeping some of their cards to themselves. That note is open information and when McCain came to a fundraiser in Chicago a couple days ago, Plouffe had a meeting with the press and mentioned strategy to get to 270 and left off a couple of obvious states, but mentioned Omaha. I think neither camaign want to reveal their whole hand.
I wonder what Nate's model would have looked like if he had kept the bounce modifier.
I didn't like the concept but I have a feeling the model would be predicting more of an advantage for Obama because of discounting McCain's gains as an ephemereal bounce.
What's cool is that Nate predicted what the back-to-back convention bounces would look oike and so far he was very prescient.
Glenn, what do you think about Colorado?. Is for Mac or Bama?.
You know very well the situation if you are from the colorful state.
Is there a reason there hasn't been a polling update today?
quantman said...
"--IT's LOOKING more and more like
the stock market will REALLY REALLY crash in the next 4-6 weeks. Lehman is about to go under, or AT BEST sold for $2/share like Bear Stearns. -- IF that happens, pls be prepared for a cascade of bank failures starting with Washington Mutual. Maybe even Citigroup!!"
I expect 100 small and regional bank failures by year end ... cause: The wiping out of FNMA and FHLMC perferred stock.
On first glance this might appear to be a very bad field for McCain to play on. But Fannie and Freddie have been the two largest political contributors in the country. The money flows to both parties but more so to Democrats and the D's have big exposure via Schumer and Franks to the sleaze-fest that is their House and Senate Banking Committees. Bottomline it could break either way...but I agree with you it will be a major news event through the elections.
Problem for the McCain-camp: If they give up Michigan and New Hampshire, they only have one very, very small path to 270 left. That path leads through 3-4 coin tosses and several likely but not safe McCain states. They cannot give up these 2 states and still keep an agressive, active attitude.
Mike Huckabee agrees that the Republicans need to stop piddling around and get back on issues. Maybe he should have been the Republican candidate after all.
Huckabee: "Let's shift back to the issues"
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee sent the following message to HuckPac supporters:
"Last night, while on Hannity & Colmes I cut Barack Obama some slack on his reference to "lipstick on a pig." Now I personally don't think he was referring to Gov. Palin, but if he was he should apologize immediately.
Almost twenty four hours into this new controversy and the accusations are continuing to fly from both campaigns. That's too bad."
"Let's shift back to the issues. Barack Obama released an education proposal yesterday that has plenty of faults. Lets talk about it instead. Republicans have been arguing correctly for choice in our schools and adding accountability. Lets spend our time and energy focusing on what we stand for. There is plenty to talk about."
PS the looming Freddy and Fannie tsunami was being talked about a month ago in the Street. My hunch is this is what doomed Senator Bayh, as Obama couldn't risk have a Fannie and Freddy protector on his ticket if they blew up.
Does John McCain's status as a war hero still apply given that he is using his VP Nominee as a human shield?
I am watching O"Reilly with Obama. Just before starting Bill DEFENDED Obama against Lipstick on a Pig -- and said it would blowback on McCain.
This interview was actually great -- Tough questions with RESPECT for the candidate.
I would like to hear from my democratic friends. Given that this is FOX, what do you think of O"Reilly?
Human shield or ventriloquist dummy? I think if you look hard enough you can seen McCain's mouth moving while she's giving his speeches. I'm gonna have to start looking to see if McCain drinks any water while she's speaking.
Here's a good primer on the looming Banking Tsunami,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/wallison.fanniemae/
"These warnings began in earnest near the end of the Clinton administration, especially by Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers, and were carried forward by the Bush administration, which supported legislation that would provide stronger regulation for Fannie and Freddie.
But these warnings were ignored in Congress. Although there were efforts by a number of Republicans in the House and Senate to adopt tougher regulatory legislation -- beginning in 1999 -- these efforts were resisted by Democrats, primarily Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who is currently the chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over the GSEs.
To their credit, when the problems of Fannie and Freddie finally became too obvious to ignore, the Democrats in the House and Senate voted for stronger regulation of the two companies and to give the Secretary of the Treasury broad authority to bail them out. But by then it was far too late to save the taxpayers.
