He'll be the nominee of the Constitution Party:
On September 5, the ballot-qualified Constitution Party of Montana submitted its presidential elector candidates to the Secretary of State. The party informed the Secretary of State that its electors are pledged to Ron Paul for president and Michael Peroutka for vice-president. Ron Paul was aware that the party planned to do this, and has said that as long as he can remain passive and silent about the development, and as long as he need not sign any declaration of candidacy, that he does not object.Could Paul be a difference-maker? He's actually pretty popular up there. Paul was responsible for raising 8.4 percent of the funds raised by all Presidential candidates in Montana. By that metric, Montana is his third-best state after Alaska and North Dakota.
Highest Ron Paul Fundraising Share, as
Percentage of All Presidential Candidate
Funds Raised
Alaska 12.2%
North Dakota 8.8%
Montana 8.4%
Idaho 7.3%
New Hampshire 6.5%
Wyoming 6.4%
Iowa 6.3%
Nevada 5.3%
Kansas 5.1%
Hawaii 5.0%Paul also got about 22 percent of the Republican vote in the largely meaningless Republican primary in June, and finished ahead of McCain (but behind Mitt Romney) in the somewhat meaningful Republican caucus in February.I do think he'll steal a few votes from McCain -- particularly given the selection of Sarah Palin, who may not play all that well with libertarianish Republicans. But he'll likely also take some votes from Obama, especially among under-30 voters, as well as from other third-party candidates. And having attended a Ron Paul event in Chicago last summer (don't ask -- we don't get many presidential candidates around these parts), I also get the sense that he turns out certain folks who just wouldn't bother voting period if it weren't for Ron Paul.
My guess? He gets 5-6 percent of the vote, taking 2-3 percent from McCain, 1-2 percent from Obama, and 2-3 percent from other/nobody.
248 comments
1992 in Montana:
Clinton 37.63%
Bush 35.12%
Perot 26.12%
I wouldn't underestimate the impact of Paul's candidacy in Montana.
Wow, now this is a odd development. MT may have only 3 electoral votes, but in a race this tight, 3 votes are huge for both candidates.
Nate: Assume for a second that Paul saps more from McCain than Obama, and Obama squeaks by in MT. Does a victory here make his road to 270 truly easier? And by that, I mean altering some of his "win" scenarios" drastically?
Does this put Paul on the ballot in other states where the Constitution party has a ballot approved presence?
I don't see any way Paul gets less than 20% up there. It's absolutely true that he'll siphon votes from both candidates, so I wouldn't say this necessarily gives Obama the state. But this is a huge thing, and it does trend in Obama's favor.
Oh man, you kids are really grasping at straws.
The moment McCain selected Palin, Montana was returned safely to the Republican column, just as Colorado and Nevada will with poll confirmation imminent.
It is nice to see Obama waste his money in the west, while Palin lives in Michigan for the remainder of the campaign.
I don't know why most commentators assume that MT is not in play. While it has trended Republican in the past, Obama has polled well there this year (even and +5 in the 2 July polls) and the success of Tester and Schweitzer suggest that Democrats can succeed in the state. Adding Ron Paul to the mix seems like it will enhance Obama's chances. It's only 3 EVs, but they could conceivably be important ones.
Can anyone who lives in and/or knows MT very well make a strong case for the state not being in play?
The sorts of libertarians who like Ron Paul (he's still a bit too socially conservative for my liking) are really underserved (or unserved) by the big two parties. I suspect most of his support will come from non-voters.
Michael: Did the magic 8 ball tell you that, or is that just the Kool-Aid talking?
You're no more a pundit than the rest of us, so stop your bloviating.
Michael,
Do you have any reasons for your views, or is mindless opinion good enough for you? I have a strong hunch that I already know the answer to that question...
You guys gotta see this 5 min video about McCain/Bush and future wars. It's spooky.
Check it out
These idiots try to take aim at Nate...
Y'all gotta learn to just ignore it when people spout nonsense sometimes. =)
Michael
The first post convention poll out of Colorado had Obama up by 3.
Paul in MT hurts McCain, period. I disagree with your assertion that Palin is not going to be well liked by libertarians. She has not been vetted by the DC Establishment including the CFR and other internationalist gatekeepers libertarians don't like. Palin's battles against Interior and EPA also get her libertarian cred.
But, the West is the most supportive region for 3rd party candidates and MT will probably vote 4-5% Paul. I agree with Nate's assessment of where these votes come from ... probably with a little more emphasis on undervoters voting. The ACP is not the Libertarian Party. It is a Christian Right party. Alan Keyes is the ACP candidate on the ballot in CO. Frankly Barr is a better fit for the ACP and Paul for the Libertarians.
Maybe Michael thinks Palin's politeness will play well in MT. After all, she did say please, thanks, and no thanks, before she accepted earmark funds for the 'bridge to nowhere' (and then used those funds for things other than the bridge)
Please post the link of MC Cain and future wars
The right-libertarian-leaning, gun-loving, old-fashioned westerners who Palin appeals to are going to love Paul even more.
For one thing, you can vote for him without voting for that McCain feller you've hated for so long.
Tough to say what this will do; but sitting as I am on the front range of Colorado, I just thought I'd let the con-men out there know that Colorado is Obama country. No way, no how is it going to McCain.
Rasmussen's tracker is back to a tie today. We'll need to see the other trackers to confirm it, but McCain's bounce might fade almost as quick as Obama's did.
It's interesting. Lots of my fellow libertarians are willing to put aside differences on "social issues" for a chance to have a "regular person" in government. Bob Barr is a joke this year, so it was write-in or no-vote this time until Palin. This will be the first time I ever vote Republican. This Nevada libertarian puts the argument best:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/27968074.html
PS the ACP is best described as a Christian falangist party, well to the right of the GOP. The difference being that falangists (which are Catholic in their roots) have become more broadly Christian in America and have vetted fascists and neo-nazis out. They are race tolerant (with the caveat that many might view their anti-Mexican immigrant policies as racially motiviated) but strongly anti-gay and anti-internationalist. The national ACP nominated African-American Alan Keyes.
That's great, but I'm more concerned with getting Barr on the ballot in Pennsylvania. Nader's on the ballot already.
Check this out!
Spookey video. McCain = Bush = Dangerous
This post had perfect timing - some coworkers and I were just wondering what impact Paul might have. In my social circle, the registered Republicans are all writting him in. I understand he's doing particularly well in NV.
Montana + Omaha = New Hampshire
Also, if crazy things happen where unexpected flips happen that make the map crazy, for example, Florida falls to Obama, but Pennsylvania flips to McCain, thne the tipping point states change. But, Obama's easiest path is Kerry states + NM + Iowa + 5 electoral votes. Montana's 3 would not matter in that scenario.
pygmy_owl said...
"Tough to say what this will do; but sitting as I am on the front range of Colorado, I just thought I'd let the con-men out there know that Colorado is Obama country. No way, no how is it going to McCain."
Would be interested to hear your explanation of why CO is locked Obama ... dropping the pejoratives would be appreciated too ;-)
Cheers
Glenn (Boulder)
Vern-
As a fellow libertarian, I have to disagree with your stance.
I'd much rather have civil rights and liberties than have a 'regular person' leading the country.
