The polls take a back seat to tonight's debate -- we'll be liveblogging, of course -- but let's give you the numbers and then touch upon a couple of high-level themes:
Still lots of blue in that table. But this was at least a day in which things did not appear to get any worse for John McCain. McCain improved his position in three of the seven tracking polls; Obama gained in one, and the other three were flat. In most of the state polling -- like the set of CNN polls for instance -- the trends were basically flat from the last time in the polls were in the field. That's certainly better for McCain than Obama continuing to gain ground. (By the way, we use the version of the CNN polling with third-party candidates included, which is why our numbers may differ from other sources).
Meanwhile, our model is starting to make some decisions about just where it thinks Obama's momentum is manifesting itself. Specifically, it thinks that he's gained the most in states with lots of white, working class Clinton voters -- a result which might be intuited by the huge numbers that he's posting in Pennsylvania, or the fact that there's now another West Virginia poll out that shows the race nearly tied.
As a result, we're now coloring West Virginia white (toss-up) rather than pink (lean McCain). The model also thinks that Arkansas could be quite interesting the next time that it gets polled. The flip side is that Obama doesn't seem to have quite as much momentum in the Western half of the country, where Clinton generally performed poorly during the primaries.
10.15.2008
Today's Polls, 10/15
by Nate Silver @ 6:17 PM...see also arkansas, colorado, florida, georgia, illinois, kansas, massachusetts, missouri, nevada, new mexico, north carolina, pennsylvania, today's polls, virginia, washington, west virginia
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

253 comments
First?
Dang.
Well, McCain still has Georgia.
It's like the State of North Dakota is a yoyo on a string...up, then down, then up, then down.
I wonder why its down this time...
Things didn't get any worse?
Well, I guess you have to take solace in any victories that you can at this point if you're the McCain campaign...
10/14
Electoral College Projection
yesss still got MA
Arkansas is pink? Wow.
What happened to NE2? It was pale pink yesterday and now it's as red as the rest of Nebraska.
I see Indiana has slipped back to pink in the model...I'm not surprised, because only one pollster has ever shown McCain losing that state. I'm more surprised that it's taken this long to go pink again. I still don't get why it's done so today, though. The model, it is a mystery to me.
So I take it something similar happened with the Indiana projection?
God, as terrible as it sounds, I hope Obama pushes McCain's buttons so much tonight that The Maverick uses the "n" word (and I don't mean "neo-conservative"... or maybe I do?). Now that would put an end to this endless campaign!
WARNING:
Gratuitious blog posting link ahead. (This might be challenging but if you're not interested in reading, try hard NOT to click the link....don't! No, don't click it!!!)
Slyly, Sarah Says...
Hi, my name is Reid and I am addicted to fivethirtyeight.com.
Why did Indiana go from pale blue to pale red in this one iteration? Also why did Obama's chance of winning NE-2 go down so dramatically in light of his good-for-a-Democrat gains in Kansas? Is it on the basis of his national tracking polls?
I'm a bit baffled.
What happened to NE2? It was pale pink yesterday and now it's as red as the rest of Nebraska.
Presumably the same thing that happened to ND.
Arkansas being pink isn't such a big deal. Remember, this is a state that Clinton won twice.
Seriously, Arkansas has two Democratic senators and 3/4 Democratic representatives. Of course these Democrats have adapted themselves to Arkansas in ways that Obama hasn't, but it's not a place where a D after your name is toxic.
Obama should really be sending the Clinton's to Arkansas and West Virginia, if for no other reason than to force McCain to continue to play defense and spread himself thin.
Am LOVING these posts about "the model thinks AR could be interesting". I totally have this vision of 'the model' as an enormous pagan god of polling and electoral knowledge, looking wisely down on Nate and Sean murmuring "My children... look to AR if you would learn the future."
Two and a half hours til the debate. Time for a pot of strong coffee for us Brits.
I love the posts where Nate anthropomorphizes the model. "The model thinks"..."our model is deciding"...
Awesome.
Of all places, WV I thought would be one of the safest states for McCain. I remember seeing interviews about how they didn't want to vote for Obama because of race, his middle name, and because they think he's a muslim. Polls reflected this by the huge Clinton win there during the primaries.
So, you could see why I'm so surprised to see that state as a tossup.
Didn't get any worse, eh? Wait until tomorrow. If McCain brings up Ayers like people are saying he will, Obama will use it to paint him as being out of touch and ignoring the issue(s) at hand, namely the economy. And even if he doesn't bring up Ayers, he could still spontaneously combust.
visit this 82yr old woman's blog if you haven't. it's hilarious as well as smart.
margaret and helen
I catch myself feeling anxious for some reason...but then recall that if Florida and Ohio had looked this way 4 years ago, I'd have been totally completely ecstatic, without weed even. So... yeah, we can't let our guard down, or get complacent, but dammit, we can feel good!!! I will feel much better canvassing in Philly in a few weekends. It's much easier to work on a winning campaign. The Poor Mavericks.
i dont know . kind of depressing-was hoping for more gains by obama.
does anyone else think cheney's illness will remind people that mccain is SO VERY old and scare them that palin could be pres?
Nate, you're completely off on Arkansas. No way it's pale red, and no way it's only a +2.3 lean GOP state.
McCain wins it by +10 at least.
I don't know what kind of "magic" you are using behind the scenes to get it there, but it's flat wrong.
Sorry to be so brash.
Everything else looks pretty good, though.
I have to say that I think the MOE estimates are too low in states like AR which don't have much polling. We're relying on trends to guesstimate an 11-point swing, but then putting only a 5.6 MOE on the prediction? That MOE isn't much larger than the 4.9 in PA, where there is an abundance of polling data.
Intuitively, this doesn't look right to me.
One thing that's fascinating to me is on the Super Tracker graph how the variation among the daily averages has gone way down since Obama's mid-September climb started. Look at the scattershot daily averages from February, where there is a 20 point range (Obama +10 to McCain +10). Next, look at July, where you have a 4-5 point range (+2 to about +6 or +7). Then the convention bounce time (early September) with an 11-point range (+7 Obama to +4 McCain). But THEN, the economic crisis hits, and whammo! every point aligned within a percent of that climbing red line.
Astonishing. Not a gradual solidification of the poll numbers, but a sudden hewing together. In just a few days.
That's the point where McCain lost the election.
I'm thinking a Clinton visit to Little Rock is in order.
God, as terrible as it sounds, I hope Obama pushes McCain's buttons so much tonight that The Maverick uses the "n" word (and I don't mean "neo-conservative"... or maybe I do?). Now that would put an end to this endless campaign!
I don't think that's very smart. One of Obama's big edges over McCain in the first two debates was his perceived coolness and grace and likeability compared to the cranky McCain. If Obama tries to bait McCain into an explosion, that goes out the window. And there is no guarantee that McCain would explode; he has had temper issues, but he is a very experienced politician and knows that an n-bomb or anything close to it would probably finish him.
These polls are great news!!! For Barack Obama!!!
Wow, look how BLUE that map is!
On this day, October 15th, in 2004, George Bush led John Kerry 47.5% to 46.0%
For final results, please see Presidential inauguration, January 2005
John Kerry never led in any major tracking poll from this point on
(39) days since the Fundamental shift towards McCain/Palin
You 'Cons should be getting nervous!
Get used to eight years of President Barack Hussein Obama. (Emphasizing of the middle name used to spite race-mongers who attempted to use it politically)
"Of all places, WV I thought would be one of the safest states for McCain."
Even Dukakis, and Jimmy Carter in 1980, won it.
I doubt that Arkansas will be just a 2.3% margin. But I doubt Obama will do worse than Kerry did (lost by 9,) there or much of anywhere, although it may be close in the Appalacian areas, Kerry's home state of MA, LA where the demographics have changed, etc.
Yeah, Indiana going back to pink is a little sad. As a (displaced) Hoosier, I'm only basing this one a sample population of one (my father) but I'm calling the state for Obama.