In the current election season, the American people should want to know why it is that they as taxpayers will now be compelled to bail out these companies.
John McCain was one of the Republicans who supported GSE reform, but he and the others faced an insurmountable defensive phalanx in Congress -- the result of a strong lobbying and political support program engineered and operated over many years by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The fact that the Republicans controlled Congress during much of this period shows the validity of McCain's comment in his convention acceptance speech that "We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us."
Among other things, Fannie and Freddie orchestrated substantial contributions to the campaign funds of their congressional supporters. They hired some former congressional staff members as lobbyists and engaged lobbying firms that had strong relationships with members of Congress, including lobbyists who are active in both of this year's presidential campaigns
They got people who were homebuilders, Realtors and members of the securities industry -- all groups that profited from Fannie and Freddie's activities -- to hold fundraising events for key members of Congress of both parties; they staged ribbon-cuttings and other events in the congressional districts of their supporters in order to provide them with favorable publicity; they established charitable arms that contributed to community groups who in turn supported them when some in Congress sought tougher regulation.
This is a prominent example of Washington's culture of corruption. The government put its credit behind the two companies; this enabled them to grow and dominate the housing finance market; they used their resulting financial and political power to gain and retain the support of key members of Congress; and the process continued until they collapsed -- at which time the taxpayers have to clean things up."
FloridaGOP said...
I am watching O"Reilly with Obama. Just before starting Bill DEFENDED Obama against Lipstick on a Pig -- and said it would blowback on McCain.
I agree, in my mean and over-the-top sort of way (see above). I can't believe that I agree with Bill O'Reilly.
My head hurts.
FL-GOP,
O'Reilly is a blowhard and showboat, but I think deep down this schtick.
What he craves is attention and respect. Obama showed him that. He has been very nice to Obama both during the interviews and wrap ups.
Smart move by Obama. Better than Saddleback where he though he might get a fair break from Warren.
I am still not sure how Saddleback plays long run but going back to back with McCain didn't work too well.
Fl GOP -
I haven't watched the three parts this week. Bill-O's unprofessionalism as an interviewer in the first part soured me to it. I'll have to go back and watch the three from this week I guess.
I would like to hear from my democratic friends. Given that this is FOX, what do you think of O"Reilly?
Amazingly, I gained some respect for O'Rielly. He's still a terrible journalism/commentator, but his interview with Obama was good, and certainly better than Olberman's. Obama had a chance to defend himself to the very people who don't like him. Olberman had only softball questions.
I just came across this article, which might be interesting to readers of this site: Number-crunching pollster sees decisive Obama win
Thanks to Tito, Realistxxx, and Nicholas for replies,
I tend to avoid Fox, sort of inoculating myself with CNN (Like Anderson Cooper best) and MSNBC. I just can not take Olberman, but I do listen to Rachel with her new show. Chris Matthews is the problem, I used to like him and watch him all the time. Maybe I am wrong, but he seems to be moving closer to Olberman. A real problem for a politics junkie.
Nicholas -
I agree about Olbermann's Obama interview. I'm a democrat, I'm partisan, I like Olbermann's show. But that interview with Obama was just pure fluff. I tuned out most of it.
I've seen football coaches get tougher questions from sideline reporters as they're heading into the locker room at half-time.
Libertarian,
I thought that you were full of s**t when you said that better educated voters favor McCain and the GOP. I couldn't quite put my finger on why, but then it dawned on me: it's because you are full of s**t!
In April 2008, Gallup found that Obama leads with those having postgraduate education, is even among college grads, leads among those with some college, and trails only with those with high school education. Other experts have found similar results. For example, Alan Abramowitz analyzing 2004 results shows a correlation between both self-IDing as a Democrat and voting for Kerry.
O'Reilly is a blowhard and showboat, but I think deep down this schtick.
What he craves is attention and respect. Obama showed him that.<<<<
Realistxxx. You hit the nail on the head. O"Reilly wants to be seen as a non biased reporter compared with the right wing nuts on the show that follows his.
@sedi:
CNN 2004 exit poll data show a slight positive correlation between education and GOP preference: Kerry leads among "No High School", Bush leads 52% to 46% among "College Graduate".