Wasn't GW Bush supposed to be a 'regular person' as well?
I know lots of 'regular people' and Sarah Palin would not fit in that category. She's just a little strange...
I live in Montana and I see Ron Paul signs everywhere I go in the state. Probably more so than Obama signs. I live in Helena, so we may not be indicitive of the whole state, but I don't see much enthusiasm at all for McCain.
@Michael, from my experience Palin is a big turn off for voters around here.
This definitely helps Obama in Montana, but that does not open up many additional electoral wins. It mainly makes New Hampshire less relavant.
No big changes in the Colorado win senario
Kerry + IA - NH + NM + CO = tie (likely Obama win)
Adding MT = electoral win
Virgina is safer against a New Hampshire loss.
Kerry + IA - NH + VA + MT = Obama win (switched from loss)
An odd New Mexico, Nevada play without Colorado is no longer a tie
Kerry + IA + NM + NV = tie
Kerry + IA + NM + NV + MT = Obama win
An Obama win in OH or FL while carrying the Kerry States + IA - NH is a win no mater what.
Montana is might prevent a tie in a Michigan loss senario.
Kerry + IA - MI + CO + NM + VA = tie
So Ron Paul in Montana is not a huge game changer. I am guessing it will reduce the tie senarios. And it makes a McCain play in in New Hampshire less important.
Hey Glenn-
You should get together with the other McCain supporter in Boulder and have a rally!
-Shap (Denver)
@Matt
great video.
Not sure why Nate thinks Libertarians won't like Palin. I think many will view her AIP connections as libertarian, and there's already been buzz about her libertarian tendencies on the net
Paul will get a helluva lot of write-ins here in North Dakota.
Joseph said:
Nate: Assume for a second that Paul saps more from McCain than Obama, and Obama squeaks by in MT. Does a victory here make his road to 270 truly easier? And by that, I mean altering some of his "win" scenarios" drastically?
Kerry states
-PA -NH +Iowa +NM +Fl +MT
Montana is decisive in that scenario. PA could flip easier than Michigan if Barr's name is left off.
I can't wait for the next Montana poll.
OK, did the reporter hear wrong or is Plouffe smoking something?
"The Obama camp is counting on holding all the states won by Kerry in 2004. The campaign also expressed confidence in its ability to flip Iowa and New Mexico, two states that went for Bush in the last election.
If Obama won all those states, they’d have 264 electoral votes. The remaining six needed for a win, said Plouffe, could come from a victory in Colorado, Indiana, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, or Nebraska."
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=45368908-18FE-70B2-A8438BCB26DBEFFD
Nebraska?? First of all, Nevada and Nebraska have only 5 electoral votes, not six, but maybe he's including the tie scenario, but to list Nebraska and not, say, North Carolina, is just bizarre.
ARG National Poll
Obama 47
Palin/McCain 46
Interviews conducted Sept 6,7,8
Just dropping one day of McCain's big 3 bounce days (Sept 5,6,7) puts Obama back on top slightly. By the end of the week Obama will be back to his same avg 2-3 point national lead from before the conventions.
"Montana + Omaha = New Hampshire"
The overwhelming majority of circumstances that Obama wins an Omaha EV and/or quite possibly Montana are ones where he already wins NH easily.
Speaking as a libertarian, Palin scares the hell out of me. She's way too social-authoritarian.
North Dakota's results are very similar to Montana's from February.
And Paul got 17% of the vote in South Dakota's primary in June.
Next MT comes out at 5 today as I understand it.
"Hey Glenn-
You should get together with the other McCain supporter in Boulder and have a rally!
-Shap (Denver)"
Thanks for the jab, lol ...
Actually I live in a little bubble inside the People's Republic of Boulder ... my hood has lots of McCain peeps.
Boulder has a hard core conservative underground ... hell Bob Brown, publisher of Soldier of Fortune lives here (I actually lived with the editor of the mag back in grad school).
But in the end Boulder's political diversity consists of the Left, the Left Left and the Left Left Left ... and then a few reactionaries like me.
Cheers
Glenn
Libertarians like Sarah Palin? Really?
I've voted Libertarian in every presidential election since I turned 18, and the woman gives me the willies. Between the (alleged) attempt at book banning, the (apparent) extreme social conservatism, and the mocking of people who are concerned about civil liberties that may be infringed by the "war on terror"...man, I dunno. Maybe I've lost track of what libertarianism is, but I don't think that's anyone I can get behind.
My two cents, of course. Feel free to vote for whomever you wish.
I live in Kalispell, MT which is located in the Flathead Valley and typically votes Republican by a 70-30 margin. When Jon Tester was elected over Conrad Burns (a VERY close race that Tester won by about 3000 votes!)
Flathead County voted for Burns 60-40 percent over Tester.
I would second the other commenter from Helena's viewpoint that I've seen way more Ron Paul signs than either Obama and ESPECIALLY McCain. Having said that Ron Paul's supporters are just enthusiastic. After Joe Biden spoke here on Sunday there were not McCain people but Ron Paul people outside with signs and telling people the "truth". So, I think One of the keys to an Obama victory (in MT) is depressing the Republican voting McCain people in the Flathead Valley (the fastest growing area in the state!) combined with getting huge turnout in the traditional liberal areas of Missoula, Butte and parts of Bozeman and Great Falls. The Billings area I don't see Paul affecting things much..but the critical area to watch for Paul, in my opinion, will be the Flathead Valley..people are pretty nuts up here and that could swing the state to Obama (because, I think, the state is going to be decided by a few thousand votes)
Kenny B,
Nebraska allocates some of its EVs by congressional district, so Obama could score one there.
What I never hear about is the Maine 2nd. Maine sends two Repubilcans to the Senate every year, and the Maine 2nd might as well be a western state. And of course, nobody polls the Maine 2nd.
Ron Paul Revolution!!
If the banking system collapses before the election, which there is an outside chance it'll do (not the sky falling, just WaMu and a few others going belly up, a big credit tightening, and a few thousand points off the dow) Ron Paul will have a larger impact. His critique of the baking system is actually very forward thinking, albeit a bit panicky.
Joseph,
No, only the Montana Constitution Party decided to put Paul on the ballot. Paul is also on the ballot in Louisiana under the "Louisiana Taxpayers Party" banner.
Most people don't realize the state party is responsible for who gets on the ballot. National parties have no say in the matter. This usually manifests itself in smaller parties because of factionalism, but it happens from time to time in the majors.
The southern states ran the "Dixiecrat" ticket in 1948 rather than the national Democrats.
Does anyone find it odd that Ron Paul's biggest findraising share state, Alaska, is also the most quasi-socialist state in the union? The government owns most of the land in Alaska, and redistributes the money made off that land to Alaskans, not to mention the federal largess that pours into Alaska (and, as we have read, into Sarah Palin's Wasilla, in the form of federal earmarks).
Libertarians like Sarah Palin? Really?
Based on the Reason web site, I'd say a lot of the Republican-leaning ones do. Not so much the leftier ones.
Its paleolibertarians vs. cosmotarians.
Looking at your Pie Graph currently at 61.2% Obama and 38.8% McCain, my number sense (kind of like Spidey sense!) tells me that maybe it's highly unusual to change the size of those pie pieces as quickly as you have recently. Wasn't McCain at 27.9 or 29.7 in the last week or so? If it was 27.9, that would mean the size of his share of the pie has increased by around 33% to reach 38.8 and that seems like an awful lot in such a short time.
Am I misunderstanding what the graph is about or is there something too volatile about the way it's put together or is my number/math sense off? I see this as related to when a kid multiplies two three digit numbers and comes up with a four digit number for the answer and doesn't realize by looking at it that it MUST be wrong. (I sometimes grade papers for my math teacher wife/honey/love of my life.) Or should we just be looking at the pie graphs as fun stuff? Or is my memory simply incorrect?
The libertarians who think the Ron Paul Survival Report newsletters were no big deal love Sarah Palin.
If you've ever been robbed by a moose, you know how incredibly fleet of hoof they can be.
@Joe
Yeah, I guess I'm to the left of the average Libertarian, so that makes sense.
It's the same ideological struggle that took place at the LP convention, it appears.
leftcoastman-
What you are seeing is the removal of the convention correction in the numbers. Normally numbers do not change this fast in elections, except for bounces. Nate had corrected for bounces, but removed the correction because the VP picks and the conventions fell right on top of each other. Nate himself has said don't pay alot of attention to it until things settle down.
1. Ron Paul is also strongly against a woman's right to choose. Moreover, I suspect Palin is relatively popular with Republican libertarians, who are mostly gun-nuts. They also like her more as a cultural example of one of them, who lives in a god-forsaken place and hunts animals, whether or not they agree with her on all the issues.
"I don't see any way Paul gets less than 20% up there."
2. That is because you are mind-numbingly stupid.
Ron Paul got 25% of the vote in the Montana CAUCUS because 400 of his brain-dead supporters showed up. How the hell is he going to match that in the general electorate which, one would think, is more moderate than Republican caucus-goers?
Incidentally Ron Paul ran in Montana before in 1988. He won 1.38% of the vote - and that was while he was actually campaigning (he won't be this time).
In fact, Libertarian and Constitution party results do not suggest a groundswell of support in Montana.
Libertarian vote totals in Montana
1992: .24%
However, it is worth noting that Bo Gritz, running under the slogan of God, Guns and Gritz won .89% of the vote that year. Montana libertarianism is mostly about guns.
1996: .62% (Natural law got .43%)
2000: .42% (Buchanan got 1.39%)
2004: .39%
Ron Paul will only matter if Montana is incredibly close - which it won't be with Palin on the ticket. Montana's "libertarianism" is mostly a dislike of governments taking away people's guns, and conveniently disappears whenever anybody mentions farm subsidies (I am reminded of Catch-22).
"ARG National Poll
Obama 47
Palin/McCain 46
Interviews conducted Sept 6,7,8
Just dropping one day of McCain's big 3 bounce days (Sept 5,6,7) puts Obama back on top slightly"
There's an ARG tracking poll? I had never heard of it before. It's like ARG's regular polls only somehow less reliable!
Obama just won Montana. Obama is at 258 if you assume he wins all the Kerry States (-New Hampshire) and picks up Iowa and Montana. He needs 11 more votes to win the Election.
Obama 277, McCain 261
Hey Glenn:
The explanation for the deadlock is basically Colorado Springs. I don't have hard numbers on this, but my sense (finger to wind and all that), is that the evangelical vote isn't the overarching strain of western independent voter.
It's true that Boulder is exceptionally liberal, and that the Springs is exceptionally conservative, but there's a strong tradition of independent thinking throughout Colorado -- quite a bit more like New Hampshire and Arizona than like Alabama or South Carolina. The McCain/Palin ticket doesn't represent that kind of independent thinking. Arizona is only in McCain's pocket because he's from that region. If McCain weren't on the ticket, I bet they'd lean toward Obama too.
I think djl has it exactly right when he/she says that Palin is distinctly _not_ libertarian. Westerners like their freedom, and they do not like seeing totally irresponsible economic policies such as those supported by Bush for the past eight years and now McCain in this election.
Moreover, and this is actually a really big deal for Colorado: our state is poised to become a center for renewable energy. That's true up and down the front range. Drilling, with the exception of oil shale extraction (which is extremely expensive, destructive, and controversial) is not an option here. Even the big oil companies, like Conoco-Philips recognize that Colorado is poised to become a leader in renewable energy, as does Fort Collins, Boulder, and most of Denver. To fall back on 19th century technologies for energy production, as McCain/Palin want to do -- "Drill, Drill, Drill!" -- will do nothing to boost our economy.
As for why Colorado won't go to McCain, that's because I'm gonna bust my ass to make sure that it doesn't.
Paul will siphon off more votes from McCain than he will from Obama. Montana is very tight as it is, this could be the game changer. And for those who say that this is only 3 EVs, and therefore no big deal, I would remind you that Montana is next door to North Dakota, another rural state with 3 EVs that is polling very close. Kerry states plus IA plus NM plus MN plus ND = 270 EVs.
Kerry states plus IA plus NM plus MN plus ND = 270 EVs.
Imagine winning the presidency without winning either Ohio or Florida.
I hope you're right, Nate.
Incidentally Ron Paul ran in Montana before in 1988. He won 1.38% of the vote - and that was while he was actually campaigning (he won't be this time).
Libertarians are a lot more down on the GOP in 2008 than they were when Ronald Reagan was leaving office.
Especially when the GOP goes and nominates a gol durn "liberal" like John McCain.
If the banking system collapses before the election, which there is an outside chance it'll do ... His critique of the baking system is actually very forward thinking, albeit a bit panicky.
1. If the banking system collapses it will be because of too much deregulation not enough.
2. How is it forward thinking to address 21st century banking crises with 19th century policies (the gold standard), that have been discredited longer than Paul has been alive?
3. You sound almost like you are cheering for a banking crisis because it might lift Paul from 1% to 2% in the polls.
Oh and an aside to those that think Ron Paul will herald an Obama victory in Montana... look at exit polls from ANY Republican primary this year. Paul's support came from people angry at Bush, predominantly young people that hadn't voted before, mostly non-religious voters - these are people who would otherwise vote for Obama (or nobody), NOT McCain. I mean the guy's central issue was that the US should pull out of Iraq.
Kids, don't smoke crack, its a ghetto drug.
Interesting comments up here about Palin's apparent appeal to libertarians. From texas, myself, I liberally support libertarians at the local and state level (with the exception of Paul). But, Palin? Well, I simply wouldn't plop her in that category because she shoots moose and is from the open range...Try again. She has too many ??? floating around her regarding her beliefs that may infringe on civil liberties.
Look what Gallupis saying today.
OK, did the reporter hear wrong or is Plouffe smoking something?
If Obama won all [Kerry] states, they’d have 264 electoral votes. The remaining six needed for a win, said Plouffe, could come from a victory in Colorado, Indiana, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, or Nebraska."
Maybe he meant Nevada and one from Nebraska? That's not an implausible scenario and, unlike winning Nevada alone, would equal 6 more EVs for an outright win.
"Oh man, you kids are really grasping at straws.
The moment McCain selected Palin, Montana was returned safely to the Republican column"
See you at five then Michael. He had better be up high double digits.
Ron Paul ran in the GOP primaries. What distinguished him from all other Republicans in those GOP debates (and attracted him a unique cult following) was his antiwar stance. He was actually more antiwar than Obama himself in some respects. With Ron Paul's advocacy of America simply calling home her naval fleets and air forces and just pulling out of much of the world, his foreign policy was actually closer to what Tom Hayden and "The Nation" advocate than to the mainstream Democratic party.
Those Ron Paul supporters would never vote for McCain even if Ron Paul wasn't running because of McCain's support for the Iraq War, so McCain isn't losing them with the Ron Paul candidacy. My guess is that after Ron Paul dropped out, they either would have voted for the Green Party or some other fringe candidacy, or just not voted.
Only a tiny fraction of Ron Paul supporters ever supported him for his domestic program. Those are the hard-core libertarians who read "Reason" and worship Ayn Rand; and there aren't very many of them.
Having said that, the Florida recount debacle in 2000 is proof that just a very few votes can make a tremendous difference.
"Please post the link of MC Cain and future wars"
Here ya go - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w
It's actually quite old - but good.
Joseph said...
Does a [Obama] victory here [Montana] make his road to 270 truly easier? And by that, I mean altering some of his "win" scenarios" drastically?
If you assume a base of Kerry - NH + IO + NM, then probably not much. This combo equals 260. Obama would then need 9 to tie or 10 to win. As the most plausible to go his way would are CO(9), VA(13), OH(20), FL(27), and NC(15) and would all do the trick alone, MT is not a real game changer. Most plausible scenarios for MT to be decisive is the above base plus (1) NH + MT + ND or (2) MT + NV + ND or (3) MT + NV + 1 from NE and win the tiebreaker. MT also breaks a tie in some scenarios.
Look what Gallupis saying today.
In the full wake of McCain's bounce...I should hope so.
Two Strategic Vision Polls:
Michigan: (first time polling)
Obama - 45
McCain - 44
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/sneak_peak_obama_leads_in_mi_w.html
Wisconsin: (August O-47, M-42)
Obama - 46
McCain - 43
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/sneak_peak_obama_leads_in_mi_w.html
Theres an outside chance Montana could figure but it's unlikely. If it had 5 electoral votes instead of 3, then it would matter.
More good news for Obama.
2 new polls from the republican pollster Strategic Vision has Obama up by 1 in Michigan and by 3 in Wisconsin.
The polls was conducted just after the GOP convention (5/7 September) and the pollster is republican.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/sneak_peak_obama_leads_in_mi_w.html
I know it's down a little from last time, but Obama holding a +3 in WI makes me feel better. Some of the talking heads were saying that McCain might flip it by next polling.
Totally tangential to the Michigan poll: someoneripped on Nate a little for calling Michigan the "Wolverine State" yesterday and that press release on the new Strategic Vision polls also calls it that.
I just thought it was funny.
@scott.
Don't forget also than the polls was conducted just after the gop convention and Strategic Vision is completely biased republican.
It's a good news for Obama.
I think in the 4 debates, McCain/Palin need to win in a blowout for them to win this election. It's possible, but I'd bet against it. The last debate is on the economy October 15th. No matter how much preparation McCain does, he'll have a big problem to make it 90 minutes without appearing that he's not on his game. Perhaps he can win the rest of the 55 days between now and november 4th and that day won't matter, but my sense is enough of the electorate will decide on big issues for this to still be Obama's to lose. He probably needs to win one of Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia. If the popular vote is a virtual tie, it would proably be hard for McCain to hold off Obama in Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Florida and unlikely that McCain would flip any of the Kerry states. I will admit however that some Lean Obama states seem slightly more vulnerable now than they did two weeks ago.
Just a general statement: isn't it great to have some real polling again?!
The race truly is on again!
I think that the lesson to be learned from the comments here is that there are many kinds of libertarian. That's not to say that they don't believe in more or less the same things, but they have some things as a higher order of priority. That may be a reduction in federal spending and taxation, Iraq, guns, drugs, restriction of the commerce clause, constitutional rights... the list goes on, and each of the two main candidates has a hodge-podge of each. Hence, it is hard to speak of 'libertarians' as one homogenous voting block.
If I may:
Some posters here were getting pretty depressed yesterday after one day's worth of data. Obviously, the negativity was premature. Please don't do that anymore. Hold back. There's something to be said about the self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon. People like to vote for winners. In this case, Obama is the clear winner. This election is his to take in a landslide. Palin was trotted out in a sideshow to detract from what a bad presidential candidate McCain is.
Take a deep breath. Focus on the target. Watch as Obama sweeps.
Go Ron Paul!.
He´s the real canidate of the small-government.
Palin increases taxes in Alaska. We need small-governments, stop the GOP-Dems statism.
Sarah Palin isn´t a liberatrian. She´s a statist.
FWIW, the Virginia Independent Green Party is running a Bloomberg/Paul ticket, so Paul will be on the ballot in VA, though in the VP slot. (I got an email from them announcing this and encouraging the Constitution and Libertarian parties to reopen their nominating process and form an alliance with the same ticket, which of course they won't do.)
Oh, and I don't think that there are really any mainstream pollsters that are really intentionally biased, just whiners who think they are. Generally liberal whiners, I'm sorry to say.
Question folks? Does anyone believe Gallup is right and everyone else is wrong? They seem to be an outlier in a big way right now. Virtually every poll taken between Friday and yesterday other than Gallup has it as a tie or within 1 point. What's wrong with Gallup or what's wrong with every other poll?
Hence, it is hard to speak of 'libertarians' as one homogenous voting block.
Isn't "marching to the beat of your own drum" sort of central to Libertaianism? You know... be your own man without the gubbermint telling you what to do?
"What's wrong with Gallup or what's wrong with every other poll?"
My guess is that McCain just had an incredible Saturday in the daily polling. When that rolls off tomorrow I suspect that the polls will look a little different.
I agree, pygmy_owl. I recommend that anyone finding themselves overcome with Chicken-Littleism head on over to Al Giordiano's The Field for a cure.
Quite right, Eric. What's Gallup's house effect? According to Franklin, it's pretty strong (fourth only to the hated Rasmussen, 'other', and Economist/YouGov, which is a British journal and a British polling firm).
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_pollsters_affect_poll_resu.php
Of course, Gallup could be right, and the rest wrong (it's an effect, not a bias).
ABC is now reporting that the World wants Obama:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2360240.htm?section=world
This is no surprise, but I guess I wonder how it will play with the American voter. It could be argued either way: that some voters don’t want the rest of the world to determine our domestic and foreign policy; or that Obama is exactly the person we need to heal our reputation with the rest of the world. Matter of fact: it could even be argued that Obama is the only person who can make our world more peaceful.
I’m quite a bit more attracted to the latter line of thinking -– but it would be interesting to see some data on how many voters think the former. Certainly, the republicans will try to cast the report as an indication that Obama is not placing Country First, but this is such a transparently stupid line of reasoning that I wonder how many will bite.
Any thoughts Nate? Are there any polls on this?
I don't think Palin has locked up the west for McCain. To assume that other western states identify with
Alaska is a stretch and wishful thinking on the part of McCain supporters. Ron Paul will cost McCain Montana.............
538's got Obama at 61% to McCain 39% right now. However if you look at the state by states, Coloorado is the decisive state. If the Dem convention has created a long lasting (a few weeks), but artificial bounce there, there's no other tipping point state where Obama's over 50% according to Nate's estimates. We still need this thing to settle out over the next couple of weeks with more state polling, but I find that interesting.
Redshift, it is not clear that Bloomberg/Paul will be on the Virginia ballot:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/20/bloomberg-paul-ticket-in-virginia-wont-happen/
"ABC is now reporting that the World wants Obama:"
ABC News AUSTRALIA. I'm not even sure they are affiliated.
Gallup
Mac 49
Bama 44
same as yesterday.
But Rasmussen is Obama +1.
Back to Wisconsin for a moment:
Isn't this the kind of state people have been saying would be susceptible to a big Palin bounce? Can we read anything into one poll there?
Gallup Daily:
Obama - 44
McCain - 49
IIRC, Nate has Strategic Vision as tilting R.
Good news for Obama in MI and WI if it´s a republican pollster.
"But Rasmussen is Obama +1."
And since Rasmussen is run by an evil Republican (like most of the polling firms, but let's not mention that)... Obama will win in a Johnsonesque landslide.
Rasmussen is a tie today.
I think it's really difficult to figure what gallup's polling looked like yesterday because of the big shift on Saturday n Gallup. Saturday will drop off tomrrow from that poll, but was Sunday's result more because of a huge Saturday for McCain or the dropoff of that previous Wednesday where Obama did so well. I assume tomorrow's Gallup will be McCain 48 Obama 45. But, I don't think I trust Gallup so much.
I am looking forward to the effect of Paul on the race. In a grand scheme I can foresee a brutal split within the GOP between the old fiscal conservatives and the evangelicals. Reagan and Bush got them somehow together, but the 2008 election is already described as the end of the Reagan-coalition.
Barr is just a very bad candidate for the libertarian party. Paul would have been much better. But I see a real potential for a national libertarian party, being very strong in the northwest, attractive to hispanics, and with chances in maverick-states like Maine and New Hampshire. The Republican Party, if they chain their destiny to radical evangelicals like Palin, will be reduced to a mid-western/southern party.
What´s more important?. The Ron Paul effect or the Palin effect in Montana.
Interesting development. Paul is a force to reckoned with, but I think the Palin pick may have limited his appeal. He plays largely to an anit-government, lets retreat to the borders mentality and had a strong anti-war bent. He is something of a conservative maverick and I think he draws equally from the right and left.
A lot of Paul supporters would have gone to Obama.
I would not dismiss Palin's power to solify suppport even in the "libertarian" west. She is of these people and that idenity counts for something.
If McCain can open up a big lead in the MT polls, this Paul business can be dismissed as another curiosity.
A Ras tie is a +1 move towards Obama from yesterday. I assume that's what they meant?
I called radical fundamentalist, not radical evangelicals.
I think Gallup´s single results for the past 3 days were around +6/+5/+4 McCain.
Alex S. said...
The Republican Party, if they chain their destiny to radical evangelicals like Palin, will be reduced to a mid-western/southern party.
I agree. If for some reason the GOP decides Sarah Palin is their candidate in 2012 or 2016, she won't win. I'm not saying she won't help McCain in this 2008 election with 56 days to go, but she would hurt their chances if she was chosen in the future as the top of their ticket.
Palin isn´t the canidate for the small-government. He´s a radical religious not a libertarian.
And radicals religious hates individual freedom.
And hates small-government too.
McCain lost a strong day of polling for him wjhere he cut obama's lead from 4 to 2 and yet still held firm in the gallup. Evidence that yesterday's sample was a positive one for him.
Interesting line in their writeup, "Gallup polling in recent days has been quite stable, showing McCain ahead of Obama by similar margins in each of the last four individual days of nightly tracking."
I was hoping for a bigger drop off than that.
McCain doesn't need Colorado or Nevada if he can get Michigan, which has shown to be a toss up now.
I have the last 3 days of the Gallup tracker as McCain leads of 7, 5 and 3 points respectively. So tomorrow, If Obama has a tied day, the three day average will drop to a 3 point lead.
Could be completely wrong though as our guesses get progressively worse as each day passes.
If McCain lost Montana he lost Colorado and Nevada, too. It´s important for McCain to take MT.
Western states will be important this election.
McCain can´t win Michigan, it´s the most leftist state in the rusbelt. And the approval job of Bush there is one of the worst in the country.
Yes, Tyrone, but for how long?
The elementary question is how long the bounce will last. I don't think it will last longer than a week or so (and you can quote me on that if I'm wrong). It's based on a lot of fizz and nonsense (that is to say, Palin), which hid a half-assed convention and a half-assed candidate.
For the first time in this campaign, McCain is dominating the news media, and he's milking it for all it's worth. Somehow, the Dems will get back in the MSM if it takes Biden doing acrobatics in front of the Springfield State House, and then we might well see the bounce subsiding.
Then, to go back to my original point, Michigan will probably go back to being slightly swingy state, but not a toss-up.
Wow, talk about misreading a candidate. Libertarians love Sarah Palin. You just got finished noting how 12.2% of Alaska's GOP Presidential Funds come from Ron Paul, a figure well above every other state. Sarah Palin, sir, is governor of Alaska, and has incredible approval ratings, including among libertarians.
You might think, "Well, libertarians must not like her social conservatism, right?" And you would be correct, sort of. But here's the thing: Libertarians prefer social conservatives who also tend to cut spending and lower taxes, because they are less likely to introduce socially-minded programs that violate their civil liberties than liberals are! Isn't it funny how that works!
Such is the falseness of how "separation of church and state" is perceived by the left. They don't realize that social conservatives WHO ARE ALSO economically conservative, just want to be able to practice their religions in their own communities, churches, and homes, where their autonomy is absolute and not an area for state intrusion. That's what "separation" means to them.
But for liberals, that separation means that the state has no concern for religion and tradition, so that it has no respect for the autonomy of church and home, and thus the state must take up those banners of fulfillment usually reserved for private life; the state must make us happy, it must give us what we need, what we want, it must be good, do good save people. And thus liberals support a religion of the state, when they destroy traditional sources of value and affirmation (the family and the church) they look for those things from the state, effectively making it into a religion.
And libertarians-- non-socially conservative ones-- recognize this implicitly. They don't fear that a Sarah Palin is going to "legislate morality" because they have a much greater fear of that coming from the left, as it so often does.
Just what will the Montana poll tonight tell us if they didn't include Paul?
This is all going pretty much how Nate's convention bounce model postulated it would.
Big bump for Obama, followed by quikcly falling off, with a slower draw down for the Republicans.
The good news is after all of that Obama still leads in MI, WI, PA, etc.
Methinks we can add MT to the Democratic column now. Ron Paul will draw about 5% of the vote there, entirely from the Republicans.
... Biden doing acrobatics in front of the Springfield State House...
I'd actually like to see that. Wait a second: That would mean having to see Joe Biden in a unitard. Nevermind.
Ras polls are weighted by party affiliation.
If a significant % of democrats now consider themselves independents, that could explain much of the reason for the Rasmussen/Gallup differences. Democrat support is being overmeasured.
This is all going pretty much how Nate's convention bounce model postulated it would.
Big bump for Obama, followed by quikcly falling off, with a slower draw down for the Republicans.
But wait a minute! Nate is biased!!1!! :)
new PPP poll, FL mccain up 5.
mccain was up 3 in the last three time's they did polls. there.
I imagine Paul's appearance on Montana's ballot will draw out more non-voters than it will draw support from other candidates.
That's much the same thing Ross Perot did in 1992 and 1996. If you compare the turnout numbers of the 1988 election and the 1992 election, there were 20 million more voters in 1992 than in 1988. and how many votes did Perot win? 20 million, as it happens.
If Paul pulls support in any direction in Montana, I'll be surprised. I agree with 538's current map that suggests Montana leans Republican but is in play this year. Having Paul and Barr on the ballot won't make that much of a difference, since I believe most of their potential voters would just stay home—just like they did in 1988 and 2000.
For what it's not worth, I have Gallup last 3 days as +8, +5, +2.
Gallup is suggesting that McCain has had three stable days of polling suggesting that his margin over Obama has been approx five percent all three.
Though Nate resists the notion that the Reps did something structural to the electorate with the Palin pick and the convention that showcased both nominees, Gallup sees if differently:
"The GOP convention has clearly altered the structure of the race for now, which had shown Obama consistently ahead in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking updates for all but a few days from the time he clinched the nomination in early June until the end of last week."
I think Obama has been wasting his time attacking Palin and looking weak. The more he ignores McCain, the more he makes himself seem irrelevant. He is not running against Palin. He is just wasting time and diminishing himself in the process.
Palin is going to get a burst of positve publicity from her interview with Charles Gibson.
Tommorrow is the anniversay of 9-11. McCain and Obama will appear together. I see no upside for Obama in that either.
More gloom and doom for the lefties!
If a significant % of democrats now consider themselves independents,
This is a supposition unsupported by any available evidence. The Gallup poll crosstab posted by filistro upthread said that more inds and dems are supporting McCain, not that there are more/fewer of them.
Plus, it's misses the point. Gallup is the one that's furtherst from the median now, not RR.
John Peterson at 1221 has made nate look foolish.
nate is a bright guy, but he is no Michael barone and should leave the editorializing to the rabble!
Tyrone, how is Michigan a tossup? Even the R poll today, at the peak of the McCain bounce, has Obama +1. McCain has not led in a single MI poll since the beginning of June.
I would love an even money bet on Michigan right now.
The bounce is fading. Ras is probably about M+3.5, Tie, O+3.5 for the last 3 days. Gallup (first two numbers from Nate) is about M+7.2, M+5.7, M+2-3. I think by the end of the week we are going to be back in a band between M+2, O+3, just a bit better for McCain than Nate predicted. In a close race, Republicans definitely have the short end of the stick on the electoral math this time around if McCain can't get Michigan.
Bad news for Obama in FL and bad news for McCain in MI.
PPP and Strategic Vision are partisan pollsters.
Re MT poll tonight: A big lead for McCain will show Paul to be irrelvant.
Other than Louisiana, I haven't come across any evidence of where else Paul is attempting to et his name on the ballot. Any idea where else he'll make an effort?
As Mentioned PPP Poll in Florida:
Obama - 45
McCain - 50
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Florida_909.pdf
August Numbers - O44, M47
Poll taken 9/6 & 9/7 only
Thomas is taking consolation from Obama's lead in WI.
That is like McCain being happy with a lead in LA.
Re MT poll tonight: A big lead for McCain will show Paul to be irrelvant.
But a small McCain lead in a two-way poll could show the opposite.
new PPP poll, FL mccain up 5
I looked at the age breakdown, and, as someone from the state, I don't buy Obama being just +8 among 18-29 year olds in FL. I've talked to LITERALLY just one from my age group that's voting for McCain.
Flame me if you want, but I think the Under-29 Obama support is grossly understated in most every poll I've seen.
Any idea where else he'll make an effort?
He's not really making an effort anywhere. People who supported him in the primaries are making an effort on his behalf.
Dominoid:
Gallup is saying the polling has been stable over the past several days. that would indicate a flat five percent lead over each of the past three days and not a declining trend. Wishful thinking?
Well, PPP does not show a house effect even if they are said to be leaning democratic. This poll, also taken during the convention bounce shows McCain gaining 2% compared to the last PPP poll. I would assume it recedes back to 3% in a few days. But I cannot see structural gains for McCain yet.
Zooming in on the Electoral Vote Distribution graph, I guestimate that flipping Montana's 3 electoral votes would flip about 4% of the scenarios. Two of McCain's three biggest spikes are in that range.
Of course, I don't know the composition of those spikes. It may be that a significant number of those scenarios already had MT going for Obama.
Why would all these state polls come out while there is still a convention bounce? IIRC, Obama still had like a +8 lead last Tuesday, with Gallup tracking.
If anything, they would give the Republicans a false sense of security I would think.
I'm holding out till mid next week until things settle down to start paying attention again.
Gallup is saying the polling has been stable over the past several days. that would indicate a flat five percent lead over each of the past three days and not a declining trend. Wishful thinking?
Very doubtful.
The huge number that launched McCain up from -2 to +3 on Sunday drops out of the average tomorrow.
That number was undoubtably a double digit McCain lead, and I doubt it will be replaced by a similar number tomorrow.
The margin will be narrower tomorrow...perhaps much narrower.
Petekent, if you actually crack the daily numbers, that's what Gallup shows. Nate has posted his crack - 7.2, 5.7 for Sat/Sun. Dominoid and MPM and Glenn and I are a lot less sophisticated in our methods but we have all posted cracks that are pretty close to Nate's crack. MPM and Glenn are conservatives, btw. That leaves Mon to be in the 2-3 range for McCain. That makes sense, Rasmussen is also moving and the polls do move together. Guess now I know why intrade freaks out (in both directions) in reaction to tracking poll movements that should have been seen coming in advance.
As far as party ID, there are enthusiasm effects after conventions. Gallup swung harder for Obama after the Dem convention, and is swinging harder for McCain now. Perhaps McCain will hold on to his bump, but that typically isn't what happens historically.
Do convention bounces not show up in state polls or what?
Gallup today(vs recent USA Today/Gallup):
M 49(54)
O 45(44)
The bounce recedes. There has to be a huge day in there for McCain if they are using a rolling average, which I doubt.
Remember Monday after convention was Obama's best day, too.
Sorry guys, no decline in daily polling,,,,stable and locked in.
from Gallup today:
Gallup polling in recent days has been quite stable, showing McCain ahead of Obama by similar margins in each of the last four individual days of nightly tracking. McCain also had a 4-point lead over Obama among registered voters in the separate USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted this past weekend.
The GOP convention has clearly altered the structure of the race for now, which had shown Obama consistently ahead in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking updates for all but a few days from the time he clinched the nomination in early June until the end of last week. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)
Do convention bounces not show up in state polls or what?
I would expect that they do, though to a lesser degree. It could also be the "reddening of the red states" phenomenon that was discussed, too. Texas M+15 or Texas M+25, for instance, is still the same result.
As Mentioned PPP Poll in Florida:
Obama - 45
McCain - 50
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_Florida_909.pdf
August Numbers - O44, M47
Poll taken 9/6 & 9/7 only
So in the height of the RNC bounce, McCain added 3 points and Obama added 1.
Not too shabby for O.
John Peterson said: Wow, talk about misreading a candidate. Libertarians love Sarah Palin.
I think you've got a typo in there, John. You meant to say librarians love Sarah Palin. Because of course... it gives them such a a thrill when they get fired for objecting to talk of book-banning.
Those silly libertarians, OTOH, get quite exercised over that kind of petty stuff. They really, really don't like it. Not one bit.
@petekent:
It means that the bounce has simply crested. It may take a week or two for the bounce to start fading, which would be consistent with bounces from other years.
If this trendline persists through the next major political event (the debates, some unforeseen gaffe, world events, etc.) then we'll know if it's more than a transient bounce.
RCP has 17 different polls listed for today (I realize some, like Fox/Ras came out yesterday). Nate's got his work cut out for him. :)
State polling always lag national trends. I think as in the PPP poll in Florida, all of the battleground will soon to McCain.
Keep in mind, that 5 point popular victory is huge landslide victory in Electoral Votes.
On another note, I think that Rassmusen's current part weighting is now hurting the McCain numbers. I would be curious to get some unweighted likely voter reslults from him.
you people must have very short memories about FL.
nate already said a while ago when he was going through who's spending what in each state. obama was spending lot's of money mccain barely ANY......and yet he's still tied if mccain can keep it tied to being alittle bit up......i wounder what will happen when he start's to spend more money.....
obama doesnt really have much of a chance in FL if he cant get more then 5 points up.....
What the hell would it mean to be a libertarian if you are "looking into" book banning (maybe she should check out a copy of the old constitution) and is vehemently opposed to right to abortion? It's idiotic, self-serving logic.
State polling always lag national trends.
Well, not exactly. State polls will always lag national polls iff they are taken later than national polls. Since these state polls are being taken at the same time as national polls, you're not going to see any lag.
Someone on Democratic Underground says there's a game-changing legal development breaking against McCain by the end of the week. I'm a skeptic, especially considering the source, but I thought I'd let you all know.
Glenn in CO,
Electing John McCain will damage the economy of Colorado in a very real and specific way. McCain wants to change the distribution of water rights in the southwest, giving more rights to Phoenix and Las Vegas and less rights to Denver and Albuquerque. Less access to water means less ability to attract new industry to Colorado. Less industry means fewer jobs and a relatively crappier economy. Is that enough of a reason to think that Obama should win CO? Or just a reason to look at Scottsdale real estate postings?
Charlie-
Is his house being forclosed on? GBT strikes again!
hosertohoosier wrote:
""I don't see any way Paul gets less than 20% up there."
2. That is because you are mind-numbingly stupid."
It's possible. I'm not going to rule out mind-numbing stupidity on my part... that'd be premature. And, yeah, maybe 20% is a bit excessive, looking at it more closely. But I do think Paul will make more noise in Montana than you're claiming.
Look, I'm not a Paul fan. I'm an Obama supporter, and I think Paul is a goofball. But this is a pretty ideal scenario for him to get on the radar in one state. Montana is so tiny -- about 450,000 people voted in the '04 election -- that anyone with a pack of rabid in-state supporters can move the dial a bit. Paul has that. There are also a bunch of Pro-Paul zealots nationally that may well jump at the chance to help get him on the map somewhere. And it's not a state that either Obama and McCain will spend much to contest... in their relative absence, the pro-Paul voices will be fairly audible.
There are a number of reasons why Paul wouldn't actually appeal to some libertarian-leaning Montanans, but I'm not sure that either major candidate will bother pointing those reasons out. This is a small state that isn't likely to make a difference electorally -- in many ways, nobody's looking. It's an environment where the zeal of a bunch of Paul-boosters alone may be enough to catapult him over 10%.
Most Libertarians are one issue voters. Yes, that's right, all they care about is legalizing/decriminalizing drugs.
Now who is this more likely to draw votes from.
As far a Bob Barr is concerned, he has been marginalized and will get less than 1/2 of 1% in November.
TIPP poll has Obama +5, but it seems pretty crappy. Five day poll with the first two days before Palin speech.
It's interesting to me that while the bounce trendline is following Nate's model quite nicely, Gallup is hyperventalating about a "fundamental change" and Democratic blogs are panicking. State by state, though O isn't doing too shabby, but this goes unnoticed in the news.
The real concern is whether independents who are undecided are starting to make up their minds and "break" one way or another. Gallup suggests this might be the case but doesn't present any evidence (other than "history" but in no scientific way) that the sway in opinion is anything other than the expected temporary bounce.
Nate: any way of telling how solid the shift in independent preferences are? Is this just leaning with the wind or are numbers starting to solidify?
I imagine Paul's appearance on Montana's ballot will draw out more non-voters than it will draw support from other candidates.
Remember, Ron Paul drew 22% of the Republican primary vote in May. True, a bunch of them will come home, but anyone who's spent any time in Montana knows that a bunch of them will stay out there. Waaaaaaaaaay out there!
McCain and Palin are still stumping together using the same (false) applause lines, and the MSM has caught on and is appending those lines.
I somehow doubt independents appreciate being lied to by the candidates.
I wonder what will happen to McCain's crowds when Palin is no longer at his side. I'm pretty sure his campaign is afraid to find out-he's going to look pretty weak going back to 500-600 person crowds.
Seems like the tail has begun to wag the (bull)dog.
???
IBD/TIPP Poll
Obama - 45
McCain - 40
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/IBD_TIPP_PollSep2008.pdf
Just to further prove that we have no idea what is going on at this time.
Seems like the tail has begun to wag the (bull)dog.
Or pitbull. With lipstick, of course.
By the way, after re-reading Nate's post and doing some more thinking, I agree with his basic point that Ron Paul will draw some votes away from the Democrats in Montana, too.
I know that to rational thinkers this makes no sense, but you've got to spend time with people there and then you'll see it. Still, though, I think Paul will draw three Republican votes for every Democratic vote.
How big of a diversion is a good question. My gut says Nate's right by pegging it at 5-6%. It would be higher if he wasn't attached to the Constitution Party, which even for Montana is pretty cracked.
The real concern is whether independents who are undecided are starting to make up their minds and "break" one way or another. Gallup suggests this might be the case but doesn't present any evidence (other than "history" but in no scientific way) that the sway in opinion is anything other than the expected temporary bounce.
This is why it's some important that Obama get off his ass and start attacking McCain right now. I think September is Obama's last chance to paint a different picture of the Republicans. As of yet, I don't see any evidence that his campaign is seriously trying to do it. They're nibbling around the edges at most.
Most Libertarians are one issue voters. Yes, that's right, all they care about is legalizing/decriminalizing drugs.
Tell that to the survivalists who live out in the midwest / mountains, and are breaking for Barr / Paul where on the ballot.
IBD/TIPP? Are they... any good? +5 Obama sounds too good in my opinion.
I don't think this is going to be the last Paul news this weekend. I got an email from the Campaign for Liberty (of which I am a latent member) yesterday thanking me for my support and asking me to continue recruiting people into the Campaign for Liberty fold. But the big news is that he's making a "major announcement" at a press conference tomorrow with Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, and possibly Cynthia McKinney and/or Ralph Nader in attendance, evidently concerning his plans for the general election.
If it's a third-party coalition ticket headed up by Paul, I'd say the "original mavericks" are in a spot of bother.
Will Walker-
Survivalists have a Podcast?
To answer an earlier question, there is nothing wrong with the daily Gallup poll. It feeds off of excitement and daily happenings that tend to level out over time. I would like someone to provide a breakdown of the percentage of GOP, Dems and Indies they are using in their polls compared to the other pollsters.
Sorry, said "weekend" when I meant to say "week".
Possible Map:
McCain holds Florida and Ohio and flips one of (Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin), let's say Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes)
Obama flips Colorado, Montana, Virginia and Nevada
Tie- Obama Wins
There's no reason to assume that map is superunlikely, of course we're talking about a parlay of events to get us to that exact outcome, but it's a very possible map. I think there's a good explanation how in a close election that's your map. Pennsylvania perhaps is less likely to flip than Mich, but if Nader's on ballot and Barr's not, it's very possible.
Nate - why don't you perform an analysis on Michigan with the possibility that it could slip away from Obama. PPP, which should make all the cross-tabs fanatics on this site happy, has shown a steady decline in Obama support over the past 3 months. Likewise the state has major issues with exacerbated racial tensions and a Dem Gov that is unpopular. Last but not least, Obama's "unbeatable" ground game has less of an establishment in MI. Indeed, are you capable of arguing for any state that might buck the Obama party line? Everyone wants to question the internals of pro-McCain polls, and when that does not work, it falls to the rumored "unbeatable" ground game that will swamp the polls on election day. By the way, you hinted that FL might be leaning to Obama put PPP today suggest not. Likewise its sample size was nearly twice that of Rasmussen FL yesterday.
JBN, Gallup may be seeing McCain +7, McCain+5, McCain +3 and calling it "stable." It's well within the MOE, and taken in isolation might not equate to any movement. The fact that Ras has also shown a down track for McCain suggests to me that it's a more legitimate movement trend.
Again, Ras has been weighting by party and has shown less swings in either direction, albeit a tiny R house effect due to the robopolling. Are there permanent shifts in party ID after the conventions, or just a relatively short-lived enthusiasm gap between the parties? History suggests that the latter is more likely, but the former is not impossible.
"Libertarians love Sarah Palin."
Any libertarian who loves Sarah Palin either knows nothing about libertarianism, or knows nothing about Sarah Palin.
Trying to look at it objectively, which has greater legs:
Trooper-gate?
Per Diem-gate?
I vote Per Diem-gate, because it's a lot easier to offend people by stealing their money.
I don't see how Palin fits in with Libertarians when she wants to ban books, charges the government for the nights she spends at HOME, bills the state for her CHILDREN'S travel, is governor of the state that is No. 1 In Taxes Per Resident And No. 1 In Spending Per Resident plus she raked in the earmarks both as mayor and governor.
"But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative.
Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said "No, thanks" to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said "Yes, please" until the project became a symbol and political albatross.
Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it."
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html
Boy was I wrong when I thought they couldn't find someone worse than Bush.
Overrated-
Obama leading MI by 1 point at the peak of McCain's bounce doesn't mean that MI is really in play.
The main issue for Michigan is the ECONOMY. McCain and Palin's cluelessness in that area will lose them MI.
On this date in history, September 9, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, President George Bush led John Kerry 49.1% to 48.1%.
For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration, January 2005.
I vote Per Diem-gate, because it's a lot easier to offend people by stealing their money.
Seriously... Even if it's legal for the Governor to take lodging per diem while at home, is it really a good idea?
filistro, others:
Try reading FactCheck on this.
For the most part, you've given me nothing to respond to. You have not even approached my thesis that libertarians know they have more to fear from liberals than they do from social conservatives.
You liberals take it as a point of faith that violation of liberty comes from the religious right "imposing morality" but don't see that you do the same thing, ONLY MUCH WORSE.
That is because social conservatives like Sarah Palin also tend to have libertarian tendencies (because they know government tends toward intrusion into their socially conservative private lives), while liberals despise libertarianism because it opposes they very platform of their do-good, world-changing ideas: the mobilization of society toward some great goal, and the ever-increasing size of government.
I realize this is off topic but maybe someone can help me understand.
There is an advertisement on this site for donating to the "McCain/Palin Compliance fund". Fine. But wait, didn't McCain accept public financing? If so, how can he be asking for money on his site? I don't get it unless - wait - McCain didn't accept public financing thus making him a really big hypocrite... Anyone have the answer? I can't find it online.
Jack-be-nimble said...
State polling always lag national trends. I think as in the PPP poll in Florida, all of the battleground will soon to McCain.
Keep in mind, that 5 point popular victory is huge landslide victory in Electoral Votes.
On another note, I think that Rassmusen's current part weighting is now hurting the McCain numbers. I would be curious to get some unweighted likely voter reslults from him.
Gallup is the outlier. It doesn't mena they're incorrect necessarily. But, if you look at all of the polling data, it's safe to assume Obama polled probably +1 or +2 in a poll of polls without including Gallup. They all seem to be about the same. Gallup however has polled somewher around McCain +3 or +4. Something's way off. It seems Gallup could really damage they're brand name if they're this off relative to everyone else and end up wrong.
Libertarians don't support candidates who abuse their power, try to censor, intimidate opponents, and beg Washington for pork.
At *best* you could say that she has certain positions that are less hostile to libertarians than other candidates. Anything beyond that is pure BS.
And be careful about the old stereotypes of liberals and libertarians clashing -- the corruption and destruction of the GOP by neocon warmongers and Christaliban looneytunes is leading to a dramatic shift in many libertarian viewpoints with respect to the right/left equation.
If so, how can he be asking for money on his site?
I believe the campaign financing allows for donations to cover administrative costs (legal, et al). He just can't use it for anything that's physically related to campaigning.
he acepted public financing, everything he makes now he funnels to the repub party.
BO should have cheated in the same way.
Sam-
Compliance funds are used to ensure compliance with Federal law. Think accounting, lawyers, IT costs, etc. It's a very fuzzy line.
Gallup has been way off all year. They are the ones who had McCain up big last month to.
Nate has already shown they suck, look at his pollster ratings.
Multiple people have claimed state polls lag compared to national polls when it comes to measuring a bounce. That makes no sense. It's actually completely impossible.
I know far more liberals than I do neocons who express respect for Ron Paul and his libertarian principles. The way Paul was treated at the Republican debates would absolutely never have been tolerated at the Democratic debates; even Mike Gravel got more respect from the moderators, the audience, and the other guys on stage than Paul did.
At one of the conservative-minded political forums I frequent, there are a remarkable number of people who supported Paul in the primaries who are now planning to hold their nose and vote McCain/Palin. The sense I get is that they'd be happy to jump ship if Paul somehow got onto ballots as a third-party or independent candidate.
Which is why I think that if Paul's announcement tomorrow is something on the order of "we're running a national coalition ticket headlined by Ron Paul", the McCain/Palin ticket is sunk; Colorado, Nevada, Montana, and the Dakotas could suddenly be out of play.
Shap -
That is a comforting thought but it is a decline none the less. Michigan has a 8.5% unemployment rate - worst in the nation. A lot more is going on in Michigan than economics.
Post a Comment