My dad even voted for Obama in the primary. He told the lady, "I've never done this before," and she said, "Oh, it's easy," and started to explain how the voting booth worked. He stopped her and said, "No, no -- I've never voted Democratic before. I feel like I need to shower afterwards."
My family on my dad's side have always been staunch Republicans, canvassing and everything (my mother was out canvassing two days before I was born!) The rest of them are dead now, and my dad has arguably been the most liberal of the bunch, but still. That he's an Obama man says a lot about the race in Indiana.
And then there was the Dissing of Letterman. Boneheaded.
Arkansas behaves more like LA, MS, and AL than MO.
Give me your best bet in each of these states. If Obama wins any he'll almost assurdly win. Which is more likely for Obama:
Virginia or Colorado
Ohio or Florida
North Carolina or Missouri
others, is this the right order
1)Nevada
2)Indiana
3)West Virginia
4)Montana
5)North Dakota
6)Georgia
anymore possibilities?
Josh said...
"God, as terrible as it sounds, I hope Obama pushes McCain's buttons so much tonight that The Maverick uses the "n" word (and I don't mean "neo-conservative"... or maybe I do?). Now that would put an end to this endless campaign!
I don't think that's very smart..."
Josh, you're probably right, I'm just so damn impatient, I want some dramatic end to this thing. Thank goodness cool-headed, patient Obama is the candidate! He knows what he's doing. The tortoise wins at the finish line.
AND REID! Yes, this site needs to be rededicated as a 538 detox recovery site after the election as we all go into withdrawal.
NE-2 just became twice as important as it was yesterday! Im guessing it's because of all those doors I knocked on in Omaha on Monday. If we keep this up "Obama wins or ties election because of NE-2" will be at like 20971.52% by election day!
Aslan,
Hillary was in Arkansas for Obama last week.
@Reid:
Welcome, you are among friends. Is anyone familiar with the CAGE score for alcoholism? It's a blunt tool used by doctors to help patients assess their level of addiction. Try it yourself with this site...
Have you ever felt you should Cut down on the number of times you check this site?
Have people Annoyed you by suggesting you should check the site less?
Have you ever felt Guilty about how often you check for polling updates?
Have you ever checked first thing in the morning as an Eye-opener?
A score of 2 or more and addiction is likely...
I would like to bury the hatchet w/ regard to ACORN once and for all.
Volunteering as a community organizer this summer, we were constantly irritated by ACORN's shitty practices. People would complain they had reg. with ACORN, and come to find out they weren't in the system! Obama was actually hurt by ACORN's confusing practices~not helped. This is what happens when people are paid by organizations instead of doing it out of the kindness of their heart(like us Obama volunteers!) Why don't You neo-cons do something constructive and bite me!
~Special council for the Trees....
Regarding NE-2
My guess is the fairly strong KS poll for McCain affected the demographics that are assumed to be shared with NE, and shaded the model stronger red. I find it interesting that the model now shows Obama with better chances in NE-1 than in NE-2. Not good, but 1.7 points better than Omaha.
Hillary is loathed by the majority of Arkansans. Bill still has some cred.
Hey Nate,
Any chance you could include a median, mode, and standard devision (at both one and two sigmas) along with your electoral college distribution? The mean is nice, but that's not an actual number, I think the median might be more interesting. As for the sigmas, since Obama is now in the 90s, it would be nice to see where his 90% and 95% boundaries are.
Thanks!
Still can't believe I am going to a debate party and will probably be wondering what you guys and ladies are writing. I am going to be up forever reading everything. I also can't believe that I will actually honestly be logging on as soon as I get home. geez.
Has anyone figured out what they make your screen do to make you addicted?
~Yari
Reid said...
Hi, my name is Reid and I am addicted to fivethirtyeight.com.
Hello, Reid. It's beein 15 seconds since I last hit "refresh.
By the way, lifeforcerenewal, don't you mean "counsel" to the trees? The other kind of "council" isn't a counselor or a lawyer. It's a group meeting. Every time I see your tag it reminds me of rightwingconspiricist who doesn't know how to spell his own name. If you're a tree hugger at least get it right.
(apologies for bringing this in from another thread)
Mule Rider said...
"Count all the votes! It's better to have duplicate, votes from non-citizens, underage people, non-existant people be counted then invalidate one valid vote."
*sigh*
Right. And heaven forbid we more closely examine young men of Arab descent at the airport for security purposes.
Isn't it better that for politically correct reasons we treat everyone the same, regardless of the potential consequences, than interrogate an innocent Arab man for an extra hour or two and risk coming off insensitive?
I mean, it's obvious that it's far better for us, as a nation, to overlook hundreds of potential terrorists than to inconvenience one innocent man.
Okay, I understand that you brought up the racial profiling concept to support being overly strict in removing voters from the rolls -- I get that. But let's take a second to look at whether your example, by itself, is even valid (regardless of whether it is inherently racist or not). This policy is actually ridiculously counterproductive, something that its advocates never seem to really grasp.
Let's start with some postulates. (I'm not saying these are accurate assumptions -- they're for the sake of argument, so we can walk through the decision process.)
* 5% of air travellers are of Arab descent and would therefore be potential targets for profiling.
* 0.000001% of all travellers (1 out of a 100 million) are terrorists. (We have something like 750 million air travelers in any given year, so this assumes that we're actually catching a LOT of terrorists every year that we never hear about.)
* 90% of terrorists are of Arab descent. (This is actually an pretty high estimate.)
* Airport security has the manpower to screen intensively only 1% of all travelers. (Almost certainly a high estimate unless you seriously limit your definition of intense screening.)
* Let's assume that a terrorist that undergoes intense screening is caught 100% of the time.
From this, you can derive the following:
* 0.000000009% of travelers are Arab terrorists
* 0.000000001% of travelers are non-Arab terrorists
* 4.999999991% of travelers are Arab non-terrorists
* 94.999999999% of travelers are non-Arab non-terrorists
Given that you can screen 1% of all travelers, if you chose to focus on Arabs, you would instead screen 20% of Arabs. That has to be an improvement, right?
Well, not as much as you'd think. Multiplying that through the last set of numbers, you get this:
* 0.0000000018% of travelers are Arab terrorists that are caught (correct outcome)
* 0.0000000072% of travelers are MISSED Arab terrorists (false negative)
* 0.000000001% of travelers are MISSED non-Arab terrorists (false negative)
* 0.9999999982% of travelers are HASSLED Arab non-terrorists (false positive)
* 98.99999999% of travelers are non-terrorists that aren't hassled (correct outcome)
Or, look at it this way:
* You MISS 82% of all terrorists (including 100% of all non-Arab terrorists).
* You waste resources by needlessly hassling 20% of Arab non-terrorists.
* Alternatively, you would miss 99% of all terrorists, but only needlessly hassle only 1% of all non-terrorists.
Or, yet another way:
* Your false negative rate is improves by by 17.17%.
* Your false positive rate for non-terrorists improves by 0.0000000001%
* Your false positive rate for Arab non-terrorists worsens by 1900%.
See that? You make a slight improvement in overall false negative rate, and laughably small improvement in the overall false positive rate, but at the expense of making the false positive rate for Arabs twenty times worse and making the screening easier to predict. Personally, that just doesn't seem justifiable.
Why do I say that? Well, how much would you, personally, have to be paid to volunteer to be strip-searched and interrogated for hours, missing your flight (and possibly losing your hotel/car reservations at your destination) in addition to being miserable for all that time? I couldn't imagine volunteering for that crap for less than $1,000, and even that would be a stretch. (Unless you get off on body-cavity searches, I can't see too many people thinking this is a real bargain.) So, if Arabs have a 20% chance of that happening, would you want to give them a $200 discount on all airline tickets while this extra expense is tacked on to non-Arab tickets?
If the idea bothers you, then keep in mind that this is an IDENTICAL SACRIFICE to what you're asking of them.
Even worse, if you profile, then the terrorists know how to avoid the screen! Notice how the profile of "young adult male Arab" has led to the use of female suicide bombers? They're not stupid, so they're going to take advantage of the profile. Really, how hard is it for an Arab to pass as Asian, African, or Latin? Are you going to screen everyone? If so, what if they start using makeup, latex prosthetics, hair coloring, etc. to make even better disguises? Hell, the absurdly simple adjustments of shaving, getting a stylish haircut (possibly with coloring or highlights), and wearing blue contact lenses will get you past the vast majority of people.
One more point to make here: If the odds of having a terrorist blow up a plane is normally 1-in-100-million, and you improve that by 17.17%, it's now a 1-in-120.7-million event. In other words, you've improved your personal safety from 99.999999 all the way up to 99.99999917%. Ooooooh! You're now 0.0000001717% more likely to live! Bet that makes you feel better, huh?
So, in conclusion: It puts an unnecessary burden on innocent people, makes it easier for terrorists to avoid the screen with minimal adjustments, and makes a trivial improvement in overall safety even if the terrorists make no adjustments at all. Hence my characterization of it as "counterproductive."
Really, how much of a total pussy do you have to be to feel so scared of terrorists that you're willing to make travel 20 times worse for COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEOPLE in one group so you can get feel 0.0000001717% safer? Of all the ways you're going to die, this is already about 50 times less likely than dying after being struck by lightning, and literally thousands of times less likely than the odds of being in a fatal auto accident any given time you get in a car!
Now, being absolutely serious: If you're that terrified of something that's so unlikely, isn't it a lot more likely that the problem is you, and that you should be taking anti-anxiety medication for what is obviously a crippling psychological disorder?
But I guess it's easier just to get an illusion of security by hassling people with dark skin instead, right? =)
Now, getting back to your concerns about voter fraud, the reason you made this analogy in the first place. Do you see how that, too, easily crosses the line of being counterproductive? The increase in the "safety" of the vote is similarly trivial when compared to the loss of individual rights. If you want to do some sort of screening, the only way to do so fairly is to do it completely randomly, including new and old registrations from all precincts in all counties. If you target one group (e.g. new voters, voters registered by ACORN, voters without driver's licenses, etc.) you will disproportionately disenfranchise that group in a way that is not justifiable given the actual gains in overall election accuracy.
How much would you sell your right to vote for? Nevermind whether you will or will not vote on any given occasion -- how much would you want to be paid to give up the right? Now, compare that with the odds that any given fraudulent vote would actually change the outcome of an election.
Is it worth it? Is it worth trampling the very liberty our nation stands for when there is such a ridiculously small marginal gain? As with racial profiling, my answer is a resounding NO.
I thought this Dick Morris map was insane until I came here and saw that arkansa moved. http://w3.newsmax.com/a/morrismap/
Georgia, Arkansa, Tennessee?
If McCain or Schieffer bring up Ayers (or any of Obama's other associations) tonight, that's the only time Obama should deviate from the economy. And even then he needs to make his response clear, succint and sufficient enough in honesty that it ends the questions once and for all and makes McCain look foolish for raising a stink over it. Then go back to the economy.
Obama needs to offer some specifics tonight and explain again why he would make a better president than McCain. This is his closing argument; he needs to close the deal tonight and not give voters who were leaning towards him any reason to second-guess their decision.
"Palin" as a verb meaning to implode; also sado-masochism.
McCain choice to Palin himself, why we'll never know.
The Texans lost to the Colts because Rosenfels Palined himself.
She is the sole reason that McCain has about a 1% chance of winning right now, instead of a 20-30% chance. The worst choice in US political history perhaps.
My husband said he was going to find a way to block me from logging onto the site and watch me frantically reboot and make other feeble attempts to get back in....He got "the look" and realized that was NOT funny.
P.S. I hit refresh every time I read 2 comments. It's bad.
GaMeS,
Whoa dude. Chill. We left the conversation hours ago.
It's over. Done. Finished.
Did you tweak the model by a little, Nate? It looks like you added a Clinton-variable.
I beg to differ that things are not looking worse for McCain. Time is working against him and with 21 days, he has to make up 85.9 expected electoral votes or a 25.1% win percentage gain. That means that any day he doesn't improve his win percentage by 1.2% or his expected electoral votes by 4 is a loss for him.
Ohio update:
On this evening's Cleveland news, they ran a story about the possibility of new voters not being able to vote. They did an interview with the local election official who delivered a loud and clear message for everyone who questions whether their registration might challenged to vote right now (basically before the courts could do anything . . .)
Bet the lines at the Board of Elections grow a lot in the next couple of days . . .
Whoh! Frankin is up by 5 now?!
Palin is a worse choice in US political history than Thomas Eagleton or David Duke because Eagleton was dropped and Duke was not elected. Perhaps Duke is as bad of a choice by a party, but the office to which he aspired is not nearly as important.
Either Dick Morris is smoking pot or doing something else much stronger or he is obviously exaggerating Obama's chances in all of those states for some sinister or comedic purpose.
That's a load of huey.
I don't know why Dick Morris's map has South Dakota as closer than North Dakota.
Fucking RNC is pulling out of Wisconsin..
Of course the statistical model at this site is excellent, maybe close to as much information as you can get just from the polls. But I wonder if the model is still missing something: Additional correlation with news about the economy. Many political scientists see the economic mood as a main factor in presidential elections, or even the main factor. Do you have a way to add the Dow or the employment rate, for example, as additional predictive data?
"Hillary is loathed by the majority of Arkansans."
Back in the spring, Hillary did REALLY well in head-to-head polls against Republicans in Arkansas. I don't know how accurate such things are, but at the time it looked to me like her most obvious electoral advantage over Obama.
Don't know if this has been posted yet. If so, my apologies.
The kids have spoken! The results of Scholastic’s big presidential poll, an 'election' involving a quarter million kids in grades 1-12, came out yesterday:
http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3750501
Some things that struck me: kids probably 'vote' the way their families' do. Older teenagers might be the exception but probably not by much. So this poll should be a pretty good (although highly unscientific) indication of the country's 30 - 55 year old voters intentions. It seems to have a good track record.
Results: Obama 57%, McCain 39%
(First time poster. Addict of several weeks now.)
Actually both. I heal the Trees, as well as advocate for them. Since they can't speak, they've got me, instead. Not a bad trade-off, eh?
newsfromOH said...
Ohio update:
On this evening's Cleveland news, they ran a story about the possibility of new voters not being able to vote. They did an interview with the local election official who delivered a loud and clear message for everyone who questions whether their registration might challenged to vote right now (basically before the courts could do anything . . .)
Bet the lines at the Board of Elections grow a lot in the next couple of days . . .
do everything you can to get out the vote now. I know OBama's camp is on OHio. I've written numerous posts about this. Bottomline is the McCain camp knows they can't win the election without OHio and theycan't win Ohio without suppressing the vote. There are more Dem voters than Pub voters this time. There's no way around it for them. The only way they can win there is to stop legit voters from voting. Please do everything you can to get people to realize the truth. The Sec of State and Gov can only do so much, the judges I beleive are corrupt and will stop at nothing to win it for McCain if necessary. Get the voters in cleveland out to the polls now.
the site is called "538!!" That means all BHO needs is half that, ie 270. whether he has 538 or 270, HE STILL GETS ALL OF THE OVAL OFFICE.
Whew, I just needed to see that in writing.
One thing that's fascinating to me is on the Super Tracker graph how the variation among the daily averages has gone way down since Obama's mid-September climb started.
By far the biggest reason for this is the number of polls coming out daily now compared to very sporadic polling early in the year.
does debate start at 8 p.m. (CT) again?
@Bex
Have you ever felt you should Cut down on the number of times you check this site?
Yes.
Have people Annoyed you by suggesting you should check the site less?
No, but I don't tell people how much I check the site.
Have you ever felt Guilty about how often you check for polling updates?
Yes.
Have you ever checked first thing in the morning as an Eye-opener?
Yes.
A score of 2 or more and addiction is likely...
hmmm.....
Is anyone else wondering how the decision on which states get polled is made? Polling Mass, Kansas, and Illinois ... Rassmussen must just want to get to use double digit numbers.
Seriously, why not poll Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Texas, where the senate races are becoming of considerable interest.
(Of course, Oregon, NC, and Minn
are also interesting but are getting polled pretty regularly.)
tomthress,
Which might call into question my assertion of how bad she is loathed there, but it validates my point that Obama has almost zero chance of keeping it within double digits.
The state is still just too deep-Southish to make even a decent case for going blue. And the % of blacks is not high enough - as in Georgia - to make up any significant difference.
okay bex of ambridge-
my name is cate and im an fivethirtyeightic.
my only concern now is making it through the election to nov 4.
then i will assess my being able to go cold turkey from this place. right now i cant see me being able to do it. i come here when i wake up (often i dont sleep at all) and before i try to sleep at night.
I teach elementary kids here in WV. A fifth grader asked me today who I was voting for I said Obama. He said," my parents were for McCain but now they say they're not voting for anybody." Lower income, white parents. That is the switch thats happening here. Another story, I had a racist work colleague say he will vote for Joe Biden. The guy never mentioned Obama. Also, there's big talk about the Ralph Stanley endorsement down here.
CNN map has been updated!!! Virginia is BLUE!
jonger27 said...
does debate start at 8 p.m. (CT) again?
yes
My name is CA Hawkeye, and I'm a fivethirtyeight.com addict...When do I get bad coffee?
As for the polls, it does not surprise me that Obama has plateaued a little. Can't keep that pace forever, no matter how much I'd like him to. Hopefully, the debate will provide another boost. And don't forget the half hour time slots coming up.
GOBAMA!!!
Was there a tweak with the model? The sudden shifts with Arkansas, Indiana, etc. seem too drastic to the model picking up on a trend. Or maybe I'm wrong.
jason said...
Fucking RNC is pulling out of Wisconsin
Maine also
"the site is called "538!!" That means all BHO needs is half that, ie 270."
SHIT. Believe it or not I have an accounting degree. To protect my alma mater, the school name will remain anonymous. I do know that half of 538 is NOT 270... but that 270 is the magic number!
The twelve steps of 538 addiction...
Step one, we realized we were powerless to stop hitting the refresh button and our lives had become unmanageable.
I'm going to try this because I have weak cell phone service. Wonder if AT& T will put a tower in my backyard.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/10/exclusive_verizon_gave_cell_to.html#more
Is there a reason my post didn't go through?
269 is the magic number. The Democrats in the House will choose Obama. ;-)
Crazy Prediction for Tonight's Debate: McCain comes in drunk, rambles incoherently for about 10 minutes about lowering taxes, calls Obama a baby-killing Muslim, and then leaves immediately.
Obama is speechless....left standing with mouth wide open. We awake on October 16th to see Obama ahead 80-20 nationwide. He cruises to an electoral sweep on 11/4.
You guys, this polling doesn't mean anything.
The voters haven't yet heard about Obama's plan to turn Ohio into a secret Muslim state!
And I was also going to say WV will go Obama, and 538 shows it a toss up. I am still hopeful for Indiana and even ND/MT.
thanks, joe
you should watch it on cnn just to watch the dials
Remember that maps by Morris and Rove (the latter has Florida, Viriginia and Colorado for Obama) will almost certainly be changed back to tossup in upcoming days so they can claim McCain momentum.
It's one of the reasons I am happy the CNN and MSNBC maps haven't flipped more - psychologically it's best for them to flip when there is no turning back.
jesse - actually it's not a simple majority vote in the house. It's really really complicated, I think nate or sean wrote a detailed article on it here. each state delegation gets one vote, so basically the ONE house member from South Dakota counts as much as all the combined members from California. It's likely that a tie still gets us a Mccain.
269 would be a nightmare.
Bex - Oh, no. I'm so glad my insurance pays for addiction treatment. I scored on all 4 points! But what kind of facility will take me? It would be OK if we are all in there together, bumping our heads against the padded walls, crying with joy that Obama's the Prez.
Bonny
@livemild, Reid et al...
DON'T GET HELP! INDULGE YOUR ADDICTION!
Ha ha I'll be a fab doctor won't I?
Any other UK-ites watching the debate tonight?
The proximity that McCain and Obama will have to each other will provide the best chance for Obama to "goad" McCain into going off his rocker.
Another prediction: Nate will correctly pick the final outcome of the race and do very well in predicting the margin of victory overall and in several states.
But I'm going to venture there are probably going to be in the neighborhood of 8-10 states that he misses and misses badly.
Another prediction: Nate will correctly pick the final outcome of the race and do very well in predicting the margin of victory overall and in several states.
But I'm going to venture there are probably going to be in the neighborhood of 8-10 states that he misses and misses badly.
Did IN just suddenly flip from very slightly leaning Obama to more than slightly leaning McCain? What result caused that?
@bonny:
ROFLMAO.
Gimme that cell.
sfergus483,
Guess that means there's no flipping Virginia back anymore. YAHOOO!!!
And on Nov 5th, will the model return to whence it came and speak no more? Will it's people wander the Web for four years?
mule rider,
if he misses that many states badly as you suggest how will he do very well in the margin of victory?
jonger27 said...
thanks, joe
you should watch it on cnn just to watch the dials
that's a great idea
thanks
My contribution to the debate is that I'm going to vote right after it finishes -- got my absentee ballot.
It will be for Obama unless McCain announces he's dropping Palin, severing ties with the religious wignut, joining up with Lieberman, repudiating the notion that all government is bad government, and promises to get better advisers.
If McCain does that, I'll vote some obscure 3rd party... unless he does all the above, head butts Obama and bites his ear (I just want to see a debate that ends that way).
jonger27,
Because I think the states will be split in how he misses them....i.e. he will totally underestimate Obama in some while totally overestimating in others. It will even/cancel out.
Jeff,
Nate realized that IN is not providing sufficient evidence via polling that it will lean Obama. See for yourself. It's a consistently red column.
I think I will skip the debate for the first time. Its just too draining waiting, watching, hoping-against-hope for Obama not to fuckup. The rewards are minimal, the cost is high.
That said, I'll just sit here and refresh the comments. I'm counting on you people. Keep me as overinvested in an event I can exercise no influence on as I would be with a real TV.
mule rider,
what states do you think he will miss? and which ones does he underestimate? and overestimate?
It's a very interesting and useful observation that the blue dots are now exactly on the red line. The reason must be that the volume of daily polling now makes each day much less volatile. We get to the point where we could almost ignore everything else and project the election based on a single-day polling alone.
I'm a Canadian Obamaniac who has been following this website since March, and I check it once or twice every day. This is my first time posting.
The statistics for losing the popular vote, and still winning the electoral vote seems extremely misleading. It seems to me that there is a 40.6% (not 3.23%)chance that Obama wins the electoral college even when losing the popular vote. (323 Obama wins out of 795 times that McCain wins the popular vote)
That number just made my day!
McCain Debate Prep Video!!!
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/breaking-sic-mccain-debate-pre.html
Mule Rider: if you think you know better than polling and modelling, then why do you come to a site dedicated to polling and modelling? If the numbers say Obama has gained strength among white Southern males that is what the numbers say. It is hardly outrageous to say that McCain will probably win AR (66%) rather than the previous analysis of definately win. Anecdotal reports are just meaningless, since you do not know a large random sample of people.
jonger27,
The six that stand out to me are Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, West Virginia, and Florida.
I think Nate is underestimating Obama's chances in NV, CO, and NM and he will post bigger victories there.
I think he is overestimating Obama's chances in OH, WV, and FL.
OH and WV will be McCain victories, in my opinion. Florida might still go blue, but it will be a very, very light shade of blue. I think it goes red in the end, though.
Looking at the Supertracker, does it seem like the graph is simply following a steady progression from February to the Election of Obama +6?
A best fit LINE eases out the noise, and the current trend up fits into that same slope that would be consistent with a steady build of a comfort for voting for the relatively unknown and inexperienced candidate. Like 0.1% of voters a day come to realize that Obama really may be a very good president. Throw in noise diversions for Paris Hilton and Sarah Palin and you get the Supertracker.
Banking another 500 votes today in Ohio
I think Indiana will hardly flip before election day. It is probably still a leaning-Republican state. The Democrats don´t have the infrastructure to establish a Demcratic camp there. You keep on hearing reports how many people say "I voted Democratic for the first time in my life, it feels like treason" etc.... There is a big hurdle in these states to even consider voting Democratic, the same is true in North Carolina, Omaha, Montana and some other states.
Still, many pollsters don´t take into accont that Obama´s GOTV in Indiana will be MUCH, MUCH better than any Republican effort. McCain doesn´t have the organization there. Currently McCain is projected to win it by 1,7%. That´s a margin you can easily overcome with a good ground game. And if the difference is as striking as in this case, Obama will win by 2-3%. Selzer takes this difference into account, that´s why she says that Obama will be ahead. And if necessary, Obama can dispatch his Chicago team within 1-2 hours.
Mooseburger as President
http://palinaspresident.com/
A mathematically based model that combines statistical, trend, and demographic analysis > Mule Rider's gut predictions.
Adrian,
I know a lot of my observations are purely anecdotal, but I think it's fair to say that his estimate of only a +2.3 edge for Arkansas when no poll - even though they've been few and very far between there - has Obama closer than 9.
I was born and raised in AR. I may not know a huge sample of people, but my familiarity with the state and with several people suggest he's going to struggle.
There are tons and tons of people who piled on Kerry in '04 and are as anti-Bush as they come, and they've said repeatedly that they are either going McCain or are staying home.
It will not be close. Sorry.
http://www.palinaspresident.com/
two minutes of solid entertainment
sometimes you have to go w/ your gut. like when you are feeling hunger pains.
Step two:
Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves (Nate Silver) could restore us to sanity. Lost that belief. Came to believe that a different power (accurate polling data?) could restore us to sanity. Lost that belief. Came to believe that a different power greater than ourselves (commenters?) could restore us to sanity. Lost that belief. Gave up on sanity. Return to step one.
I would really like to see more TX polling. Leaving aside the ARG polls, which are widely thought to be unreliable, nobody has shown a margin of more than +10 for McCain and, more importantly, nobody (other than ARG) has polled since September. I think, after AR and maybe ND, TX may be the biggest surprise.
Not that it will end up in the O column, but that it will be much closer than anticipated.
You're right Nate, it was a day that John McCain's day didn't get any worse.
Until the Dow dropped 700 more points.
And then the debate tonight.
Yea, his evening's ride may just turn into a pumpkin early.
NC_voter,
Not gut prediction. I lived in Arkansas for more than 25 years and reside just across the river in Memphis, TN.
Mule Rider's Experience in Arkansas > Nate's Statistical Analysis
Arkansas obviously has a sizeable black population, but there are sections of the state (most of the area west of Little Rock except for a couple of small cities) that are among the most lily-white parts of the south, and very, very fundamentalist.
Hi.
I live in Arkansas.
Hillary is not loathed in this state by anyone who did not loathe her while she was 1st Lady (of AR), i.e. Republicans.
Obama has no chance of carrying Arkansas, no matter how many times Hillary visits.
If Bill decided to barnstorm the state he might be able to pull Obama within five.
However, Obama will finish within ten points. Mule is just plain wrong thinking it will be double digits.
I'll grant the fact that your opinions on Arkansas may be more valid then a "gut feeling" (which is one rung below anecdotal evidence), but your feelings on OH and FL are disputed by multiple polls that show Obama outside the MOE.
It's really hard for a state to flip back at this point.
PAVOTER1 said...
I would really like to see more TX polling. Leaving aside the ARG polls, which are widely thought to be unreliable, nobody has shown a margin of more than +10 for McCain and, more importantly, nobody (other than ARG) has polled since September. I think, after AR and maybe ND, TX may be the biggest surprise.
Not that it will end up in the O column, but that it will be much closer than anticipated.
Texas can't flip until 2016 at the earliest. The reason is the rural part of the state accounts for about 40% of the population. They're at least 60-40 Republican no matter what, probably more like 65-35. This can't be made up in the cities where Dems only win about 55-45 or the burbs that are about even. The best we can hope for in Texas is to lose by 5-10 points and potentially flip in a landslide in a 2012 Obama win. We haven't voted for a statewide Dem since 1990. Bush Jr. beat ann Richards in 1994. Bentsen left his seat in 1988. We had Mark White and Ann Richards in the 80s and early 90s and the great Barbara Jordan, but we haven't been close to voting Dem in a long time. A shift back will take time.
Bah, screwed the pooch on that one. Given that he just granted agency to a heuristic device, it seems only fitting:
Step Two:
Came to believe that Nate's Model could restore us to sanity.
STEP THREE
Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over the care of Nate as we understood Him.
Where's the kool-aid?
Arkansas does rank 12th in terms of % black population, but it trails neighboring states such as LA and MS considerably.
I insist we rename 'the model' Hal.
"I know that you and Sean were planning to disconnect me and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."
- Hal, Nov 5th, 2008
The cable news stations are really trying to make this debate into a battle, In the history of presidential debates there has never been a real game changer, Probably Fords comment about Poland was the biggest gaffe but it didn`t really cost him the election.
Unless Obama says he`s a Muslim terrorist whose hero is Osama Bin laden all he has to do is remain calm and serious.
If McCain attacks to vigorously he will just look like a desperate asshole. I can`t see this debate helping him much unless Obama really screws up which I doubt.
I also would just like to see McCain blow and make a fool of himself. Alas I bet we just have another boring debate that won`t change anything.
McCain Debate Prep Video!!!
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/breaking-sic-mccain-debate-pre.html
Love it!
Saw this on Fark:
McCain is just going to storm onto the stage with Trig strapped to his back, bellowing "WHO RUN BARTERTOWN!"
Hi Bex, I'll be watching the debate from the same time-zone alright (well, Dublin might be a few years behind parts of the UK, but you get the idea)
We should ask Nate to look into setting up SixFourtySix.com for the UK General Election.
I think that the complexity of the Proportional Represenation system we use here in Ireland would pretty much rule out a OneSixtySix.com though.
Step Four:
Made a searching and fearless statistical inventory of ourselves and our states.
So now the model thinks ND is a cousin of KS? It sure is suffering from polls in the five states directly underneath, and reaping little from its eastern neighbors which it is more (and increasingly) similar to. Obama just led in a poll here, something he hasn't come close to doing in Arkansas, and yet Arkansas is lighter red now.
I'm still a fan of the model, but I must admit that my sentiment is becoming decreasingly practicality based and increasingly reputation based.
My neighborhood (the East End in Charleston, WV) is overwhelmingly for Obama, but by no means is representative of the whole state...it's a lot more black and gay. I'm one of those, I''ll let you guess. Anyway, the unions are pushing Obama hard here. I went to a rally at the UMW (United Mine Workers)headquarters on Sunday. Labor has a lot of influence here. I'm hearing the line "Obama won't take away your gun, but McCain will take away your union".
if you have a minute, watch this speech by the UMW president:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIGJTHdH50
Jamee,
I may be exaggerating to say it will definitely go +10. My "gut" (no snickering, please!) tells me it will be greater, but I'm glad to see you agree that no matter what is done, it can't be pulled within +5 for McCain.
I bet two months ago your "gut" said that Virginia and NC were locks for McCain, eh? (mine too)
Hi couchman,
Nice to know I'm not going to be the only one utterly f**ked for work tomorrow ;-)
Am loving the SixFortySix idea, but let's face it, we just don't do things with the razzmatazz they do in the States.
Here's the Republican strategery. It will likely work. voter suppression in Ohio. Make precincts in heavily Dem districts impossibly tumultous with incredibly long lines because Pubs flown in from other states will pretend they're trying to make sure there's no voter fraud. If people with lives are forced to wait in line for 5 hours, they'll leave. I'm not makking this up. It's perfect strategy. Ohioans need to get to the polls now. It's their only recourse. Please connect the dots folks. McCain can't win without Ohio. He can't win Ohio without suppressing the Dem vote. If the Republicans create BS chaos in Dem districts that will suppress a lot of the vote. This is not guesswork. It's not difficult to do and will work for them without repercussion.
NC_voter,
Touche.
I predict that after two boring debates, there will be fireworks tonight. McCain will go after Ayers/Wright, Obama will come back with his long-prepared response that will make McCain look like a fool, and McCain will finally blow his stack after having kept his temper in check all this time. He's due. He's under a lot of stress, and he's been getting unsolicited advice from 1000 different directions--enough to make anyone snap.
As I mentioned earlier, though, Arkansas just isn't very cosmopolitan...and certainly not the level of VA and NC.
Governor Paterson on MSNBC. Tweety asked him what Obama's style was like in meetings. Paterson said it was as a quiet contemplative person who ended up listening to all sides and then responding with a summation of all of the good points.
That strikes me as a VERY different style from Clinton (not necessarily in a bad way!). My understanding of Bill Clinton was that if you went into a meeting with him, it was assumed that he was the smartest guy in the room. And if you were going to present your case, you better know your shit because he already knew everything AND MORE about your position.
Mule Rider said...
GaMeS,
Whoa dude. Chill. We left the conversation hours ago.
It's over. Done. Finished.
Sorry, I was busy working today or I would have responded earlier. Just out of curiosity, did anyone else pwn your argument as well as I did? =)
Now, back to the topic: My gut tells me you're right on Arkansas -- my family is from there, so I have a good deal of experience with the area, too. (Although I disagree about it not being like MO -- LA might be closer, but if so not by much.)
Still, Nate's argument has been pretty good at identifying trends that are below the surface, so I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.
I'd guess that the truth is somewhere between your boundary (McCain +10) and Nate's (McCain +2.3). Personally, I'd put the over-under at McCain +5.
Ed said...
I'm hearing the line "Obama won't take away your gun, but McCain will take away your union".
I LOVE that line. It really puts things into perspective for the rural union members.
Mitt Romney might have had a chance against Obama.
He might have won Michigan and held onto Colorado, Nevada, and Ohio.
I was just saying this morning that Arkansas could be in play. It's certainly a wild card that merits further polling.
The Indiana, Omaha, and North Dakota redshifts today are weird, though...as is West Virginia turning blue-white based on a poll that had it pink.
eric-
That is correct and they just a judge to agree. Keep up the ground game at all costs! I will be in court in PA fighting for fairness, I do expect, but getting in early voting is best!
Step 5:
Admitted to the Model , ourselves, and another 538 poster the exact nature of our margins of error.
Mitt Romney is a corporate capitalist who would not have hesitated to continue the privatization of the U.S. Treasury if he were in the White House.
Marx was right said...
Governor Paterson on MSNBC. Tweety asked him what Obama's style was like in meetings. Paterson said it was as a quiet contemplative person who ended up listening to all sides and then responding with a summation of all of the good points.
That strikes me as a VERY different style from Clinton (not necessarily in a bad way!). My understanding of Bill Clinton was that if you went into a meeting with him, it was assumed that he was the smartest guy in the room. And if you were going to present your case, you better know your shit because he already knew everything AND MORE about your position.
A balance is good. Kennedy figured out how to use his intelligence properly toward the end. In the beginnig (Bay of Pigs, etc.), he was pushed around. Bush Jr. is ruled by the rest of the folks in the rom. Clinton tended to make wise decisions. I think a balance is best. If you read Obama's books, it gives you confidence in his intellect and judgment.
WV turned white because that poll had it more red than it does now so now with the +8 obama +2 mccain and the others it is 50/50
GaMeS,
You gave me a good laugh. And, no, you are the winner in terms of "pwning" me.
You're probably right. There are enough trends and stuff to keep my +10 line from being a target for McCain. But the +2.3 from Nate is way too low.
Palin says New Hampshire is part of the Northwest...and gets some groans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/15/palin-claims-new-hampshir_n_134934.html
The Indiana, Omaha, and North Dakota redshifts today are weird, though...as is West Virginia turning blue-white based on a poll that had it pink.
There's been a lot of weird since the tweak a few days ago that made red states redder and blue states bluer. There seems to be too many states now close to 0% or 100%.
read: And, yes, you are the winner...
I get my no's and yes's mixed up sometimes. Don't ask.
Interesting. The distribution of electoral votes looks like it's split into 2 or 3 different peaks. Any comment about what those peaks consist of?
I totally agree with Eric about governing style. I LOVE that the main thing for Obama seems to be to be pragmatic and to find what works, no matter whose idea it was. :)
whoever was asking about arkansas turning pink ...
it's all about the trend ... and the target is nov 4, not today
Bex & Couch,
Hi - another addicted Brit here! Another sleepless night...
I would love a bit more razzmatazz in our elections (not to mention proportional representation - a two party system with two indentical parties isn't worth getting out of bed for on polling day).
I hope we never get the frankly bizarre negative advertising campaigns over here though - I can't see that kind of thing washing with the electorate (remember when the Tories tried it with devil-eyed Blair? They were laughed out of town).
GaMeS - I assume that refers to the theory - impressive. You just Beowulfed that fool.
I'll say this for Arkansas.
Back when Obama first won the nomination I was talking with my 77 year old, pentecostal, non-haircutting, great-aunt who cast her last national election vote for a democrat for Kennedy and this was how she summed up Obama: "Well, first off, he's a moooooslim, and he might be workin' for them. Second off....he's a nigger, and I ain't voting for one of them either."
She hasn't really changed her mind on anything, but the economy has freaked her out so bad she's gonna vote for the black muslim rather than go under in Great Depression II.
Has Hal factored in tonight's debate as static noise?
prairiecomm,
It may be all about the trend...and based on "trends," many leading energy analysts were saying as we were topping $140/barrel for crude oil that $200/barrel would be common by the end of the year or early in 2009.
Where are we at again? About $75/barrel?
I realize I'm mixing subjects - commodity prices versus polling numbers - but "trends" can be very misleading. That's all I'm saying.
I need a politics guru/addict to hel pme out here. Tim Mahoney seems like he could become a drag on Obama's chances in Florida. He's in District 16, I think it's a swing district in Central Florida. The media isn't talking about it. What's up?
I truly believe we will win Indiana. I guess that one will jusst have to show itself come election night. Other than that we can gauge these polls to the ones taken after this debate.
Please spread the word about the following (and urge people to share this info and carry it with them when they go to vote): If voter fraud or vote suppression is suspected: call the Election Protection Hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683)Their Web site is www.866ourvote.org. They also need volunteers. For more info, check out this: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=protecting_voter_rights
Do ya'll catch my question. Tim Mahoney apparently is treating his seat in Congress as a means to get laid. In the last 48 hours, it's been revealed that he had an affair with an aide and allegedly paid her off to keep quiet, he was also having an affair with another woman apparently at the same time. He's married and this whole thing is scnadalous. Of course he's up for reelection, as are all House members. He's in Central Florida. If everyone bails on him, that would seem to have an adverse effect on Obama since Mahoney is a Dem.
I know it may not seem that good to anyone outside of the state, but the fact that Obama is only down by 13 makes me kinda happy. That is actually some very good polling for Democrat running in Kansas...granted yes we do have a woman (D.) Gov. but that is because she is so mainly adapted to the KS ideals that resonate with the residents here. Obama of course has not so I am very happy to see Obama doing so well considering this states demographics. I would of course love to see it as a dead heat...but we haven't gone blue since 1964 so maybe next time right (Hell if VA can do it...just maybe)
No quite seriously though I am hoping my county will at least vote Obama as the majority. I think it's going to be very close but I don't think its something that has ever been done since 64, not even by Clinton in the 90's. My county, Sedgwick, has had a +10.3% change in voters for Republicans since the election of Reagen. However I believe deep down that it has changed enormously and I have hope. Though it doesn't matter when it comes to Electoral Votes, it just sure would be nice to say I at least live in a BLUE COUNTY, lol.
Goat, re razzmataz in elections, speaking as an Australian, while the Australian election was positively soporific compared to the US shenanigans, generally that meant it was more about issues than fluff (well except for the bit about Kevin Rudd's ear fluff). So that's a good thing.
That said, I too have a current obsession with the US election - it fills the void since West Wing ended.
Ed M.,
Fair enough. But for every anecdote showing a surprise one way there's a surprise the other that offsets it.
I have a friend who is a belligerent partisan Democrat. He can't stand Republicans. He was vociferously in favor of Gore in 2000 and had the anti-Bush steam long before the rest of the country got it. He was even more passionate in 2004 for Kerry and had even more disdain for Bush then. In between, he vigorously champions any and every Democratic candidate that is in the congressional races.
However, when the ballot was chosen for 2008, his reaction?
"Ugh, I'm not voting for either one of these jackasses. I will stay home."
Granted, that's not a vote FOR McCain, but that's a loss of what's been a key and reliable Democratic vote that he'll need in that state.
If Obama can't get someone like that to vote for him who's so staunchly supported Democrats in the past, then he's going to struggle to even come close to carrying the state.
We all still need to vote (except anyone who already did, or isn't a US citizen), and those of us voluenteering need to keep up the good work and GOTV.
But for anyone with money to contibute, the Presidential race is now looking solid (and if we do somehow lose it, it won't be for lack of funds). So the next place to contribute is trying to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (with, or ideally without, Lieberman), or at least getting close enough that the number of Republicans who need to break ranks to defeat a Republican filibuster is very small. Otherwise, on past experience, the Republicans are just going to filibuster everything out of spite, and in the hope that if they cause continuing gridlock for next 2 years the voters will get fed up with the party in power and vote Republican.
So the place to contribute is the Senate races for:
Franken (MN) https://secure.alfranken.com/page/contribute
Begich (AK) https://donate.begich.com/page/contribute/cconline
Musgrove (MS) http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18711
Merkley (OR) https://www.mediamezcla.com/campaign_engine/2.0.4/process_cc.php?code=www&id=www.jeffmerkley.com
Hagan (NC) https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/khagan
Martin (GA) https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=NqjXO81IXYZntPaqXypreP1LqSo0CHUy
And, on the subject of trying to get a filibuster-proof senate majority, what would happen if then-President-elect Obama offered a Republican senator an important position in the new administration, and the senator accepts? Is there a special election (with no incumbent), or is this one of the situations where the state's governor appoints a replacement?
Hi goat - totally agree with you re: negative ads. Keep them on the other side of the Atlantic thank you. I suppose they are perhaps the other side of the coin of all the big rallys, high feelings, 'ground game' etc etc. Don't know if it's worth it...
I guess 'Labour isn't working' (1978) could count as a negative ad? That was pretty successful. I guess it was about the party/issues though, not the 'personalities'.
Mulerider,
I hate to break it to you, but regarding the friend you describe, there are far more Republicans in that same boat than Dems this time around. Know what I mean? I know you do.
McCain is having a day like the DOW on Intrade. He's at 17 right now. Never thought I would see that low.
Obama has to have some relief that after 27 debates THIS IS THE LAST ONE!!!!!
is anyone polling CA.? specifically, on the Propositions? There is some very strange stuff going on here right now. We've been invaded by foreign-looking people (Utah, if you get my drift)
They are here in droves!
Goat, Bex & Couch,
Yea, but your legislature has more razzmatazz. I could go for more of that here.
Eric,
Agreed. But narrowing that to the state of Arkansas which we're discussing, that means McCain wins betwen +5 and +10 instead of between +10 and +15.
If Obama can't get someone like that to vote for him who's so staunchly supported Democrats in the past, then he's going to struggle to even come close to carrying the state.
These are just anecdotes, but I'd wonder how long ago you had talked with him. He sounds like a Clinton partisan, and Obama for a bunch of reasons was a slam not just on Hillary but Bill. That might be a wound you can't heal in Arkansas, but I'd want to see a poll that says the democrats aren't going home in Arkansas the way in the rest of the country they have gone home at 90+%.
Oh yes, and, on the subject of Nate's analysis:
This is less-terrible-than-recently news!!!!! FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!
That overall sentiment, though, is what's costing him true swing states. But McCain has not lost enough support in Arkansas to lose it. No way I believe that one.
The antidote to complacency:
http://www.slate.com/id/89619/
Donate! Make calls! Canvas!
Hey all, read this debate "tip" for McCain on NRO:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDkyYjhiY2Q0YTI0YTAyY2VmNzc3NmE3YmMwMDA2MGE
A bit unnerving, but I'm sure Obama has a canned response ready for something like this.
NC is a blue state this year by the way. It's only now starting to look that way in the polls. As a proud member of Obama's ground game here, I can assure you that the GOTV efforts you hear about are True, and WILL show up as obama over-performs here on election day.
Would Rahm emanuel rather replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker or Barack Obama as Senator? Good question huh? Tough call. I suppose he'd probably rather replace Barack in the Senate.
Ed M.,
Yes, I think there might be some Clintonian backlash there.
I just know a lot of Democrats in the state who are not going to vote Obama, though. Of course, my circle of friends is very limited compared to a state of 2.7 million people, but I'd have to think that I have at least a little bit of an idea about the mentality of the state on some level.
The visual effect of the surrounding states is interesting -- though WV is white at the moment, it looks to me like it has a light blue tinge, possibly it is surrounded mostly by blue (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia). I've been trying to parse that for a long time -- did Indiana look bluish because it was squeezed between Illinois and Ohio, or because it was very slightly leaning? Turns out it was the former.
Can I ask a question?
Does/Should anyone really give a shit about Ohio anymore?
With Obama now polling so well in VA and FL, Ohio sort of doesn't matter anymore. Ohio is one of the toss-ups and Obama only had to claim ONE of them to win. So it seems to me that voter suppression in Ohio is a bit of a moot point as far as the supposed Republican strategy. They'd need to use suppression in VA and FL first, and then OH to ensure that doesn't flip blue.
NC_voter,
You're awful confident about a lot of things. I believe sincerely now that Obama has the election wrapped up, but don't be shocked or disappointed when in certain states (not necessarily NC) or regions he underperforms badly.
There are going to be disappointments along the way. That is a guarantee of any election. He will not overperform across the board. No way. No how.
The only really important state polls in that batch are Colorado +7 and VA +9.
It's great to see Colorado breaking out like this! We're going to take this election by storm!
With virtually insurmountable leads in VA and CO, this election is over!
The last debate is McCain's last hope and he's banking on a bewildering smorgusboard of new economic packages. Problem is, Obama will either agree with them or ignore them.
Nothing is going to change the fundamental fact of this election: voters trust Obama and the Democrats more on the economy than McCain and the Republicans. That's been true for over 20 years.
Democrats ALWAYS score higher on voter trust on economic issues, but those issues are often overshadowed by taxes, and foreign policy. Well, not this year!
Nothing McCain can do really.
Joey,
In terms of just winning, yes, you're right that Ohio doesn't matter.
But to those who are intent on "breaking the back of conservativsm" with a landslide victory, Ohio does matter and is just a stepping stone until they can knock down Alabama, Oklahoma, and Utah!
Ben said...
"Of all places, WV I thought would be one of the safest states for McCain. I remember seeing interviews about how they didn't want to vote for Obama because of race, his middle name, and because they think he's a muslim. Polls reflected this by the huge Clinton win there during the primaries.
So, you could see why I'm so surprised to see that state as a tossup."
I think you cannot predict anything by interviews on TV. TV loves to only pick the most stereotypical whatever for an interview. They are hoping for an outrageous soundbite. Or they pick someone they know will fit their storyline. Like "white women won't vote for McCain", so they only show interviews with white women saying that.
Eric, if you're still here, it's good to know that Cleveland urban voters are all about this election.
I assisted at the polls in 2004 to help new minority voters and worked a special election yesterday. The difference between the 2004 voters and today is astounding.
In 2004, the message was register, register, register, but the voters were clueless about actually voting and were, essentially, intimidated by the process. This year, the message has been vote early with the officials so you can be sure your vote counts. Completely different mind set--now just plain determination.
Joey said...
Can I ask a question?
Does/Should anyone really give a shit about Ohio anymore?
With Obama now polling so well in VA and FL, Ohio sort of doesn't matter anymore. Ohio is one of the toss-ups and Obama only had to claim ONE of them to win. So it seems to me that voter suppression in Ohio is a bit of a moot point as far as the supposed Republican strategy. They'd need to use suppression in VA and FL first, and then OH to ensure that doesn't flip blue.
I'll try to give you a concise answer. New voters in Ohio will give Obama the advantage even if this election gets close down the stretch. Of all of the swing states, it's the one that McCain probably can't flip back fairly under almost any circumstance. There are 666,000 new voters, mostly Democrat. Bush had incredible turnout in Ohio in 2004 and only won by 119,000. The GOP can't expect better turnou this time with their base, so they're totally screwed this year. Flordia, Virginia, and Colorado were lost by Kerry by more votes than there are new Dem voters net. McCain can win those states if he can get this thing close. Ohio is already voting and he can't really win Ohio under any circumstance unless he steals it. Without Ohio McCain probably has less than a 1% chance to win. If he wins Ohio, he probably has a 20-30% chance. Make sense? I can break it down more if necessary.
Mule_rider
Oh no doubt some races will be closer than polling shows. I think Obama will finish <5 within colorado, won't win WV, IN and will probably lose in a squeaker in MO (at this rate).
But NC? Obama will over-perform in the southeast, including VA and NC.
These polls aren't taking to account:
-Record youth AND black turnout (many blacks around here who never even registered last time are already telling their friends and family about early voting here which starts tomorrow)
-GOTV. I've witnessed it first hand. It is light years beyond anything in history.
You saw it in the primaries, you'll see it here.
And, yes, I'm still glad that Ohio will likely be irrelevant to an Obama win, but I sure do want him to get the extra electoral votes.
I don't want a win, I want a landslide that pushes Palin into a glacial crevasse. When eventually found and defrosted, she can run her campaign as Unfrozen Cavewoman Candidate and make as much sense as she makes right now.
The UIUC model has had WV blue (96:4 Obama currently) for a number of days. It also now has ND a tossup (53:47 Obama) and MO 10:1 Obama with NC 70:30 Obama, and IN solid red 24:1 McCain.
PAVoter - FiveThirtyEight puts Obama's chances of winning Texas currently at 1%, and I'd say that's about right. I've driven around all over southern Texas, from Gonzales to Uvalde, from Bandera to Floresville, from La Vernia to Burnet - and it's nothing but a solid sea of blue McCain/Palin signs everywhere. (Hell, in my own congressional district, there isn't even a Democrat running for the office. I get to choose between a long-term incumbent Republican and a little-known Ron Paul Libertarian)
Rural Texas is about as solidly Republican as you could possibly get. Each of these rural counties is pretty small, but Texas has over 250 of them, and they add up.
Obama would have to epically overperform in the highly-populated urban counties (Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Travis, Tarrant Collin, etc) to even have a ghost of a chance. Ain't gonna happen.
At the very best, he could reduce McCain's margin of victory down into the single digits, and have enough coat-tails to possibly flip a few house seats and state races. But that's about it. Better to spend resources elsewhere - there's a good reason why presidential election ads are virtually non-existent down here.
(Just for fun: The John McCain Political Rally Bingo Card. Link! Enjoy!)
I was also motivated enough by the RNC's crap that I donated again to Obama. . . The matching program's great
Palin needs to survive with her reputation with the base intact.
We need her to run in 2012 to ensure a second term, after all.
Yeah I guess we did have (our admittedly somewhat tamer) Obamania-style razzmatazz in '97 and look how that turned out...
I'm hoping so badly that Obama doesn't turn out to be another Blair.
I don't mind the negative ads so much if they are strictly about policy and not over-dramatic (though I prefer positive policy ads obv), which we do get. But these "McCain drives foreign cars" type stuff is just weird. Comes across to me as satirical - does the US population take them seriously or do they just find them annoying/hilarious?
I would be so freaked out if we had anything like that (though it reminds me of an old Harry Enfield sketch parodying 1950s party broadcasts: "L" is for "Labour", "L" is for "Lice", so maybe we're not so far above gutter politics!)
newsfromOH said...
Eric, if you're still here, it's good to know that Cleveland urban voters are all about this election.
I assisted at the polls in 2004 to help new minority voters and worked a special election yesterday. The difference between the 2004 voters and today is astounding.
In 2004, the message was register, register, register, but the voters were clueless about actually voting and were, essentially, intimidated by the process. This year, the message has been vote early with the officials so you can be sure your vote counts. Completely different mind set--now just plain determination.
I'm actually in a suburb outside of Houston, Texas. I know Presidential politics really well though. I think Cleveland could be where this election is decided. Of the 666,000 new voters in Ohio, over 1/3 are in Cleveland. So, say 222,000. Probably 90% or so are Dems. If they vote that'll be enough. The question is if the GOP sends 100s of disrupters to the precincts to stall the lines and pretend they're checking on voter fraud, will the Cleveland folks who have jobs and families and lives be willing to wait it out hours and hours? That's the tactic the GOP will use. I actually experienced a miserable ridiculous experience in the Dem Texas Caucus where we had to wait about 5-6 hours to get anything done. Voting is a dysfunctional process in this country and there's only so much Brunner and Strickland can do about it. In the end, suppressers will likely end up in a courtroom with a Republican judge and suffer no consequences after they've doen their dirty work. Do what you can to get as many Clevelanders to the polls early as possible. Do it for all of us out here in states that don't matter like Texas. And Thank you.
the mccain campaign just told one of the CNN reporters their internal polls, ROFL, GAME OVER FOR McCAIN AFTER TONIGHT
I'll try to give you a concise answer. New voters in Ohio will give Obama the advantage even if this election gets close down the stretch. Of all of the swing states, it's the one that McCain probably can't flip back fairly under almost any circumstance. There are 666,000 new voters, mostly Democrat. Bush had incredible turnout in Ohio in 2004 and only won by 119,000. The GOP can't expect better turnou this time with their base, so they're totally screwed this year. Flordia, Virginia, and Colorado were lost by Kerry by more votes than there are new Dem voters net. McCain can win those states if he can get this thing close. Ohio is already voting and he can't really win Ohio under any circumstance unless he steals it. Without Ohio McCain probably has less than a 1% chance to win. If he wins Ohio, he probably has a 20-30% chance. Make sense? I can break it down more if necessary.
Eric,
I understand your point, and I basically said in my OP that OH will matter only of those other states flip back red.
But everyone is so focused on OH, and it seems like it's only because it was the focus of the last two elections. Based on the polling that we're seeing, VA is much safer than OH and FL slightly so. I'm not saying to count chickens before they hatch, and every state win is better than a loss. But people are talking about the Republicans stealing OH as if that's a game changer. That's only the case if VA and/or FL don't pan out for the Dems!
Personally, I'd rather see the focus of Obama leaving OH hanging and going toward shoring up VA and FL. I'd feel a lot safer in that than praying for OH. Yes, we may (and probably would) lose OH, but we'd have won the election.
Eric--it's just a single seat out of 25 in the state, so I don't know how much of a drag it will be.
Mahoney replaced Mark "maf54" Foley of all people, and is getting busted for a sex scandal too...now that's funny.
RCP puts Obama 58-38 in MA Obama up in Rasmussen.
The true result was 62-34 Obama.
Why they put other result?.
You´re right Nate, RCP is bastard.
Post a Comment