There is an even stronger correlation between income and GOP preference: Kerry leads Bush 63% to 36% among those with income under 15.000, while Bush leads Kerry 63% to 35% among those with income above 200.000. That's even if you adjust for race, gender etc.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Given that there is only a slight positive correlation for education, but a strong positive correlation for income, we can conclude that Republicans tend to have higher returns on their investment in education.
GregM said...
I just came across this article, which might be interesting to readers of this site: Number-crunching pollster sees decisive Obama win
I might be the biggest Obama supporter on this blog, and even I don't think he's got a chance to win anywhere near 55-45 in the popular vote. That's crazy!
Libertarian,
Well, yes, I'd agree that income correlates positively with voting GOP, and that makes a certain amount of sense, since the GOP promises lower taxes on this group. And I will agree that those who cash in their degrees for high-paying jobs are more likely to vote GOP. But there are lots of people besides academics who are well (or very well) educated but don't have high incomes. Many people don't see education as a financial investment as much as a way of improving oneself. And quite a few people get rich with very little education.
I stand by my position that more education is correlated with voting Democratic, though I will certainly concede your position that higher income groups tend to vote more Republican. See my links for a more detailed view of the 2008 and 2004 numbers (the 2004 numbers are buried in a chart near the end of the PDF).
Libertarian, Well, yes, I'd agree that income correlates positively with voting GOP, and that makes a certain amount of sense, since the GOP promises lower taxes on this group.
Indeed, if you earn 250.000 you just don't want to face a marginal tax rate of 60% (income tax plus payroll tax that Obama plans to uncap). However, in my view low-income families would also benefit from a free-market approach. They are the ones that are caught in the vicious cycle of failing unionized state schools that the Democrats want to protect, while school choice and school vouchers would allow them to escape. High-income families however benefit from the status quo as they tend to live in leafy, affluent neighborhoods with good schools, and their house prices are driven up due to high demand for houses in these catchment areas with good schools, while low-income families are kept out. So I would contend that school choice is an issue where rational low-income families should prefer the GOP, while high-income families may even benefit from the status quo that Democrats vow to uphold. The same is true for trade: Poor families would be hurt by the Democrats' protectionism as tariffs would make many products far more expansive.
And I will agree that those who cash in their degrees for high-paying jobs are more likely to vote GOP. But there are lots of people besides academics who are well (or very well) educated but don't have high incomes. Many people don't see education as a financial investment as much as a way of improving oneself. And quite a few people get rich with very little education.
Here I agree. My assumption is that Republicans may tend to prefer subjects like economics, finance, computer science, natural science, maths, corporate law, while Democrats may rather tend to choose subjects like arts, philosophy, political sciences, sociology, gender studies - but that's only a guess as I haven't seen any surveys. Republicans would have a higher (monetary!) return on their educational investment. I would be interested in rigorous studies.
I stand by my position that more education is correlated with voting Democratic, though I will certainly concede your position that higher income groups tend to vote more Republican.
As for education: This year polls indeed appear to show a slight positive correlation between education and preference for Obama - I'm wondering to what extent that's due to age distributions. 30 or 40 years ago only 20-25% went to college; today it's 40-45%. There is a negative correlation between age and preference for Obama this year (probably due to the fact that Obama is 25 years younger than McCain), and younger people tend to go to college far more often than older people did, so that might explain the result. If we introduced age as a control variable, I'd assume the data would again reveal the (slight!) positive correlation between education and GOP preference but that would depend on more thorough investigation.
PS: As you stand by your claim that "more education is [positively] correlated with voting Democratic", how would you personally explain this correlation? Do certain types of education make people more left-wing? (If you're on the left you may say: "If you get educated you become more likely to see the light." If you're on the right you may say: "Young students get indoctrinated by left-wing college professors on campus.") Or do people who are more left-wing in the first place prefer to stay longer at college than young right-winger who want to start earning money as soon as possible? Or is there a hidden variable (urban/rural, religious/secular etc.)?
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要打工兼差、打工,兼差,八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,便服店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當日領上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有鋼琴酒吧又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、想要兼職、有缺錢的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的賺錢,酒店和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment