Although the national tracking polls are trending upward for Obama, this set of state polling is a strong one for John McCain:
Ohio, certainly, is a Lean McCain state now. It has been polled extensively over the past week, and all polls but Quinnipiac show McCain with a lead in the neighborhood of 3-4 points. As we're getting into electoral crunch time, the key dynamic to watch is the performance of the three or four tipping point states like Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado, both relative to one another and relative to the national popular vote estimate. Presently, Ohio is polling slightly behind Obama's national numbers, whereas Colorado is polling a point or so ahead. If this dynamic continues, then Ohio will gradually become less important, placing more emphasis on either Obama's IA/NM/CO parlay, or perhaps Virginia, which is one state where he's had some favorable polling of late.
Looking quickly through the rest of the numbers, this set of Rasmussen polling is fairly poor for Obama, although some of that is caused by the fact that Rasmussen just re-weighted its party ID targets, producing a shift of a point or so toward John McCain. (Rasmussen's re-weightings may well be perfectly valid -- my goal is merely to provide context here).
Meanwhile, polling in the New York/New Jersey region has shown some bounce for John McCain. It's probably too late for the McCain campaign to devote serious resources to New Jersey, but it might make fo an interesting target if they did. Then again, most of these polls overlapped with 9/11, and it's possible that there's some sort of 9/11 effect in the region.
9.17.2008
Today's Polls, 9/16
@ 12:30 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
213 comments
Good post, although the reference to Ras's party id adjustment will send the commenters into a frenzy :)
Does the Kos/Rsch2000 poll weight by party ID?
Is Ras the only major daily tracker that weights by party ID?
It's probably too late for the McCain campaign to devote serious resources to New Jersey
Forget it. New Jersey has practically no Republican infrastructure to speak of. If the Republicans want it in the future, they can start in an off year with small offices.
Jesus...is Ohio really that F'n DUMB?!
GOP economics have lost them thousands of jobs, and GOP war mongering has cost them thousands of men/women...
AND THEY STILL WANT MORE?!
Can we just toss them out of the union?
I guess it seems important to note that a lot of the state polling in the model right now was taken at the peak of McCain's convention bounce. In the last three days especially, he has begun to sink in the tracking polls. I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow (technically today, because it is after midnight here) his lead with Gallup completely evaporates. It may take another week for the state polling to catch up. I guess I see right now as McCain's high water mark. I don't know whether his numbers beginning to fade are a result of Obama's more aggressive style as of late, or are simply the convention/VP bounce beginning to recede. It's probably a combination of both. It will be interesting to see how far they fall, as the Palin pick looks like it has the possibility to end up being a net drag on the ticket instead of a boon.
The Ohio numbers are all really consistent.
The Virginia numbers have been too.
I have serious reservations about NJ being just +3. Doesn't every once in a while a random close result show up in a NJ poll? Just enough to get Republicans excited, but then it is gone by the next poll.
Obama 264, McCain 274
Sept 16 Polling Update
Cindy McCain's Fallacious Rebuttal
The Red November: An analysis on campaign marketing
Someone in the last thread asked whether there were any undecideds here. I can tell you that there's at least one, and I figured that he may as well respond.
I very rarely post (and try to be as nonpartisan as possible when I do), but I frequent 538 and the comments for the statistics. I like statistical modeling, and I've done a fair bit of it in my time. As of yet, I'm extremely undecided. Some demographic data: I'm an 18 year old male who voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, despite his extremely interesting (but extremely outlandish) position on monetary policy. My family went to the DNC in 2004 (in fact, I'm wearing a DNC shirt right now) and I was on the floor for Edwards' speech. At the moment, I'm a registered Democrat, though that's likely to change as soon as this election is over. I'm an economics major at a top 10 U.S. university who will graduate with a bachelors in three years.
The reason for my undecided status is not a lack of data. I know more about both candidates than most people ever will, and more than I (quite frankly) want to know. But neither candidate is very palatable to me at all. I am extremely fiscally conservative, and I am generally a philosophical libertarian with a complicated set of macropolitical leanings. Neither candidate is proposing the government cutbacks necessary to pay for their new programs, and McCain's brand of conservatism is especially spiteful to me. I had made a vow a while back not to vote for either McCain, Giuliani, or Huckabee if they won the nomination. I really don't want the Republican party to head in their direction, as it eliminates the potential for actual reform in favor of big government conservatism, which is as loathsome if not moreso than big government liberalism.
But, times change. The idea of a Pelosi/Reid congress acting without any executive oversight is just as disgusting to me as the McCain doctrine, especially considering how botched the last two years have been on a congressional level. Pelosi's stonewalling on Bush's rehaul of the African aid program was absurd, and her continuing to table it points to a mean streak that is only going to get worse as time goes on. I would be a lot more willing to vote for Obama if I didn't know that the Dems are going to strengthen their senate majority by 5-7 seats and that their house majority could go up by as many as twenty seats. Obama's platform is in itself not entirely poor, though I disagree with most of his policy initiatives. But I know it's going to get worse in congress.
Of course, so will McCain's policy initiatives. And the Dems will pass their agenda anyway. So, it's a wash.
In the end, I'm going to vote for one of them, because I can't stand Barr and Baldwin's just as bad, but it's the absolute epitome of a clothespin vote. Le Pen v. Chirac has nothing on this election. And because they're so equally loathsome, I have no particular desire to make a choice until I absolutely have to.
Aaron,
Third parties in this country aren't viable unless people with your belief system start working with them at the ground level.
Pick the lesser of two evils if you must, but if there's an alternative candidate out there, don't hesitate to vote for him or her. Every vote counts, regardless of whom it's for.
Hell, for that matter, write in Ron Paul if it makes you feel better.
Is anyone else seeing ####s at random locations in the Poll Detail sidebar? Looks like what happens if Excel cells aren't large enough...
While the Rasmussen polls were generally good for McCain, the OH result actually wasn't too bad for Obama given the previous Rasmussen polls in OH. There is little reason to doubt that McCain has a small lead in OH, but it is likely that the lead is tenuous.
I posted yesterday on the internals of one of the polls (SUSA, I think), which suggest that over half of all McCain supporters say that they could change their mind, compare with less than 40 percent of Obama supporters who said they might switch. If there is a lot of soft support in OH, the state could be volatile from here on out. Or perhaps it will settle on a small McCain lead and stay there.
Aaron.
I suggest you using the “Dinosaur Rule” to help you decide. Pick the side that the majority of the ticket believe in Dinosaurs then you are all set. The person running the US should definitely believe in Dinosaurs.
Relative to the poll numbers...
The regression is helping McCain in Iowa, Michigan, and Virginia.
The regression is helping Obama in New Hampshire and Ohio.
Thoughts?
Jesus...is Ohio really that F'n DUMB?!
Having an incredibly condescending attitude is the perfect way to make people despise you; attitudes like yours are part of the reason the Democrats did so badly among the white working class in '04. The worst part is the that the Republicans aren't really the main culprits here, unless you want to argue they are solely responsible for globalization.
It's probably too late for the McCain campaign to devote serious resources to New Jersey
And he shouldn't. They 9-11 effect is very strong in NY and NY, in '04 Bush had his second and third largest popular vote improvements (both about +9) in these two states, I suspect the effect will weaken in the coming weaks.
As for the poll results they are troubling to say the least. Ohio seems to be slipping out of reach and Pennsylvania seems to be looking more and more like a state where Obama is going to have to shell out serious bucks on a GotV effort and on TV ads. The results in Virginia are a bit heartening at least; even though I'm skeptical Obama will really win there if he wins VA+IA and holds the Kerry states he's won the election
So sorry I'm late.
It's my birthday and I was out with my 26 year old REPUBLICAN daughter.
WHOA! Look at all the RED in those new polls!!
Colorado is out of reach gang. Affirmative Action legislation on the ballot come November... it's going down guys and Obama goes down with it.
Ohio... stop trying... better yet I think you should haul Barbara Streisand up there so she and all her limo liberals can get really humiliated... spend millions on it... please.
Virginia is a RED SOUTHERN state... never in a million.
Everyone else will get into the ballot box and say to themselves... "Do I really want P Diddy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Snoop Dogg dancing in the Oval Office?.... uh... NO.
Of CO, OH & VA which of the three does Palin help the ticket the most? Conventional wisdom would be Colorado, but I think the combination of holding the DNC in Denver and the state's ambivalence about energy development & McCain's water grab remarks may make that state the LEAST likely of these three where she can make a difference for the GOP ticket.
Also, is there much of a lag effect demonstrated through the year where we see a trend in the national polls a few days ahead of state polls?
Finally, I really like the "road trip" feature from Sean. It gives you a sense for what is going on where the election is being contested. But I do wonder whether there is any way to ascertain just how many people are being contacted as part of a ground game in each of these states. And it would seem to me that among swing voters we are talking about post Labor Day contacts that might make a difference, no?
Pennsylvania moved from 69% to 70% Obama despite this tied poll.
I will say, I'm finding certain aspects of your estimates increasingly unsatisfying. For instance, it seems to me transparently clear that California is not almost as likely to go for McCain as Florida is to go to Obama. And yet Florida has 18% for Obama, and California 12% for McCain. Similarly, MA and NC just aren't in the same ballpark on likely flips.
Secondly, I increasingly feel like the regression numbers are causing state results to become somewhat anti-evidence. Despite a legacy of very good VA polls for Obama, the heavily weighted regression that says McCain is favored by 4.5 is a significant blow to Obama's numbers there. Certainly Virginia is a historically red state, but the polls just don't seem to justify that level of caution with the numbers.
I know part of this is that the model is designed not to be too twitchy too far out, but the result is that what increasingly looks like a transient convention bounce is creating implausible results for weeks.
I'm increasingly wishing you provided more spread of models - too many assumptions like the trend adjustment, the regression, the convention bounce, and assumptions based on past elections seem to me to be debatable in a way that having more data and seeing what various underlying assumptions about how the race works would be good.
The NM win % should go well into the 60s tomorrow with the ARG +7, and it solidifies the Kerry+IA+NM+something path.
One reason for the Ohio numbers: Bob Taft and friends are no longer a drag on the ticket, and the Dem party is being blamed at least a bit for the economic troubles (not to mention there is a bit of a Clinton/Obama rift that Strickland hasn't helped much.)
There has been a localized Dem scandal in Cleveland (Jimmy DiMora) which may affect turnout a bit.
The Dems were VERY lucky that they were able to kick Marc Dann to the curb so quickly.
How is it helping Obama in New Hampshire? I may be hopelessly confused, but I think if Obama is polling below behind the national numbers, wouldn't the regression adjustment be smaller since it is not being adjusted for the national trackers? I don't think Nate would adjust Ohio up in that case.
I do think it is helping McCain in VA, MI, and IA, and even more in CO, which seemed to be quite steady for Obama despite the trackers.
Darien:
No. A whole HELL of a lot of us will get in the ballot box and say "Do I want to sacrifice what's left of my 401k, the environment, a chance at real energy independence, renewed national service drives, stablized housing, job security and a safe world for my family just to keep a black man out of power?"
HELL NO!
Aaron,
Thoughtful post, though I definitely do not share your political leanings (libertarianism is fine in a textbook, but it is totally impractical in the country that we have now).
I would offer one item for consideration, though: remember that each Congress starts anew. There is no guarantee that Pelosi and Reid will remain in their leadership positions. Even if they do, it's hard to know what they dynamic between them and Obama would be.
Clearly, though, you are not a typical undecided voter. BTW: Did you see the poll of economists that was posted in the previous thread?
Aaron: You seem like a pretty smart guy. Have you read Thomas Frank's book The Wrecking Crew? He presents a lot of evidence for a worldview quite different from yours (based on your post), which might make for real interesting reading.
The polls finally came and I'm too tired to comment :(
"The person running the US should definitely believe in Dinosaurs."
Brilliant. F'in Brilliant.
I think that pretty much says it all.
Boy I sure wish Nate would just post the numbers - no punditry. It just reads like CNN or MSNBC or whatever. I mean how does this new polling look strong for McCain? Is he trending upward? I don't see it. He's been up in OH, that hasn't changed. CO is a toss-up, that hasn't changed. PA is tighter, I'll give you that.
He should maybe invest in NJ? Is you crazy?! Scratch that. McCain should DEFINITELY invest in NJ. A-OK by me.
From where I sit I see CO is still in play for O, VA is tied - ho hum, I guess THAT'S worth glossing over tighter than it has any right to be and FL is unchanged.
Ohio will gradually become less important? You think? If you're going to punditize then call it for what it has been: OH and FL are 2nd tier for Obama.
VA/IA/NM/CO are where it's at.
PA, however, I agree, seems a problem.
But wasn't Kerry 10pts behind 4yrs ago, today?....
"I mean how does this new polling look strong for McCain?"
Every day that the bounce doesn't fade, the model takes it more seriously (because there was no bounce adjustment, as there should have been).
It'll take another week or two before the bounce is shaken out of the slow-adjusting statistical model.
Well Joseph... you can cram all you want in Mass, Calif, New York, Vermont, Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maine, Conn, and Maryland.
The rest of the lighter blues won't be easy.
The reds and pinks on that map up there? Not a chance dude. There are just not enough of you that are brainwashed by a socialist.
"A government that does everything for you... is a government that can take everything from you" -Abraham Lincoln
And buddy it's not the black guy because I would vote for many black guys... but never THAT black guy. There are more of us that there are of you at least where it counts.
"Libertarianism is fine in a textbook, but it is totally impractical in the country that we have now,"
Agreed. It's not a coincidence that the only places where it is really popular are rural and have very low population density.
My 401K, company stock plan, home equity and other investments (except for my tax-free muni's, thank God I put a few $100K into them) are looking worse than Obama's recent poll numbers.
Wake up, America! Vote Obama/Biden '08.
Sincerely,
A top 1% guy who will have his taxes raised if Obama/Biden win.
Country over bank account.
Nate's model now gives McCain a 56% chance of picking up at least one Kerry state.
If that happens, CO/IA/NM won't win it for Obama. He'll have to win Ohio or Virginia as well.
Nate's model clearly seems a bit behind the evidence, but that's okay. It doesn't really matter at this stage who's ahead in the 538 model. By next week I expect it to be a little more in tune, though I'm hoping that it won't overcorrect if Obama starts to pick up steam.
Damnit I demanded a CA poll >:(
Country over bank account.
Isn't that what Democrats decry working class voters for doing when they vote their "values" over their "economic interest"?
Is conscience a privilege reserved to well-off liberals?
"It's not a coincidence that the only places where it is really popular are rural and have very low population density."
I almost wrote something similar myself. If I had lived 200 years ago, I likely would have been something approaching a libertarian. But the idea of running a modern city with a libertarian philosophy is more-or-less inconceivable. When everyone is a rural farmer, it can work. When people are incredibly interdependent, live in close proximity to each other, and face a host of social problems on a large scale, there is simply no real alternative to government action. There is a reason why cities vote more Democratic and rural areas vote more Republican.
Aaron: An interesting essay. I sympathize with your dilemma.
My own approach, using the infinitesimal value of my single vote, has been to make strategic decisions within the context of the alternatives that are available.
I voted for McCain in the primary because I disliked Romney, who actually carried the primary in my state. But I don't much like McCain, am concerned about his health, and now with the nomination of Palin there is not a chance he will get my vote. We don't need another bot of the neocons and plutocrats in the WH and that's what a Sarah Palin would be (and that's assuming she didn't have a Rasputin whispering in her ear).
Obama? He's smart, and he can think for himself. I'm a lot less concerned about his lack of experience than I am about McCain's "temporiness" in the WH and the possibility that Palin would take over.
I don't see a 3rd party option because our majority winner take all electoral system just doesn't make voting third party mean anything other than letting the luckiest of the major parties win. Now if we had a majority runoff system for president, as they do in France, voting minor party would be a rational alternative.
But again, we're stuck with the rules we've got for the primaries and the general election. And Obama played those rules brilliantly to win the nomination against some better qualified candidates in his party. He also represents a "new deal" for the U.S. in world politics. So that's where my vote is going.
inkstain;
Every day that the bounce doesn't fade, the model takes it more seriously (because there was no bounce adjustment, as there should have been).
I love that statement for two reasons:
First, there was an open vote on the adjustment and an overwhelming majority (70+%) chose to remove it because it was sucking 6 points out of Obama's convention bounce. I chose to remove it of course, knowing that it would be taking two points from McCain for three weeks.
Second, the adjustment was completely arbitrary, but based on an educated guess. Nate admitted as much, hence the reason he came back to it with a vote. The point of the model here is to get a clean, unbiased insight into the state of the race. Pining for arbitrary, if educated adjustments, don't advance that goal.
Oz.
The state polling seems to lag behind the national for some reason. It's been like this for some time.
Last week, the state polls lagged as McCain surged after the convention and Palin pick.
Now that McCain's sagging and Palin's unfavorability rating is soaring in places like Virginia (see latest Rasmussen) the state polls lag again.
I would imagine that next week the state polling will start to reflect the latest Obama uptick, although Ohio should still show a narrow McCain lead.
Obama's problem in Ohio is similar to his long discussed Appalachia problem There are a lot of red-neck racists out there who won't vote for a black man no matter what. Tennessee seems to be ground zero for them which is one reason this former battleground state is showing McCain +25, while Mississippi is only McCain +13 and Alabama is only McCain +20.
But there are a lot of racists in south-western Ohio. Some might reluctantly vote for Kerry but they'll be damned if they'll put a black man in the White House. As one said to me "the blacks will all be on welfare if Obama wins."
There's no way to argue with that sort of illogic. I pointed out that welfare is a state law matter, but he just squinted at me. Serves me right for trying to use facts in an argument I suppose.
They blame minorities for the loss of jobs cause they're dumber than rocks. Too bad if that offends people, but it's true.
If you suffer endlessly from declining wages and watch entire communities fold up from job loss, then blame minorities for taking your job rather than the businesses that are outsourcing the jobs or the business party that rewards them with tax incentives to do so, they you are by definition dumb as a rock.
I don't think Obama ever had a lot of chance in Ohio, although he can continue to make a play for it. It's close, so why not?
But, I think he'd have to be up by at least 3% nationally to have a chance, and even then it might not happen.
I honestly think his chances are somewhat better (not great) in Indiana. It's smaller and the markets are smaller, and it's a neighboring state to Illinois. He's got a great ground game there. I doubt it will matter, but it's a better shot than Ohio.
ainsley--
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/Pres/Maps/Sep16.html
Red Jersey, red PA, IL within 4, tied Maine, Bush by 12 in OH.
At other points during the Swift Boat/RNC superbounce in '04, NH went deep-red, WI was Bush by 14, the Northwest and Hawaii (!!) were red, and Maryland (!!) was tied.
"Second, the adjustment was completely arbitrary, but based on an educated guess. Nate admitted as much, hence the reason he came back to it with a vote. The point of the model here is to get a clean, unbiased insight into the state of the race. Pining for arbitrary, if educated adjustments, don't advance that goal."
Do you still feel the bounce adjustment was arbitrary when it's been almost *dead on* ever since the conventions? It predicted both swings almost perfectly.
Upon Further Review:
I've read V.O. Key. There are far too many institutional advantages for the two party system for us to switch from one-member elections anytime soon. Third parties only begin to have prominence when they have bargaining power. In the current political climate, third parties would not have bargaining power, and especially not on a presidential level. Write in votes are even worse, because they're rarely counted and the candidate you write in is often not applicable to acquire votes anyway.
The silliest lie of electoral politics is the idea that third parties would catch on "if only we'd start working from the ground level". It would take a radical overhaul of our political system for third parties to have a shot at viability. That is a mathematical fact.
CRLIndoland:
Thanks, that clears things up. Time to go vote for Mark Knopfler. Terrific strategy, mate.
Sedi:
My brand of libertarianism has never been attempted exactly on a mass-scale. The closest fiscally for many of my stances would be JFK, and if I remember correctly, his administration would be considered by many of you to be something of a success. Still. This isn't really the place for a battle of theories, as there are infinitely many valuable and credible theories for infinitely many valuable and credible theorists.
I think the possibility of a leadership shakeup is a lot more remote than one would expect. Nancy Pelosi has run congress with an iron fist. The idea that she would do so without having her power structure solidified is absurd. Reid, on the other hand, has a small chance of being pushed out. It depends on the election. If the Democrats lowball their predicted senate pickups (say, 2-3 instead of 5-7) Reid will almost certainly take the blame and I could see him being evicted from his post for botching what looked like a possible 60 seat majority in June.
However, the point about interplay is quite relevant. I've often considered how Obama would interact with Pelosi and Reid, and I honestly don't think they'd get along particularly well. But that's neither here nor there, as it's little past speculation. Also, I did see the poll. The partisan makeup is very screwy. I know far more professional economists that are independents than either Republican or Democrat, and most of them are currently undecided or trending McCain. My guess is that the AEA is a significantly neo-Keynesian friendly organization, because that appears to be the only reasonable explaination (besides strange sampling) for such a lopsided result.
Ted:
No. If I get the chance, I'll take it out of the library and read it.
inkstain;
Yes on arbitrary. Well educated guess? Yes again. But it hasn't been dead on. It overestimated Obama's bounce by about 5 1/2%, as we can now see in the SuperTracker. It is guessing McCain's bounce correctly, but how do you know it's all bounce? He's come back a percent in the national polls, but has now leveled off, as has Obama, at RCP. Nate's guess may have overestimated what Obama got and underestimated what McCain got.
To be more clear, Nate estimated where the polls would go pretty well, but we don't know if it's bounce yet or not. Hence the arbitrary nature of the adjustment and the need for it's proper removal.
Oz.
cugel;
Obama's problem in Ohio is similar to his long discussed Appalachia problem There are a lot of red-neck racists out there who won't vote for a black man no matter what.
The answer couldn't possibly be that this particular black man is not too good at convincing the great wide center of the population to vote for his policies. Oh no, it can't be that.
Oz.
The Supertracker isn't a polling aggregator, you can't really use it to say it overestimated Obama's bounce.
Darren said...
Country over bank account.
Isn't that what Democrats decry working class voters for doing when they vote their "values" over their "economic interest"?
Is conscience a privilege reserved to well-off liberals?
----------------
Well Darren, it depends on how much one has in their bank account when answering your question doesn't it?
After the shredding my net worth has taken this past year, it appears to be the first time in a while that I will be voting for both my country and my bank account.
Cheers.
instain;
Isn't the SuperTracker the models output of what the state of race is over time? Based on all the regressions and biases that Nate has built into the system?
The FAQ says: They represent the inferred popular vote outcome based on all polling (state and national) conducted on that particular day, as determined by analyzing the degree of movement between previous iterations of that poll. This is not the same as simply averaging the polls, although the Super Tracker usually resembles the Pollster.com and RealClearPolitics.com national averages closely.
Where else in the modeling would the bounce bias have been applied?
Oz.
Aaron,
The thoughtfulness of your post is refreshing compared to other posts here which are loaded with ad hominems, biases, and in the case of a few, pure vitriol toward those that don't see life as they do.
Aaron,
Thanks for posting. It's nice to hear an actual human, through the ruckus of the troll fights.
I've thought a fair bit about libertarianism and it's place in the current world. (I count as a liberal, and I have some basic disagreements with the "minimal government on principle" approach, but I do understand where it's coming from, and I can respect it). The modern Republican party has basically sold out libertarianism. They've become the party of big government funded by borrowing -- "Need more tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, because deficits don't matter". Personally I wish Obama would push a balanced budget rather than a middle class tax cut. But it's still worlds better than anything McCain is proposing (fun fact: about 25% of McCain's proposed tax breaks would go to people making $2.8 million/year or more. My view? If you're making over $7000 per day, as much as I make in three months, you can afford to chip in a bit more to keep our collective system running). And, modern Republicans are all about the "unitary executive" rather than the Constitution, and domestic surveillance rather than the fourth amendment, and "traditional social values" rather than individual liberty (or basic legal equality in the case same sex couples). Yeah, libertarians used to have a home in the Republican party, but you've been sold out in favor of the wealth interests/neocons/social conservatives alliance.
And while the Democrats are on your side on some of those issues, particularly civil liberties and a not-insane foreign policy, we've definitely got a larger government philosophy for collective domestic security than any libertarian would like.
So, the true libertarian is kind of out in the cold. Personally I hope you vote for the Democrats, if for no other reason than to send the Republicans into the wilderness for a while to rethink why they want power.
peace,
lilnev
Much like Aaron I do feel as if I am a libertarian or at least I have always called myself such. My problem is that I am a free trading capitalist who believes in the power of the private sector and free and fair markets (with minimal regulation). I am anti-union, pro-immigration and generally like WTO (rather than FTA) level of free trade. This puts me against many in the democratic party. In terms of the values vote, I am also free choice to the nth degree. With marriage, abortion, etc. I believe in the complete, utter, without any question, separation of religion and state. Although I realize the history of the U.S. is not completely separate, but the further away from each other the better. Finally, I believe the U.S. should be run by educated, intelligent people. One of the biggest failures of Bush’s presidency was not his policies per se, but was the fact that his policies were based on emotion and belief, rather than intelligence and hard, on the ground facts. In fact, somewhere over the past eight years, intelligence became a four letter word. This is very unnerving. This is why I have moved to the left, despite what I feel is a terrible overall policy platform on trade and the economy. The right is too focused on “values” and a religiously mired agenda that does not focus on what the US needs to be focused on.
"instain;
Isn't the SuperTracker the models output of what the state of race is over time? Based on all the regressions and biases that Nate has built into the system?
The FAQ says: They represent the inferred popular vote outcome based on all polling (state and national) conducted on that particular day, as determined by analyzing the degree of movement between previous iterations of that poll. This is not the same as simply averaging the polls, although the Super Tracker usually resembles the Pollster.com and RealClearPolitics.com national averages closely.
Where else in the modeling would the bounce bias have been applied?
Oz."
Nate's model predicted a very brief 8-point bounce. You said it wasn't showing on the supertracker. The supertracker is designed to weed out brief bounces with the regressions you mentioned, so the brief 8-point bounce would never have moved the supertracker significantly, regression or not.
The second-convention bounce, projected to be smaller but longer-term, would stick around to move the tracker (as I believe it is doing, though your mileage may vary).
My prediction for Nov 4th. States that will end up 3 points or less.
1. Pennsylvania- Obama +1
2. Virgina- McCain +1
3. Colorado- McCain +2
4. Nevada- McCain +2
5. Ohio- McCain +3
6. Michigan- Obama +3
For all the libertarians:
The conundrum you face, at worst, is sacrifice your fiscal concerns or your social concerns.
Which do you value more highly? And which may have the most beneficial flow-on effect to the other? In other words, if you have financial liberty, does that make you more likely to enjoy social liberty and if you have social liberty, does that make you more likely to enjoy financial liberty?
Ann Rand had this one figured out quite a while ago.
Oz.
inkstain;
It's hard to work from memory of the SuperTracker. It would be nice if there was a database of SuperTracker snapshots as there are days when adjustments happen that may affect the previous week or two of tracking.
Too hard for me to remember what is right.
Oz.
Darien:
You said "Everyone else will get into the ballot box and say to themselves... "Do I really want P Diddy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Snoop Dogg dancing in the Oval Office?.... uh... NO."Later you said you vote for many black guys, just not that black guy.
I presume this was an attempt to show that you aren't racist. As a professional Title VII investigator who runs a small business specializing in investigating discrimination claims, you have provided prima facie evidence that you are. Both of these posts contain obvious racial overtones that indicate you DO consider race a factor, and likely the primary factor, in your decision. And a "token" willingness to vote for someone black doesn't change the facts-you are voting based on race.
I have acknowledged for weeks that you may be right, and that many people may vote against Obama on Election Day on that basis, regardless of what polls say. Your cynical assertions and negative stereotyping of African Americans including Jesse Jackson, "P-diddy" and Al Sharpton, with NO reference to anything specific concerning any of these individuals, persuades me that I am correct.
It is unfortunate that the US you refer to when saying "there are lots more of US" are equally small minded, equally bigoted and may decide this election. It is even more unfortunate that you, and those like you, cannot discourse intelligently, or likely at all, on either candidates' economic plans, health plans, or environmental plans, assuming you have bothered to even TRY to read them. Saddest of all is the fact that you, and those like you, will pass their bigotry down to their children.
And before you tirade about my "liberalism", I have spent years DEFENDING employers in Title VII claims. I was a Reagan democrat. I am fiscally conservative and socially progressive/liberal. I have had serious doubts about both candidates in this election based on factors such as experience, lobbyist ties and the like (and in fact I did not support Obama in the primaries). I have considered supporting McCain, but have problems with the failure of Republican neo-con economics and his selection of Palin, who lacks the experience to run this country. I have considered Obama, but have doubts about his experience, as it is not significantly greater than Palin's. However, it would never occur to me to vote based on "P-diddy" or based on "affirmative action legislation" being on the ballot.
You are the scariest type of voter in this election-uneducated and unversed in the facts. You spout pointlessly bigoted garbage as if it made your opinion valuable, and will cast your vote based on your own narrow-minded view of things, and not based on anything that is good for the Country.
And yes, this may be personal, and no, I won't apologize. When I see a bigot, I call it a bigot. That's my profession. And I WILL NOT STAND SILENT in the face of statements like yours.
"1. Pennsylvania- Obama +1
2. Virgina- McCain +1
3. Colorado- McCain +2
4. Nevada- McCain +2
5. Ohio- McCain +3
6. Michigan- Obama +3"
So McCain +4 or more in New Mexico?
Aaron,
The AEA is the primary society for economists in the US. It reflects the field and doesn't espouse any particular economic philosophy. It publishes some of the most important and widely read journals in the field. A much more reasonable explanation for the poll's results (as opposed to the theoretical bias of the AEA) is that more practicing economists, especially those in academia, favor Obama and many more are Democrats than are Republicans (though many are also independents). I'm not sure why you would find this result so difficult to believe.
While I'm sure that you know many economists who are leaning McCain, it could be because of your situation. You said that you were at a "top 10 school". If that's U. of Chicago, for example, then I wouldn't doubt that you are telling the truth, but it also wouldn't mean that the people you know are representative. That's why we have polls, of course, and don't just rely on our personal experience. This poll isn't perfect, but it's certainly not bad either.
I guess if your brand of libertarianism is closest to Kennedy then it isn't what I would think of as libertarianism. I'm thinking of Ron Paul and the libertarian party (Barr is sort-of libertarian). Perhaps you are similar to what CRLIndoland describes, which would make you a Jesse Ventura type (politically, that is): socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Ann rand was also a complete atheist who saw no role for religion in public or even private life. I am certain she would have not been comfortable with the current rep. parties tie with the fundamentalist religious right.
Aaron, thoughtful post.
Sedi, nice response.
One of the problems is that we do not have a truly free market, so we don't know how well one would work on the macro scale.
As a psychologist, I have been mulling over since the Dem primary that this election may be a referendum on whether we are still more sexist or racist, as a society.
And I keep coming coming back to John Lennon "woman is the ni**er of the world."
I guess we'll see in November.
politicalcynic;
Republican neo-con economics
Need to make something scary? Call it "neo-con".
It's hardly worth the bother, but the neo-conservative movement is not an economic movement, other than the promotion of free markets increases democracy and liberty in the world.
Just quietly, you may have a new route to pursue in your Title VII business with this "neo-con" label. You should look into it.
Oz.
(With no comment on the rest of your post)
Aaron, that was a very interesting post. I’m of similar political sentiments, though less of a pure libertarian nowadays (I want government off the backs of individual people, no drug laws, real free speech, sexual freedom, etc., but I think that GROUPS of people need regulation: labor unions, companies, the government itself, etc.).
For me the tipping point is the damage done to America’s foreign relations and moral standing in the world over the past seven years.
I was in Italy when 9/11 happened, and I remember witnessing the outpourings of solidarity and grief from Europeans on our behalf. Even the French were saying "Today, we are all Americans". And NATO for the *only* time in his history, invoked the mutual-defense clause of the North Atlantic Treaty the next day, with no dissenting voices. More than anything, perhaps, the thing that alarms me most about Bush/McCain is America's clumsy, provocative foreign policy over the past eight years. We've marginalized our NATO allies, needlessly poked our finger into the eyes of the Russians (driving their population into the hands of the nationalists and jeopardizing our joint efforts to secure loose nukes and fight Islamic extremism), and have seen our prestige and standing plummet in countries like the UK and Turkey. McCain in his rhetoric during the Georgia crisis, and his impulsive and hastily-considered selection of a running mate, however well she polls, provide no reassurance to me about his temperamental ill-suitedness to the Presidency at a time like this.
And so the past seven years of incompetence in foreign affairs have driven me into the hands of the Democrats, specifically Senator Obama. Although I disagree with his views on the scope of government spending, I've concluded that he's the only candidate that has a chance to restore America's prestige, moral leadership and soft power in the world.
Poll: US-Europe relations need Obama
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13312.html
politicalcynic... I don't give a rats ass what you think about me.
YOU DON'T KNOW ME.
So please do not assume that you do.
crlindoland;
Ann rand was also a complete atheist who saw no role for religion in public or even private life. I am certain she would have not been comfortable with the current rep. parties tie with the fundamentalist religious right.
No doubt. Hence the need for compromise on your principles as a libertarian. And it's not like Ann Rand was unaware of that issue. The whole purpose of Objectivism is "improving Aristotle without all the need for God" (paraphrased).
But the issue here is how to vote. And on that Ann Rand had also thought.
Oz.
cribbage forum;
I was in Italy when 9/11 happened, and I remember witnessing the outpourings of solidarity and grief from Europeans on our behalf. Even the French were saying "Today, we are all Americans". And NATO for the *only* time in his history, invoked the mutual-defense clause of the North Atlantic Treaty the next day, with no dissenting voices. More than anything, perhaps, the thing that alarms me most about Bush/McCain is America's clumsy, provocative foreign policy over the past eight years.
Of course the US is not the only actor in the world. All these nations you mention and tensions you highlight have nothing to do with those countries acting in their self-interest, which may lie elsewhere from the US's. In your fairy land view of relationships, only one party is responsible for the health of the relationship.
Obama gonna magically convince the Russians to give up cornering the European oil supply?
Obama gonna magically convince France to give up their multi-polar ambitions in the world?
No, of course not. The only action Obama can take is to change US policy to stop achieving our ambitions. I think he should talk on this a bit more. The electorate would probably be most interested in hearing ways we can reduce our power in the world to the advantage of tyrants like Putin.
Oz.
Oz:
I stand corrected and retract "neo-con". Technically, you are correct-my bad. Happy to hear from someone with facts.
And thanks for the idea, but trust me, the last thing I need is ANOTHER protected class to cope with. I actually live in a state with about six more than the Feds provide for. :-)
ca hawkeye;
As a psychologist, I have been mulling over since the Dem primary that this election may be a referendum on whether we are still more sexist or racist, as a society.
Because liberal identity politics are the only prism through which we can judge the world, right? It cracks me up you people keep insisting that racism or sexism drives all common ignorants and Republicans to make their decisions.
Can it be that Obama fails to present a compelling case? That the standard liberal/left policies he promises us are the same policies that Kerry offered in his defeat? Where are the differences?
Oz.
FYI: It's "Ayn Rand", not "Ann". Though I admit to ignorance as to the correct pronunciation.
politicalcycnic;
No worries, but if the folks around here find that you actually conceded me a point you may lose all your friends. ;)
Oz.
"YOU DON'T KNOW ME."
On a blog, you are known by your words. Choose them carefully, as people will judge you by them...and occasionally call you out on them, it seems. Like it or not, you have a persona here. We don't know how you act in your daily life, but regulars here know what and how you write on this blog. That is still real. It is a part of you. So yes, in a limited way, we do know you. It's not everything, but it's not nothing.
Political Cynic - outstanding post; I think you have Darien Crow's number.
And Lilnev, thanks for the correction on Ayn Rand's spelling, as that's been driving me nuts as I read this thread. I'm pretty sure it's pronounced "Ann." In any event, nobody whose lived more than a few years in the real world would give any credence whatsoever to her 'philosophy,' which comes down to an appalling celebration of selfishness and greed.
lilnev;
You are correct sir. I actually looked her name up to make sure I spelled Rand correctly, thinking there was a 'y' in it somewhere, and failed to notice the 'y' in Ayn.
Anyway.
Oz.
dan;
In any event, nobody whose lived more than a few years in the real world would give any credence whatsoever to her 'philosophy,' which comes down to an appalling celebration of selfishness and greed.
I largely agree with you (huh?), but I think that up until Atlas Shrugged she was making some pretty startling contributions to the political discourse. As she continued to push the envelope of her philosophy, I think she jumped the shark. But I would hesitate to through out the baby with the bath water and dismiss her completely.
Oz.
oz (and anyone else)--
Here's a good one in the context of Ohio and race:
Why do you think Ken Blackwell lost (very badly) to Ted Strickland?
It may be worth noting that most of the polls were closer than the final 24% margin (but got wider towards the end.)
No doubt Bob Taft was a factor, but hardly the only one.
Oz,
It is not liberal identity politics to recognize that people generally do not make decisions based on a rational analysis of facts, and that race and sex are some of those non-rational factors - as well as likeability and sameness.
BTW, how does JM's politics differ from GWB? And can either put together a coherent set of thoughts, much less policies?
"honorary co-chair of the "Committee to re-elect George W. Bush" during the 2004 election."
That outta have done it right there for Blackwell.
The final result was Strickland +23.6. Out of eight polls conducted on Oct. 12 or after, seven had the margin at least 22 points.
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong." John McCain 9/15/08
"It is a bad economy." John McCain 9/16/08
And today, after AIG, what is he going to say ?
Does he make his statements by simply flipping a coin ?
Can someone explain ?
Ann Rand ???
maybe you mean AYN Rand.
I knew Ayn Rand, and you guys apparently have no clue...
geez, such pretentious posers...
They should rename this thread "Letters to Aaron." Anyway, I'm a lifelong Republican. Always found McCain's policy proposals to be pretty weak, not to mention that he won't be able to get any of them passed, but I figure a do-nothing President is better than a do-way-too-much one. And I strongly prefer Republicans on court appointments. So I was all set to vote for McCain. Then he picked Palin, and I thought, yeah, she hasn't done much, but neither has Obama - maybe she's bright, Ross Douthat's crazy about her. I hated her convention speech, but she didn't write it. Andrew Sullivan kept bitching about how she'd never said anything in interviews about foreign policy - I thought, why should she have, she's the Governor of Alaska. But then she did that interview. And it isn't so much that she was uninformed as that she was so daft. Saying she didn't know what causes global warming, what matters is that we do something about it. (If we're not the cause, what can we do?) Claiming we could significantly cut spending by "finding efficiencies." Repeating "we shouldn't second-guess Israel" twenty times. In the first place, there's a 10-30% chance she could become the President. That's scary enough, but what's more disturbing is what it reveals about the judgment of the man who picked her. I'm all for playing cynical politics, but you at least have to pick someone who's halfway competent. Otherwise you're taking far too great a risk. And I fear a guy who takes such great risks with the Vice Presidency would take similarly large risks in other matters, policy matters - for example, going to war with Iran sorts of matters. So I can't in good conscience vote for him anymore.
Z: Rasmussen is singular in abandoning it's monthly party weight to reweight weekly. Virtually all politcal polling scientists says party ID changes glacially, making the 8 point shift Rasmussen reports utterly implausible, so what Fox/Rasmussen is doing clearly puts the thumb on the scale. Using the model Rasmussen had used the previous 4 years (until the GOP convention two week ago) Obama is currently up 49-45 in Rasmussen, but that does not fit his storyline. Nate doggedly gives them a pass, since they have a marriage of convenience right now, but reading between the lines, he is troubled by it.
DarienCrow said...
So sorry I'm late.
It's my birthday and I was out with my 26 year old REPUBLICAN daughter.
WHOA! Look at all the RED in those new polls!!
Colorado is out of reach gang. Affirmative Action legislation on the ballot come November... it's going down guys and Obama goes down with it.
Ohio... stop trying... better yet I think you should haul Barbara Streisand up there so she and all her limo liberals can get really humiliated... spend millions on it... please.
Virginia is a RED SOUTHERN state... never in a million.
Everyone else will get into the ballot box and say to themselves... "Do I really want P Diddy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Snoop Dogg dancing in the Oval Office?.... uh... NO.
September 16, 2008 11:53 PM
Darien Crow is a racist and beneath contempt.
Aaron:
Have you considered the fate of the Supreme Court?
Legislation passed will be from the leftist controlled and big government dominated (counting most from both parties) Senate and House. It would be beneficial to have it tempered by a man (or woman) for whom at least one prominent value is small federal government, but either way the country does not look likely to reduce near future entitlement spending enough to make a real difference.
A more important issue is whether or not activist judges are allowed to expand the law by passing their own form of non-repealable legislation in the guise of "interpreting the constitution". This process would be taken to an extreme under an Obama administration, both because the left is more prone to judicial activism than the right and because any new judges would have to be approved by 60 out of 100 senators. The Democratic Congress will not permit McCain to appoint activist conservative judges, and he will be confined to appointing fair political moderates who don't expand the federal government's reach unduly. I am worried about who Obama would appoint, and the potential long term consequences.
Nate, isn't there a lag between shifts in the national polls and shifts in the state polls? Now that the national polls are at or close to parity, won't the state polls begin reversing in about a week?
TRAY
now that was an interesting post for this late hour. worth reading.
begs the question, are you now undecided or sitting this one out or voting a 3rd party or swallowing hard & votinf for Obama ?
in my scenario taken from the ground here in FL, your predicament is wide spread among GOPers & true INDs but currently reflects as extremely 'soft' support for McCain in the polls.
There is a much larger mushy UNDECIDED than pollsters like Gallup & especially Rasmussen imply in their topline releases IMHO.
7 weeks out, I still am inclined to believe that the ECON/YouGov tracker has their pulse closer to the race than the highly marketed pollsters.
Economist/YouGov 9/7-9/08 1000 A Mc-40 Ob-41 Other-2 UND-14 Not Voting-2
so TRAY, which category are you in ?
dcm;
Ann Rand ???
maybe you mean AYN Rand.
I knew Ayn Rand, and you guys apparently have no clue...
geez, such pretentious posers...
Is this what you're reduced to? Flaming on spelling errors?
Oz.
dcm;
Should I flame you now for your misuse of the phrase "begs the question" or your cheerleading for the latest conservative 'Concern Troll' to grace these pages?
Oz.
Aaron:
Thoughtful post. I'll admit we would disagree plenty on a policy level, but back when I did High School and Collegiate Debate, and was thus more of a policy wonk, my debate partner was a Huge Libertarian fan, we ran a bunch of "mainstream" as well as radical libertarian plans and critiques. So I respect your position as a REAL intellectually defensible and internally consistent position, which is infinitely more than I can say for the run of the mill Social or Neo-Conservative position.
And while I understand your position of trying to get the best candidate that fits your views in THIS election, if you'll allow me I'd like to show you another metric to consider.
-Maintaining and Restoring the office of the President- I assume you would agree that Bush & Cheney have, at best, grossly exaggerated the powers of the presidency. I would further assume that you, as a libertarian, dislike the momentum towards an imperial presidency that Bush has jump-started. IF that is the case, then which party, and by extension, which candidate is most likely to continue that momentum? Though the McCain of 2000 certainly had the rhetoric of a Reformer, and perhaps more, the 2008 McCain has abandoned even that and shown he believes that he can say and do anything if it gets him the presidency.
Now, Obama is a politician too and certainly has ambition, but his Change message and the fact that he is a Constitutional Scholar of some note is at least slightly comforting. However, Obama does not have a transparently ill-equiped Vice-Presidential pick (with 1 in 6 likelihood of becoming president, given standard mortality tables) who will be managed in totality by whatever powers are remnant (or perhaps waiting to pounce) in the post McCain White-house. Moreover, she has shown distinct favor towards the radical social conservative faction of her party and could likely be won over by radical advisers on Foreign and Fiscal policy as well. But even if she does have preexisting personal leadership vision (which I would find scary in its own right), it is quite unlikely that it includes her, of her own volition, stopping the momentum towards the imperial presidency.
Additionally, the pro-imperialist, and along with them the vast majority of elected Republicans, have proven themselves totally power-hungry and willing to deny reality itself if it serves their pet causes and ideology (for neo-cons, imperialist Foreign Policy, for theo-cons, draconian social policy... perhaps you would enjoy the far right conservative fiscial policy, I don't know, but that's neither here nor there). These elements have established themselves to the point that they will likely be a part of ANY republican administration in the foreseeable future. The Democrats, on the other hand, have no corresponding faction that seeks centralized presidential power, as of yet.
So given these facts, which candidate is likely to continue the trend towards centralize power and which is more likely to reverse it, or at least stop it where it stands? You can answer that yourself, but let me explicate exactly WHY you should care.
An imperial presidency leads to inane policy that is subject to the un-supervised whims and ineptitude of the president or whatever friend he has tasked to oversee that policy area. Further, as Buch/Cheney have shown, it is prone to influence peddling and unchecked cronyism.
Finally, the ascendancy of the Presidency comes at the expense of the legislative branch. This should be of particular concern to you as maintaining the power of the legislative body directly allows you to have at least the possibility to vote for third party or independent candidates whose voice will have some meaningful impact in DC. Independents CAN be elected to Congress, and perhaps even the Senate, and some candidates may nominally tow a party label (such as Ron Paul himself) while still maintaining third party positions.
However, with the ascendancy of an imperial presidency the voice of all members of congress, especially the back benches and stray independents, are squelched as the executive mandate reigns supreme.
That is, at length, one of the many many reasons why I will vote against Republicans in any National election, with out at all covering any of the other many many reasons why I strongly and un-equivocally support Obama. Please forgive the rambling, I tend to ramble when its late.
Good Luck
MICHAEL
I agree with you about Rasmussen, especially since he chooses to align himself so closely with FAUX.
Nate really should consider cutting his ties with RR since his analysis is being used for GOPer partisan purposes by Scottie R. to drive a mid-cycle narrative.
Clearly, the Rasmussen releases are still having an overly & undue impact on the polling data in Nate's model thereby skewing the simulations.
Even with a known 'house effect' of Goper +3 for Rasmussen.
'Thumb' indeed...
detonatedmaniac;
Constitutional Scholar of some note
"Of some note"?!? He was a lecturer! What papers did he publish on Con Law?
The Democrats, on the other hand, have no corresponding faction that seeks centralized presidential power, as of yet.
You have never heard of the netroots?
Oz.
J said "This process would be taken to an extreme under an Obama administration, both because the left is more prone to judicial activism than the right and because any new judges would have to be approved by 60 out of 100 senators"
REALLY???? It is hard to think of a more "activist" Justice than Antonin Scalia. Close runner up are the new boys, Roberts and Alito. The whiplash of changes to established law in just this last term is nauseating. Most notably, of course, is the savagery done to the 2d Amendment. Golly, I thought "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state" might actually need to be considered when interpreting that amendment. But, oh, silly me!
dcm;
Clearly, the Rasmussen releases are still having an overly & undue impact on the polling data in Nate's model thereby skewing the simulations.
Surely you must realize that changing the rules of the modeling mid-game will only invalidate them. Other than the fact that Ras is following the McCain bounce and you don't like it and you don't like his methods, what other evidence do you have of this "clear" bias. Is the argument that whatever you don't like is invalid? That's pretty clear, I guess.
Stick to facts or BEGONE troll!!111!!
Idiot.
Oz.
OZ
you are clearly an ignorant poser trying to pretend you have a grasp on intelligent discourse.
It is NOT a misspelling of her name [which everyone knows], because you typed her name WRONG multiple times trying vainly to impress perhaps ?
you are a troll, nothing more.
and a bad one at that !
because you apparently have No real grasp of what her philosophy really was, so give it a rest.
stick to vainly trying to prop up your pathetic barbie doll Palin...
should be infinitely easier - but I would recommend single syllable words...
roger;
If you have to learn the rules of English grammar as well as the meaning of the Constitution, then you are in no shape to pontificate on that topic.
Oz.
OZ
you are a dolt. My use of the term "begs the question" was entirely correct in context as states above.
Begs the question, can you comprehend rational discourse or logical thought ?
asked & answered.... [NO, in case this also goes over your lame-brained head]
because you apparently have No real grasp of what her philosophy really was, so give it a rest.
Because I misspelled her name? In what other way was I obviously wrong?
I hope no one ever puts you in a round room and then tells you to sit in the corner. Your head may explode.
All of your arguments are bully and bluster, made in bad faith. It's engaging to taunt you in return since your ability to cope is fragile and low.
Oz.
dcm;
According to Webster's, "beg the question": to pass over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled.
You said: begs the question, are you now undecided or sitting this one out or voting a 3rd party or swallowing hard & votinf for Obama ?
I'm afraid you are entirely wrong. But assume you're used to that.
Oz.
After graduating HLS, Baarck did not clerk for a federal judge, never wrote a legal article, and accomplished nothing as an attorney. He merely used his HLS degree as a political resume builder, never intending to actually be a lawyer for long. Likewise, Michelle left the law after just a few years at Sidley & Austin.
In PA, Barack the genius referred twice to the "Nitally Lions." he also thought asthma sufferers use breathalyzers and that he had visited 57 states.
Darien "Jim" Crow said-
"YOU DON'T KNOW ME.
So please do not assume that you do."
Uh, ya, now we do. You told us all we need to know in your comments above. 'Racist' comes to mind.
Can someone explain to me this 9-11 effect? Why does NY and NJ tend to lean to Republicans when 9-11 is around or discussed? I though they all knew that the terrorists hate us and it is Obama, not the Republicans that want to make friendship with them. No?
OzJohnnie said...
"dcm;
Surely you must realize that changing the rules of the modeling mid-game will only invalidate them. Other than the fact that Ras is following the McCain bounce and you don't like it and you don't like his methods, what other evidence do you have of this "clear" bias. Is the argument that whatever you don't like is invalid? That's pretty clear, I guess."
That is called circular logic [which begs the question...]
YOU are such a dolt. How can you with a straight/crooked face try to argue that Nate cannot adjust his model when the data input is shown to be likewise 'adjusted' in a manner that is inconsistent with past practises ?
I have graduate school training in quantitative analysis at the U of MN school of public affairs. I know what I am talking about. Obviously you are simply spewing nonsense.
EVERY analyst in the world makes adjustments to their statistical analysis models when warranted because it is a process designed to generate results with the highest degree of confidence.
When the dats is 'corrupted' by external influeneces - such as changing the Party ID #'s in a vastly different manner than the model was set up to accomodate - then the model SHOULD take that into account, as well as an over-reliance upon any source that exerts undue influence into the simulations.
Otherwise, it is GIGO which is literally what we have at the moment as a result of the unregulated 'bounces' creating noise on top of polling done only during & after the latest 'bounce' rather than throughout the 3 week 'bounce' cycles.
Nate's model was supposed to be resistant to short-term influence - but that premise has been proven deficient at the moment. Time to further adjust the model for sensitivity & historical references.
I did not say drop RR, but the RR releases need to be adjusted & reweighted as appropriate for the design of the model to function as a true 'predictor' - not as a snapshot like RCP.
As it is now, 538 has regressed into the same 'snapshot' of the race [who would win today] as all the other sites except for perhaps @ Princeton Election Consortium.
Grow a pair you phool. Or get educated on statistical analysis as well as philosophy you poser...
Are these the same models that "prove" global warming? I bet they are. lies
OZ
gawd,your stoopidity is endless.
do you not realize that when I asked him 'begs the question' that the answer WAS obvious.
he had not expressed his support for Obama so he was clearly undecided based upon the content of the post.
you yourself made the argument again proving beyong the last shadow of a doubt what a dolt you are & that you are entirely unable to comprehend logic.
why are you still trying to argue this point which you cannot understand which only goes to prove how dumb you really are ?
begs the question... LOL
pwned
dcm, I agree with your critique of the current 538 model. I think it was a serious mistake to remove the convention bounce adjustment and have always thought that being that I was in the minority who voted to keep it. While I think that ship has sailed (revote anyone?), I would still like to see a post one day from Nate telling us what that day's map would look like with the adjustment added back into the model.
Dear Aaron –
(Sorry if this is a duplicate -- my first try seems to have disappeared.)
Bravo the Cribbage Board. I’ve tried to write something to elaborate on his comments about foreign diplomacy and our standing in the world, but his message cannot be improved, only seconded.
And now for j, at the risk of being flamed.
I liked John McCain until recently, but as a woman who can count the number of Supreme Court justices who will not outlast the next president, he was never a serious contender for my vote. In that respect I guess I am a single issue voter – this country will change irreparably if he is the next president, simply on the basis of the constituency of the Supreme Court. What I look at is what the country will look like under judges like Scalia – no constitutional right to privacy, so no abortion; consolidated power in the presidency; the loss of civil rights, voters’ rights, rights of workers, rights of students, rights of women, blurring of the distinctions between church and state, while enhancing the rights of corporations and governments. In short, a realignment of the system of checks and balances, and a shift back to personal rights that existed around the turn of the last century. It has seemded to me that what Republicans don’t like they call “judicial activism” meaning anything different from themselves or their experience. Without judges reconciling modern life with the constitution, we will be stunted, repressed and small-minded, and we will have seen our best days.
I’m not even close to a lefty –I’m a moderate Democrat who has voted for Republicans now and then. But I am a retired lawyer who is a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court, and I am deeply concerned about the new world order that such a bench would present. Rather than assume that John McCain would be hamstrung in paying that piper, I would much rather take the chance that Obama would act in the interests of a diverse society.
Until recently I had considerable respect for McCain, and not because of the war hero business. So even though I could not vote for him given his anti-abortion stance, I cheered as he sucked it up and boarded the Straight Talk Express those many months ago. I could even have accepted his election figuring that he would do the honorable thing when it came to the Supremes, as he seemed to be doing in many areas in the past. But something has happened along the way. The John McCain I see now is not that man. It would be poetic to say that he has sold his soul and his integrity for the chance to win. But the reality is scarier – he has sold the opportunity to govern for the chance to win. His sad choice of Palin tells me that he has cynically pandered to the right that he told us for years he did not identify with, just for the chance to win. As someone observed recently, Charlie Gibson spent more time with Palin that McCain and his team did before he offered her potentially the most powerful job in the world. That alone does not inspire my confidence, or the confidence of the world. Then he tells us that we can’t even ask her questions until we can show proper “deference”?
Looking at what a lot of reporters who have known him have said, and what he has done in the past few months, I really wonder if he is physically ill or having some kind of emotional crisis. This is not that Straight Talk Express guy; this is someone else.
So Aaron, I’ll be traveling in Europe for the election. Even though Hawaii is about as blue as blue can be, and I was a Hillary supporter through and through, and there are no local elections to speak of, I will dutifully have my absentee ballot fed-exxed to me, and back to the county clerk, at a cost of about $200, so I can cast a pretty meaningless vote. I’ve voted in elections where one vote made all the difference in the world, and we have seen an election where with a few one way or the other went the fates of nations. So I say take your best shot and honor those who have died and will die for your right and responsibility to vote – it’s just that important.
Aaron
You are so right. America's lawmakers have no stomach for the long term interests of America. Just ideologies and panders.
Oboma is inexperienced & his plans are generic liberal. McCain has experience but how much does he still remember? Nether has an economic plan that can stand up to America's dire situation.
We have to asume that if America is to be save from absolute disaster (rather than a long & serious recesion) it needs a President who will make drastic & unpopular decisions, and sell them to congress & the public.
So which contender is more likely to face reality? My bets are on Obama. He might just have enough brains to recognise how stupid he is and take compitant advice. He does seem to know how build a good team.
Obama is the only one who has even the posibility of convincing congress & the public that drastic action is the only way. Only Obama could make a speach & convince the public that America needs to fight Economic Disaster the same way it fought the Japanese.
DREW
thanks for your post. I agree, but then I have to admit that I voted to drop the 'bounce adjsutment'. I have been proven wrong, so I am trying to deal with it.
At the time, Gustav was bearing down on NO & Nate anticipated that current events around Labor Day w/e would dampen out the GOP 'bounce'.
Then it turned out that Mccain did get at least the +2 net bounce he had predicted, if not even +3.
Plus all the state polling dried up so there was no input during the Obama bounce at that level - but now tons of McCain bounce state polls which even more are distorting the predictive model without any 'bounce' control.
In hindsight, a bad idea to change the model mid-stream for 538.
Same for not taking into account the lack of state polls for several weeks most favorable to Obama [assumably per the model].
Yes, over the next 6 weeks or so that will all probably get factored through the wash - but in the meantime, Nate & 538's predictive analysis simulations have been unduly corrupted and the inference is apparent.
Likewise, Nate did not design his model with an assumption that Rasmussen would reweight the party ID #'s so often as they are now doing. Since RR polling has such a dramatic impact on the model, this change in polling methodology needs to be properly addressed because it is also exerting undue influence & distorting the results.
However, the addition of R2000 & Hotline national trackers does mitigate the RR tracker to a great degree. BUT there is no mitigation to the RR state polls assuming that they are also being constantly re-weighted by party ID's as seen fit by Scottie R.
That alone will introduce considerable bias to the model - even if we are aware of the RR 'house effect' of GOPer +3 in terms of the national tracker...
on Sean's LV thread this was posted earlier this morning:
"shadowguidex said...
List of states with final results under 5% margin in 2004. Surprise surprise, these seem familiar aside from Wisconsin and Iowa which are now solidly Democratic.
1. Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
2. Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
3. New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
4. New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
5. Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
6. Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
7. Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
8. Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
9. Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
10. Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
11. Colorado, Bush, 4.67%
---------------------------------------
to which I responded:
it looks like deja vu all over again & again....
According to Nate's model, the bounce ends and polling equilibrium is restored on the 28th. The debate kind of throws that off by a couple days. Anyway, if you adjusted the RCP national polling averages according to Nate's bounce model, Obama would be up by 0.9. McCain should still have a lingering 2.2 point bounce at this date and is up by 1.3.
Just before the democratic convention, Obama was averaging around 1.5 points ahead. So my estimation is that McCain has gained about .6 points on Obama since the convention cycle began.
I am still interested in the fact that the polling companies don't think about 'unlikely' voters, such as the younger voters. Have any polling companies used models for general election voting that take into account the larger than usual youth vote in the primaries? (I know some will say 18-30 year olds still aren't gonna show up come november!)
I would imagine, though statistically I don't know, that any such discrepency is more likely to be a big factor in some state polling rather than in the larger samples of a national poll. (I would imagine any problems with polling samples would be more likely to lead to innacurate state polls as opposed to national polls?) Thats not to say that most close states won't stay close, but I do think that some of the states that appear to lean McCain might go Obama come November if the youth vote does come out. (And the Obama camp do have some fairly sophisticated models on how to get the youth vote out, which the McCain camp don't seem to be shadowing?)
Aaron et al:
I applaud your enthusiasm and interest, but your post also comes across as fairly conceited and self-righteous.
"I know more about both candidates than most people ever will, and more than I (quite frankly) want to know."
The average voter knows next to nothing, so knowing more than he or she knows, isn't much of an achievement. Most of us visiting these pages know a fair bit, and are clearly passionate about it, but unless you're some kind of wunderkind (possible, but "top 10" university credentials doesn't buy you that title any more than does graduating early), it's a good bet that you have yet to grasp the entire history of the US presidency (let alone the history of its fiscal policies). Scholars make a career out of studying these topics, yet probably only asymptotically approach mastery.
I often see the term "libertarian" bandied about, but few are speific about their ideologies and, more specifically, their pragmatic ideas. The term "libertarian," without more explanation, is meaningless.
Roger:
On the second amendment's multiple clauses:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
On Roe v. Wade,from a prominent liberal scholar:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/14/the_fate_of_roe_v_wade_and_choice/
From the article,"But it is one thing to object to Roe as written in 1973. It is another to suggest that it should be overruled in 2008. American constitutional law is stable only because of the principle of stare decisis, which means that in general, the Court should respect its own precedents."
In other words, the court gets to invent rights despite the constitution, and if you can't get an amendment to the contrary, you're stuck forever, despite the weakness of the original decision. Wait until the court rules leftist ideas, like universal health insurance or housing, are constitutional rights. That is where we are creeping, and it would mean the end of federalism, policy debates, and legislators being accountable (the appointed judges would be the legislators).
Sunstein makes good points and conservatives may desire to be activists too, my point was that, as in many things, conservatives are bad and liberals are worse. Ultimately the composition of the congress would limit who McCain could appoint and not Obama.
dcm;
I have graduate school training in quantitative analysis at the U of MN school of public affairs.
That statement begs the question that you are qualified, you numbnut.
That statement assumes that since you have managed to finagle a graduate degree that you know what you are talking about.
To address the "substance" of your Rasmussen bias charge: you have presented no evidence to demonstrate they are biased other than you don't like the results, therefore they are "clearly" biased. Changing their modeling procedures does not in an of itself present a bias, or "a thumb on the scale".
You have done nothing to demonstrate that their innovation on voter ID assumptions makes a less accurate model. You merely bluster and fume, reflecting poorly on your ability to leverage that degree you have.
Rasmussen, on the other hand, addresses this issue at length and describe why they model the way they do, including this comment:
At the moment, this shift will have little impact on the daily Presidential Tracking Poll. However, it could provide a significantly more reliable measure of the race as Election Day draws near.
During Election 2006, there was a notable shift in partisan identification favoring Democrats as Election Day approached. During Election 2004, there was a notable shift in the opposite direction. It is impossible to know which direction this will flow during 2008 (see month-by-month results). These shifts correctly foretold the election outcome in both years.
If your advanced degree can take it, you can actually read more of Rasmussen's justification here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_rasmussen_reports_party_weighting_targets_38_7_democrat_33_6_republican
In short, it seems that Rasmussen may have a degree or two as well and feel that they can provide even more accurate results than they already do, as recognized at 538 with Rasmussen's high pollster rankings, by changing their methods to be more responsive to the single most indicative factor in projecting election results.
Oz.
(In case you can't tell, my graduate degree in advance blowhard detection makes me immune from your pitiful appeal to the authority of your "degree".)
DarienCrow said...
Everyone else will get into the ballot box and say to themselves... "Do I really want P Diddy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Snoop Dogg dancing in the Oval Office?.... uh... NO.
Perhaps, if my dreams will be fulfilled, one day when you are in your hood and sheets, hoisting a cross in someones yard, your hood will become askew thus temporarily blinding you and you'll end up tossed into the flames. A man can dream...
DetonatedManiac,
Great points! You might want to add that libertarians are completely opposed to the Fed and the private banking system in collusion with a power-obcessed government. Ron Paul has spoke forcefully against the festering problems leading to this current calamnity.
Inkstain was mocking the metals people coming out whenever the market tanks but he's got his perception skewed. It isn't the market that turns out the goldbugs, it's the "liquidity", i.e., Helicopter Ben throwing out paper dollars to pump the Economy with adrenaline even though it has already passed out with exhaustion.
At least taxation is still in the realm of dealing with honest money. No Libertarian can stomach that which is happening to degrade the Dollar.
Look at this graph:
ttp://alfred.stlouisfed.org/graph?s_1=1&s[1][id]=BORROW&s[1][vintage_date]=2008-08-14&s[1][line_color]=%23FF0000&s_2=1&s[2][id]=BORROW&s[2][vintage_date]=2008-07-03&s[2][line_color]=%230000FF&chart_type=line&s[1][range]=Max&s[2][range]=Max
RE: libertarianism. Please dont read Rand. Read Robert Nozick, Anarchy State Utopia. In fact, read P Van Parijs, Real Freedom for All.
But more seriously, if you're really concerned about individual liberty, you should be concerned about everyone exercising it. As Nozick points out, when some individuals exercise freedom, it can infringe on the capacity of others to do so as well (his example is someone who claims a property right over the only source of water in an area and refuses to let others use it). The problem for libertarianism is not only to explain how individual liberty can be affirmed when it contradicts other important values (such as equality, or even the value of life), but when it contradicts other people's *liberty*.
Furthermore, some forms of libertarianism (the extreme 'all government is bad') are not only impractical for modern societies (as pointed out by others), but also wrong ethically. We all benefit from shared cooperation with others and so incur duties of justice to others. We discharge those duties through collective decision-making and through participating in political institutions. Human beings are not only social animals psychologically, but we benefit from each other in ways that we are not responsible for. Yep, I'm a Rawls supporter on this one. A summary critique of libertarianism from 'liberals': Those who see the state only as a security-providing institution or like a private insurance company fail to realize the distinctive moral nature of the state.
On the other hand, most liberals agree with libertarians in the sense that they still think that individual choice is a foundational moral value that cannot be trumped. This is why many libertarians (such as Hayek) self-identify as 'liberals' of some sort.
So a question for those libertarians who don't like aspects of Democratic or Obama economic policy: do you think those policies are more or less likely to ensure that people in the US are able to exercise individual choice? Why?
dcm;
I agree, but then I have to admit that I voted to drop the 'bounce adjsutment'. I have been proven wrong, so I am trying to deal with it.
At the time, Gustav was bearing down on NO & Nate anticipated that current events around Labor Day w/e would dampen out the GOP 'bounce'.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHA! So you admit you voted against the adjustment for political reasons, thinking Gustav would do the work that Nate's arbitrary, but educated, estimate was going to do. And you got it wrong, but I didn't. So much for your degree, eh?
Likewise, Nate did not design his model with an assumption that Rasmussen would reweight the party ID #'s so often as they are now doing. Since RR polling has such a dramatic impact on the model, this change in polling methodology needs to be properly addressed because it is also exerting undue influence & distorting the results.
And what compensation would Nate make to his model to account for Rasmussen being more responsive to changes in voter ID? Come on, Mr. Stats Genius. What changes are needed? You've got none, because there is no variable for voter ID preferences with the pollsters, just the pollster rating. Of course, that's your real gripe with Rasmussen, isn't it? They're accurate.
And where do you show Rasmussen's influence to be undue, much less incorrect? All those classes skipped while you sucked on milkshakes at McDonald's in DinkyTown may have come in useful, huh? If only you could tackle the methodology that Rasmussen puts forward and show us where it is wrong then I may respect your bloated pontification on this stuff.
The bald state of facts is that you are not interested in accurately modeling the polling data into creating a more accurate projection, but in creating a projection that suits your political preferences.
Stick to the facts or begone troll!!!1!1!! We don't want your personal preferences clouding the discourse here.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oz.
j:
While Cass Sundstein is generally thought to be liberal, bear in mind that he has supported some of Bush's nominees, including John Roberts. Your characterization of him as a prominent liberal scholar is really only half-true (he is prominent).
Secondly, you're taking absurd liberties in your rephrasing of Sundstein's statement about Roe v. Wade.
"In other words, the court gets to invent rights despite the constitution, and if you can't get an amendment to the contrary, you're stuck forever, despite the weakness of the original decision."
What?
Sundstein is a proponent of the idea of judicial minimalism, the basis of which is to force judges to decide a case without making decisions that cause a sea-change in the law that have far-reaching, and long-term effects.
Sundstein doesn't argue that courts can or should "invent rights," and in fact, many minimalists have criticized the Roe v. Wade decision. However, they also believe that since it has established a stable legal precedent, a conservative court would be wrong to overturn it in one fell swoop. Instead, he would argue for subtle, slow (and hence, more stable) changes in the law.
McCain's convention bounce will disappear soon. (Day 12)
petedrum;
McCain's convention bounce will disappear soon. (Day 12)
Honest question: what is the threshold for the bounce being declared gone? Back to even? Why? Why not a 1.2 point lead?
Obama's bounce was gone in about 2 days. Why does McCain have to carry this burden for two weeks or more?
Oz.
Peter, We are going to need that countdown thru November 4th.
McCain Bounce Will End.
Day 50
HAHAHAHA
Boy my state of OHIO is so damn smart. No way to OBAMA!
OHIO IS RED FOLKS! HAHAHAHA
Nate,
You missed SurveyUSA's 9/15 Virginia poll, which puts Obama up by 4 in that state, but included the Ohio poll, which puts McCain up by 4! Not claiming bias at all (well, duh), and I know you've got a lot of data to crunch, but be less sloppy! That said, thanks for the hard work.
The bounce normally would be declared over on Sept. 29th. However, the presence of a debate on the 26th throws that off. McCain's national tracking poll numbers should be getting a 2.2 point bounce.
I knew you don't think the party IDS matter, but yes they do when there is no evidence to substantiate the shift, which in the case of the RAS poll there is not. You can kiss the predictive ability of your model good bye.
franchee;
And what shifts have Ras generated out of whole cloth? I'm looking to be convinced, but it must be obvious that arguments better than, paraphrased, "RAS are doing things different than they used to" will suffice.
Oz.
Quick thought on SCOTUS. Some people seem to think that having McCain in the White House and a Democratic congress will mean that McCain cannot appoint activist or bad judges. Well how about Clarence Thomas? Appointed by George HW Bush, confirmed by Democratic senate.
And plenty of good appointments to the Bench have been made by Presidents when there party has held control of the Senate. You could argue in fact that strong voices for a particular point of view are more liely to be nominated to the bench when the President and Senate are in the same hands. You want bland moderates on the bench? Have split government. You want a strong liberal voice to balance out Scalia, Thomas and Alito? The give Barack Obama a Democratic Senate to help him appoint someone to the bench.
I have a serious issue with these polls:
1) The state polls have lagged behind the national polls all year. Obama is clearly improving in the tracking polls, up by about 1 point in four of them. These state polls therefore are capturing the end of the McCain bounce, not an real effect of the election.
2) Reweighting polls for a perceive partisan shift from week to week is bad social science. Most political scientists believe that partisan shifts occur over years, not days, so rewriting the partisan make up during the GOP informational does not alter the political landscape, just the pollsters' perception of it. Much of the McCain bounce has been based on improving the GOP weighting, not based on changes in voters' intentions.
3) I have a hard time believing that after yesterday's economic news and McCain's horrid response, that he has a chance in this election. The Crash of 2008 is not going to reward Republicans, who are justifiably held responsible for the current financial chaos. Add to that McCain's inability to articulate a coherent economic policy and you have the makings for a 1932 style Democratic victory.
The last point is obviously subjective, but McCain either needs Diebold to rig the polls or would be a genius of marketing to get voters to re-elect a Republican ticket in the midst of a massive market crash.
It's the economy, Stupid!
would be a genius of marketing to get voters to re-elect a Republican ticket in the midst of a massive market crash.
Either that or woeful incompetence on the part of Obama and his campaign.
Oz.
axeldc;
Reweighting polls for a perceive partisan shift from week to week is bad social science. Most political scientists believe that partisan shifts occur over years, not days, so rewriting the partisan make up during the GOP informational does not alter the political landscape, just the pollsters' perception of it. Much of the McCain bounce has been based on improving the GOP weighting, not based on changes in voters' intentions.
You guys all keep saying this, but reading Rasmussen's sight, they claim that shifting voter ID in the polls leading up to both 2004 and 2006 was the best indicator of the eventual results. As they saw this relationship, they changed their polling method to better capture it.
You have two choices for invalidating Rasmussen's technique (assuming competence on their part, which is not unreasonable): You can either show that voter ID is not a good indicator of final results or that Rasmussen are capturing those data incorrectly.
I figure you folks can't do either of those or else you would have already. Instead you're left with a successful pollster trying to become even more accurate. The results of those efforts don't meet with your political approval, so you want them undone.
The burden is on you to prove that Rasmussen no longer deserve their reputation for quality. I don't see an honest effort has yet been made to do that.
Oz.
New Reuters/Zogby poll out showing Obama +2 nationally.
That poll was taken Thursday through Saturday so this was before the Lehman and market turmoil news.
Aaron -
You are obviously brilliant, but appear to be judging the candidates only on a narrow range of econo-centric metrics.
This is also a watershed foreign-policy election with a clear choice between militarism and diplomatic multilateralism.
I mean, even a perfect fiscal policy would be worth fuck-all if we're at war with Russia.
excellent numbers for mccain, that makes me really happy
only virginia is a bit disappointing, republicans shall win that state
greetz from germany
The race is now clearly starting to turn. With the focus now on the economy rather than pigs, lipstick and McCain's lies, all the trackers are showing movement to Obama.
The single day results from Diageo and Research 2000 show Obama 4 points up yesterday. Rasmussen and Gallup have McCain's lead down to just 1 point. I expect them both to be tied or Obama leading today with clear Obama leads tomorrow. The Zogby poll showing Obama 2 points up, I can take or leave although if it is not an internet poll then it has some limited worth. We really need more national polls from the big boys (ABC, CBS, NBC).
The state polls should also start to move soon. PPP release results for VA today although the fieldwork will have preceded the economic collapse.
In the real world, McCain flails around like the clueless halfwit that he is. Having spent 26 years championing deregulation, he now claims that he is the one to bring proper regulation and oversight to Wall St. Give me a frickin break. His first concrete proposal is to set up a 9/11 commission on the economy. This guy is so retarded that he thinks that by using the 9/11 tag (in a wholly inappropriate and political way) that the American people will dumbly nod their heads and concur that it would be a great idea to appoint a corporate talking shop that will do nothing for two years. Great leadership.
This is the week that America realised that it was not such a good idea to reward the people who have fucked up the economy by re-electing them to government.
The best thing about the McCain (or should I say Palin) bounce is that it is going to be so much sweeter on November 4 when the Dems win. There is nothing better than staring defeat in the eye before coming back to a glorious victory.
I agree with the poster up above who asked about "are people in Ohio that f'ng dumb?" I just find it amazing that that state can vote for a Republican. It's nuts. It's either that or blatant racism.
When all else fails the ugly truth of this campaign surfaces.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/13/conservative-political-fo_n_126243.html
Today new PPP poll in Virginia.
My two cents on the bounce adjustment: it doesn't matter. Sure, it buoys the spirits of conservatives to see McCain's win percentage being so high. But it doesn't change the state of the race, it only changes the model's description of it. Nate has said all along that we need to look at these numbers skeptically, and given that we know that the bounce is still in effect should temper conservative enthusiasm and moderate liberal concern (to the extent that any are actually concerned).
What should be more troubling is the tendency of the model to overstate trends. We know that the models picks up the trends late and extends them past their ending time, but what's worse is that it can have a really strong effect that seems unreasonable. This has been the case when Obama was a on a bit of a roll and most recently when McCain was doing well. Take the model's predictions with a grain of salt, folks.
Research 2000/Daily Kos poll for today shows Obama up 4 (48-44) over the past 3 days. Yesterday's polling on its own showed him up 5 (48-43) although of course any single day's polling has a large MoE.
PPP in VA is going to be good news for Obama.
The ARG poll for 25 states is also out today although that is purely for entertainment value than substance.
For Aaron and the libertarians: Jeff Frankel explains why the Republicans are worse when it comes to promoting economic liberal/libertarian policies.
And sedi gets the comment of the season award (although I doubt he cares that I have awarded it).
Oz.
The crazy thing about the Reuters/Zogby poll is the numbers on the economy. Half of the voters had the economy as the most important issue, and McCain actually led Obama on questions of who was best able to deal with the economy, 47-45! This is a surprising number, although McCain has been inching closer to Obama in this area for a few weeks now. I'm curious as to whether this is an outlier or the continuation of a trend. If it's the latter, I'm anxious to see if it continues in the aftermath of this financial meltdown.
p smith, what said the PPP poll in VA?
Well, good news for Obama in Reuters/Zogby.
McCain's latest add out today show's he's not backing down on this - and he's running on the theme of "The Original Maverick".
Call it lies or what you like, but he's going for Obama's message. The trends in the economics numbers demonstrate "The Mavericks" populist appeal in this area (something that has frustrated conservatives for years). If Obama gets stuck with the insider tag on this meltdown due to his close association (Original VP selection lead) with the former CEO of Freddie or Fannie (can't remember which), then he's in a bit of strife. Top that with being number 2 on the Freddie/Fannie graft conga line and this may not be the hit you hope it to be.
Oz.
McCain's ad, "Foundation", if you care to see it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRg8kaKfLXs
Oz.
McCain isn't just a liar, he's a laughably BAD liar.
The core of the problem on Wall Street is deregulation. McCain has been a champion of deregulation. His 'economic guru', Phill "Americans are whiners" Gramm led the way, and McCain was at his side.
McCain wants to make the lead deregulator the Secretary of the Treasury, but he's trying to convince Americans he will "clean up Wall Street".
And then there's all the lobbyists.
McCain has become a farce.
Thanks Oz! It's always nice to hear a kind word, even if we don't always see eye to eye. Folks around here do sometimes get all up in arms about the model and seem to forget that it is just a model, a projection. It has it's flaws and we can make recommendations for improvements, but there is enough information here that we can look and see the underlying numbers and where the effects are coming from. When the SuperTracker gets out of control in either direction, I tend to revert to the polling average, since I think Nate's weighting system (outside of his giving Zogby Interactive more than negligible weight) is the best I've seen.
A different comment system would be nice, especially when the number of comments gets out of hand, but I remember Nate saying in one of his very first posts (perhaps the first) that he isn't really a web guy and that the site would be fairly basic. I'm not sure that he ever anticipated the traffic that the site now gets.
@ozjohnnie
you seem to be operating under a bit of a weird misunderstanding, where you think that those who voted to get rid of Nate's bounce adjustment did so because Obama's numbers weren't high enough.
I can tell you flatly that I voted against it because it adds uncertainty rather than takes it away. I knew and argued repeatedly - WITH YOU - that long term taking it away would help McCain but that it was irrelevant who it helped/hindered. The fact is that it adds noise, it should be taken account of when considering the polls but not put straight into them.
Now, go back and reread the thread or shut the fuck up about it. You are wrong. It was, and remains, a good idea to take it out.
Ras still M+1
New Zogby phone poll - O+2
DarienCrow said...
[i]Everyone else will get into the ballot box and say to themselves... "Do I really want P Diddy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Snoop Dogg dancing in the Oval Office?.... uh... NO.[/i]
showing your true racist colours there.
Let me tell you: It'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for a darkie like Obama. To me he's just Al Sharpton in a nicer looking package. Seriously folks, we have to stand up for our own race in these tough times. My kids all feel the same and we'll be voting for McCain / Palin.
kozierok;
McCain isn't just a liar, he's a laughably BAD liar.
We can always count on you to be reasonable, can't we.
It's not enough to disagree, but bad motives and evil intentions must be tossed in as well, right?
The core of the problem on Wall Street is deregulation.
Are you open to persuasion as to why this statement is wrong, or are you happy with the house you have built and don't see any need to change it?
Oz.
dawolf;
I can tell you flatly that I voted against it because it adds uncertainty rather than takes it away.
I voted to take it out as well. Nate was uncertain it was correct.
I've argued with so many here, that you may be right about arguing this with me. Can't remember. Odds of me shutting up are slim, though.
Oz.
Darien, you're a racist smuck.
Media narrative in full effect against McCain this AM. I think communication graduate students are going to look back on the media narrataive of "McCain is a liar, Obama is telling the truth" as started right after 9/11 as the turning point in the race.
McCain's campaign still isn't getting it or changing the subject, pretty sorry ass campaigning period for them.
Sedi:
My apologies. I misworded that. The AEA is a good organization, but I honestly don't believe those numbers as a whole. I currently attend Duke, actually (though UChicago was my second choice) and it just doesn't reflect what seems to be then norm with the people I know in the field. The academia bias could be the factor that I was missing, though, as academics in all professions (Economics included) tend to be quite left of center. Still. As a survey of practicing Economists, I think this is perhaps undersampling the real number of independents and Republicans among economists, though that's based on little but hearsay and personal experience. The AEA may be thusly composed, but I would be very wary of applying the results to all Economists without researching the demographics of the AEA as compared to the aggregate of all Economists.
I'm not referring to social policy (or his minimum wage hikes) when I refer to Kennedy. I'm more talking about his approach to lessening the tax burdens on small businesses, attempting to balance the federal budget, and downsizing the power of the federal reserve while increasing its independence. A president who had the ability to accomplish any of those things in the 21st century would almost certainly get my vote. However, I am not socially liberal. If anything, I'm socially neutral; my opinion on most social issues is that it isn't at all the purview of the federal government, and that they are issues not worth choosing a president over. My actual leanings tend to range from conservative to liberal on social issues, but I care about them to such a small degree that it becomes negligible for me. One must remember that Kennedy did not pass the Civil Rights Act, which I think is a well-intentioned document that nevertheless went way too far in its purview. But, again. This isn't a discussion of theory at the moment. Nor should it be. This is a polling site.
David:
Please don't compare apples to oranges, here. Scholars do not make a career out of studying the policy positions of Barack Obama and John McCain, they make careers of studying the bulk modulus of history and of political ideology. Furthermore, from my experience you are somewhat wrong when you assume that the majority of the american people vote knowing "next to nothing". From their perspective, most know a lot. Our perspective dictates that we ignore that, but it's silly to pretend that America votes without paying any attention. The "America is full of morons" meme is one that has come into far too heavy use in recent years. I often see the term "meaningless" applied to the word "libertarian". Since you've used a soundbyte at me, I'll distill a few policy positions to a soundbyte for you. Low budgets. Localized state-centric governmental authority. Free trade. Few regulations that are narrow but very strict in their interpretation. Very low taxes. Very little overseas military engagement. An INDEPENDENT central bank that endeavors to ensure modest monetary stability rather than constantly more extreme monetary liquidity to fund ballooning federal expenses. Elimination of as much government waste as possible. Few of these are particularly disturbing positions, but few have been attempted in tandem on the national stage. "Libertarian" is no more meaningless than "liberal" or "conservative" when used as a descriptor. They're all meaningless without personal context, are they not?
Everyone else:
Thanks for the occasional compliments and complaints, as well the earnest attempts to respectively make me "see the light". Yes, I know most of you are voting for Obama. Especially you, Oz. Don't be such an Obama partisan, here! It hasn't particularly changed my current view, but it was an interesting read.
Anyways. Off to the bank. Adios.
dariencrow;
Why do you have to go and say something stupid like that? There's being inflammatory and confrontational, and then there is just plain shooting yourself in the foot.
Oz.
Oz,
I'm going to have to agree with you, and it isn't just because you said something nice about me. You are absolutely correct in arguing that McCain is going after the "Maverick" theme, and he is very smart to do it. He made his experience argument over the summer, and he's likely already getting every vote that he's going to get on that front. He has to run on a change theme, and the maverick approach is the only viable one for him to use. We'll see whether it works.
Darien, racism doesn´t help you and McCain.
@Aaron
Economists are definitely against McCain.
for instance, we have this on the gas tax holiday
http://gastax08.blogspot.com/
or you could read this as well
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/mccains-economi.html
Darien, you´re not a republican.
You´re an ignorant.
Hi everyone-
forgive me for being slightly off-topic (and yes, I have contacted 538 on this issue) but can someone explain why the state polling numbers (on the left of the home page) have McCain winning Texas 95% to only 5% for Obama?
Did Austin/Travis County, Houston/Harris County, the Rio Grande Valley and much of Dallas disappear??
Kerry won 44% of the vote in Texas (yes!) in 2004 so these numbers make no sense.
Perhaps I am mis-reading something so if anyone can explain it, I welcome the education.
Thanks!
Liberal Austin Chick
Austin, you´re right.
Obama is more big leaning in NY and CA than McCain in Texas.
sedi;
My intention here at this point is to cause disillusionment among the Obama supporters, but your post is bringing out my worse judgment and prompting me to post something more constructive.
How to beat McCain: Drive wedges between him and his base, and between him and Palin. That's pretty obvious, I know, but Obama isn't trying. Or isn't trying with any effect.
I can't bring myself to list the wedge issues, but browsing the most popular conservative blogs (particularly the archives during the Rep primaries) will pretty much lead you to electoral victory.
On almost every issue available, McCain maintains a buffer since Obama is so much further to his left, but there is one issue with his base that they will rather lose on than let McCain win when promoting it. And there is one issue that Palin would be forced to publicly disagree with McCain on.
Find those, and then Obama has a game. And he can forget the McSame thing. Every day he keeps talking that theme, he leaves McCain free to discuss "The Maverick". It's a losing proposition.
Oz.
@Austin
Polls are showing McCain ~10 points ahead, basically. Double digit leads like that make Texas very unlikely to go blue.
Aaron,
Well, I simply disagree with your econo-political philosophy, since I don't think it is practical given the issues that we face in the country today. Most notably, a hands-off approach works far less well in technology markets than it does in more traditional commodity markets.
That said, if small government is what you want, McCain would probably be slightly better philosophically, though in practice it would be much less clear. The biggest government of all comes from war, and McCain has a far more belligerent and interventionist foreign policy than Obama does. You could eliminate every earmark tomorrow, and we would still have an even bigger chunk of money going to fight and nation-build in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suspect that you will end up going for McCain, but I encourage you to keep your mind and your options open for the next 6+ weeks.
I think Ras is ging to be tied or O +1 today. Mac isn't doing too hot post-financial meltdown.
Austin;
The 10 point lead that dawolf refers to means that there is a 95% chance that McCain will take Texas, not that McCain leads in Texas 95% to Obama's 5% support.
Although CA and NY should be as in the tank for Obama as Texas is for McCain, the models don't show it as much because no one is polling those States (putting aside the recent NY polls) which means that the national numbers are slowly pulling them to the middle. They appear closer than they are due to a lack of state specific data in them.
Was that you question?
Oz.
Please don't forget Indiana! CNN was just on saying McCain is only leading by 2 points in the last poll!
I am working very hard for Obama here but I'd like to also keep it under the radar because we don't want to wake up the Republican machine! They woke up a little bit with Palin but it's still not as strong as I've seen it in the past around here and I'm in a small red town surrounded by rural area!
The samples I'm seeing in my canvassing reflect Obama winning every time!
Ax - its M+1, both with 2% leaners
"It's not enough to disagree, but bad motives and evil intentions must be tossed in as well, right?"
The truth is the truth.
McCain was once a good man. He has shown himself to be dishonorable opportunistic chameleon who morphs based on the polls of the day.
He spent months mocking Obama's change message, then one day we all woke up to find him saying *he* represented change.
He spent months mocking Obama's lack of experience and saying how critical it is because of foreign policy issues, then picked a bimbo as his VP whose sum total of foreign policy experience is "You can actually SEE Russia from Alaska! Hee hee!"
Now, after spending 20+ years in Congress fighting for deregulation, he's suddenly going to fight for tougher regulation.
Sorry, not buying it. Nor am I buying your suddenly conciliatory tone after listening to weeks of sneering, obnoxious bullshit from you.
I guess given the new Party ID weighting, Obama will need more Democrats back in his corner to climb out of it.
Dammit, Oz, I have to run off to work and you post a teaser like that! My initial guess is immigration, but I will admit that I don't spend time on RedState or Free Republic so I don't really know which fissures in the conservative coalition are deepest. I don't think Obama can move too much on immigration, not only because he has already staked out a position but also because the demographic changes in the country make pressing too hard on this issue a recipe for future electoral disaster. The GOP has really hurt its chances with this group by not following Bush on this one. (Did I just praise Bush? Ouch!) I'll mull over your intriguing post during the day.
"Let me tell you: It'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for a darkie like Obama. To me he's just Al Sharpton in a nicer looking package. Seriously folks, we have to stand up for our own race in these tough times. My kids all feel the same and we'll be voting for McCain / Palin."
Finally the truth comes out, in all its disgusting glory.
This part always makes me wonder: "49% trust McCain more than Obama on economic issues while 45% trust Obama."
Is Ras the only pollster with whom McCain consistently outpolls Obama on the economy?
Geoff, how did you get the Rasmussen tracker results before they were released at 9.30?
Obviously I am an obsessive.
dariencrow: Your race being what, the severely inbred? Can you guys even stand upright at this point, on those webbed feet?
Screw you guys. If you can't see what's happening in this country I can't help you. John McCain, and especially Sarah Palin, truly represent the ideals upon which this country was founded. Hussein and his friends like Rev. Wright have brought us down.
20 bucks a month, i bought two months a week or so ago. i think its 30 a month now.
interesting numbers on the financial crisis as well this morning, strong support for NOT doing bailouts and letting companies declare BKR instead. Interesting trend, i hear alot of that from low information voters.
Irrelevant of who you all are backing, this is a funny read on Obama's financial speech.
http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2008/09/how-come-i-woul.html#more
geoff: Looks like someone needs to look up the meaning of "essay" in a big ol' dictionary, and the meaning of the word "statement". And then write out both definitions 100 times.
Re: Texas Polling Numbers
Got it.
Yes, I would imagine that McCain has a 95% chance to win Texas, although the thought still depresses me.
Happy to be in a BLUE city!
Thanks for the responses--
Re: Texas Polling Numbers
Got it.
Yes, I would imagine that McCain has a 95% chance to win Texas, although the thought still depresses me.
Happy to be in a BLUE city!
Thanks for the responses--
Re: Texas Polling Numbers
Got it.
Yes, I would imagine that McCain has a 95% chance to win Texas, although the thought still depresses me.
Happy to be in a BLUE city!
Thanks for the responses--
Geoff Rassmssen was unchanged today. How did Obama Poll yesterday?
Yea, those guys are a little stupid, but you have to admit they made some funny points. I think that's the better direction for this election - mild humor instead of hateful invective.
You can do the same thing to McCain's speech with similiar humorous results...
@Geoff
I like the idea but they deliberately twist some things incorrectly....
9/14/2008 45.6 48.1
9/15/2008 47.4 46.8
9/16/2008 48 49.1
Vanessa - McCain bounced back to a one point lead, very few undecideds - i.e. the financial crisis has apparently focused people on making a choice.
I don't necessarily see today's Ras as a good thing for McCain, based on the internals.
McCain's gap over Obama on white women fell to 6 points (from 10), and Obama's very favorable rating from women overall is up to 40%! That's his all time high - so i think that the backlash to Palin is helping liberal women decide to seriously rally to Obama.
That said, McCain's numbers are holding in a context of weighting for a 5 point dem lead, not a 9 point dem lead like Daily Kos and Hotline does. The election is clearly in the air, but the media McCAin lies narrative is taking a toll, as is Carly's stupid comments and McCain's inability to put together a solid economic narrative.
Neither has Obama, but the media is not focusing on that.
"If you can't see what's happening in this country I can't help you."
What's happening is that this country is finally emerging out of the dark ages of racism and hatred, despite the efforts of people like you and John McCain.
Just as the Israelites wandered in the desert until the old generation was consumed, we may have to wait a few more years until the old racists and bigots in our nation have died off so we can move forward.
Dawolf, yea they are engaging in some douchebaggery there somewhat.
At the same time, someone should really mention that OBama's economic plan is still in the ether, just like McCain's. :)
geoff: Any time you start off treating a campaign statement as though it were a serious essay exploring meaning and delving into nuance, you kind of forfeit the right to have any of your criticism be taken seriously. It's a bit like pointing at an apple and laughing at it for not being an orange. You can say that the guy pointing is technically correct - it really isn't an orange - but he's not exactly being witty, even though he thinks he is.
koz: This is why the youth vote will be so crucial. I can't imagine the scope of GOTV operations for the young the Obama people must have planned.
Geoff, Is it safe to say that Voters prefer McCain to handle the economy?
"McCain's numbers are holding in a context of weighting for a 5 point dem lead, not a 9 point dem lead like Daily Kos and Hotline does."
Geoff, trying to free-ride on your $20 Rasmussen subscription, I have a couple of questions. First, the daily numbers that you quote - are those from Ras or are they your best estimates? Second, on the quote above, does Ras provide any info on what mix of Party IDs he's seeing this week - i.e., any sense of what kind of change we might see to his Party ID numbers this Sunday? As you say, if you push the Dem ID lead up to something more like what it's looked like in most polls for most of the year, Obama would be leading here, right?
Oh, and I definitely enjoyed the link to Obama's "essay".
One can only assume that Darien's hatred for black men is inversely proportional to his wife's love for them. It explains his evident frustrations.
Vanessa:
Heck no - its in the air.
The Zogby number (i think mccain trust economy plus 2 or 3) combined with the new Ras number (47-45 in favor of mccain, 9/16 poll, 1000LV) is not a good trend for obama, but its not solid in any way. obama was leading by 5-10 points weeks ago, but the crisis may be focusing people on obama's relative inexperience.
who knows...
Yeh the trend is not good for Obama, I recall that he had a pretty wide lead on economic issues prior to this.
tomtress
Those are my estimates, but i have medium confidence as the math always has to work out in the three day tracker and backwards estimates of the prior days have to fit into that framework hence allowing the prediction. The occasional comments by Raz/Gallup on whattheir dailies are saying have been consistent so far.
I think Ras used to be dem plus 8, now plus 5, so i'd say obama likely would have a 2 point lead, at least a 1 point lead, under the old weighting for August. Don't know for sure because of rounding, remember McCain gets 15 percent of dems.
oh, and no sneak peaks on how party id is trending day to day unfortunately.
Diageo|Hotline Poll had this Geoff,
http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/
For trusted on the economy.
Nate had pretty good reviews of D|H. More so than Rass or Zog
"The Zogby number (i think mccain trust economy plus 2 or 3) combined with the new Ras number (47-45 in favor of mccain, 9/16 poll, 1000LV) is not a good trend for obama, but its not solid in any way. obama was leading by 5-10 points weeks ago, but the crisis may be focusing people on obama's relative inexperience."
I think that McCain's economic plan, such as it is, is easier for people to understand. Government should stay out of the way - i.e., deregulation, no regulation, no bailouts of failing/failed businesses. A proposal to NOT regulate doesn't really require any more specificity. A proposal, on the other hand, TO regulate requires specificity - regulate what? how? why?
I think Obama needs to get specific here - explain what went wrong and what the government needs to do to fix it and prevent it in the future. If he can deliver a classic Obama oration, something like his race speech in Philly last spring, that includes specific proposals (or at least generally specific, if that makes any sense), I think he can put this election away.
But if he stays vague and this McCain lead on the economy solidifies, then that's really bad news for Obama, because if he's losing on National Security (which I assume he still is - although that's actually why I support him over McCain) AND he's losing the economy, that doesn't leave very much room for him to win.
Vanessa -
Yep, Diaego is going the other way on economic trust. Its really impossible to know what the heck is going on anyway...heheh
I do think this is a high info reception time for voters and the candidates need to step it up right now with a positive message-that may be part of obama's problem, too focused on that this si the Great Depression (the "Chicken Little" approach)
Tomt, I agree in part. McCain's message right now is sharpening to "streamlined but more effective" regulation of financial markets out of a commission. Obama must match this with a reasonably specific plan, which probably will parrot the above, nothwithstanding Obama's grandstanding about how commissions do nothing yesterday.
Did you see the two minute ad this morning? Pretty positive message.
In Fact it had more of the Rosie the Riveter, (We Can Do it, approach)
Post a Comment