This post is going to seem slightly less relevant now that Gallup has come in showing an 11-point lead for Obama. But the other five daily tracking polls (yes, there are now that many trackers) all showed movement toward John McCain.
Between the Gallup result and Obama's very strong state polling, I am inclined to think that this particular ebb in the tracking polls is mostly statistical noise. That notwithstanding, it's worth considering Chris Bowers' point at Open Left. What, realistically, is Obama's ceiling in this election?
The better a candidate's standing in the polls, the harder it ought to be pick up additional support. In part, this is simply because the more voters that you have in your column, the fewer there are available to convert. But this is still a highly partisan country, we tend to have close elections, and things certainly aren't going to be any easier for a black candidate.
If Obama is ahead by something like 7-8 points ahead nationally, that means that he has persuaded just about all of the persuadables, and he's left looking to covert people like those in Ben Smith's anecdote.An Obama supporter, who canvassed for the candidate in the working-class, white Philadelphia neighborhood of Fishtown recently, sends over an account that, in various forms, I've heard a lot in recent weeks.
If those sorts of people are the undecideds -- and when Obama is winning Pennsylvania by 12 points or something, that's probably what we're looking at -- then Obama really is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Further gains are going to be difficult to come by, which means that his polls are more likely to go down than to continue going up. (Indeed, our model assumes that the race will tighten some).
"What's crazy is this," he writes. "I was blown away by the outright racism, but these folks are f***ing undecided. They would call him a n----r and mention how they don't know what to do because of the economy."
Then again, when six out of ten Americans thinks we're headed for a depression, perhaps the ordinary rules go out the window.
10.08.2008
What is Obama's Ceiling?
@ 1:24 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
221 comments
Ohh, first.
shameless plug
Last night's debate and today's polls are GREAT NEWS!!! For John McCain!!!
That Gallup poll makes me breathe a little easier, I do *not* like to see that tightening in the other trackers. I'm just like "WTF?! Are people really buying this Bill Ayers crap?
The question I would have is would the racists being voting democrat anyway? Are these the disaffected Reagan Democrats? Then Obama has nothing to gain or lose there.
Then again, when six out of ten Americans thinks we're headed for a depression, perhaps the ordinary rules go out the window.
It's both amazing and unfortunate with respect to what the conditions have to be before some people are willing to vote for the Smart Candidate (that one).
i've been thinking about this as well. with things going so well right now, should obama be playing more offense (as in indiana today), or just running the clock out, by shoring up defenses in ohio, florida, virginia, and colorado? if he really is scraping the barrel in places like pennsylvania, his national numbers would probably be much more receptive to pressure in places like texas and montana. but is that really what he should be going for?
i personally think he should keep his eyes on the prize, and so a mixed strategy would be better. play mostly defense in swing(-ing) states, but also show up occasionally in states where his coat-tails might be needed.
That´s why I thought that yesterday´s focus groups of undecideds were leaning McCain - because Obama has already won over the people who might vote for him. On the other hand, if the economy gets really bad, not just on the Dow Jones, they might in fact vote against their racism or not vote at all. And that would give Obama a bigger share of the cake, so to say.
Obama is likely appreoching a plateau of EV support because of a relatively large gap between the next few winnable states (MO, IN) and the ones after that (WV, GA).
Current polling margins indicate that it would take at least a 4-8 point swing for WV, GA, etc. to fall reliably into Obama's column. Obama has a "red ceiling" around 380 EV. See my analysis at the Princeton Election Consortium.
Sam Wang
I tried to solve for the PartyID makeup of the Gallup poll, counting 2/3 of conservative dems and 2/5 of liberal/moderate reps as independent (otherwise we´d have just 7.5% of Independents with 45% there being undecided).
My educated guess (it isn´t more) is that Gallups sample contains
43% Dems,
23.5% Independents (by my definition)
32.5% Republicans.
I don't think most people appreciate how much "noise" statistical noise can account for. It follows a bell curve, so most often, it will only be a point or two, but now and then it'll be more. Most polls are on the order of +/-3 points margin of error. That's the difference between a +2 and a +8 race. And one out of twenty times (statistically) it can swing even more just from sampling error. In fact, when you think about it, it's amazing that these tracking polls don't show more day-to-day variation than the one or two points we usually see.
Diageo will show a huge "bump" for Obama on Friday once the Monday number rolls out. Zogby is Zogby. The other trackers are fine for Obama.
Sad that there's still such blatant racism in this country, but at least those people in Philadelphia are being honest.
In my mind:
"I'm not voting for Obama because he's black."
is better than:
"I just don't trust him."
Own up to your small mindedness.
A related question, however, is what is McCain's floor. If he keeps pulling wretched performances, racist attacks, and Palin-like errors out of his hat, many of his erstwhile supporters may simply decide not to vote. Obama could thus keep gaining in percentage terms because he's holding his own people while McCain sheds voters (and reduces the overall pool).
Thus, Obama's ceiling may keep getting relatively higher as McCain's floor falls out from under him.
Personally, I think LBJ in 1964 is still a possibility.
There was going to be some tightening today given:
1) Obama had reached record highs in nearly all the tracking polls
2) Biden had been absent the past few days due to his mother-in-law's death
3) Obama had been pounded with Ayers over the weekend. While I don't think it's really going to resonate at all, Axelrod did give the story some legs when he said Obama didn't even know what he did. A rare moment of weakness for him (maybe he's starting to get tired). :)
Taken together, you had to expect a bit of a dip at some point. The question now is whether Obama's terrific debate will either level things off or even push him to new heights. We'll know by Saturday.
If you vote for Obama, then you're a racist.
How the tables have turned.
Will all the Dimocrats stop playing the race card now?
"What's crazy is this," he writes. "I was blown away by the outright racism, but these folks are f***ing undecided. They would call him a n----r and mention how they don't know what to do because of the economy."
in years to come those two sentences could be used to sum up this election perfectly
I thought the Ayers situation was having an effect until Gallup's figures came out
Nate,
Interesting question to pose. I would have liked, and even expected, a little more analysis from you based on history, demographics, etc. Also, how many voters can McCain drive away from his camp?
Ultimately though, I think this is an empirical question. And given Obama's performance to date, I think we are going to find out.
BTW, get a better purple tie.
Drudge has Zogby on the site
Personally, I think corey is a retard with no grounding in reality.
I say the bandwagon effect swamps any Bradley effect. 400+ ev and 10% popular vote margin doesn't seem unlikely anymore.
The largest impact in the experiment, however, occur among Republicans. When the Democrat is expected to win, independent Republican leaners and weak Republicans are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate. Moreover, given the expectations that the Democratic candidate will win, even strong Republicans are almost as likely to vote for the Democratic candidate as the Republican
-Goidel & Shields
The Vanishing Marginals, the Bandwagon & the Mass Media
The journal of Politics Vol 56, No 3,p 808
Nate,
I neglected to say great interview on Colbert, despite the tie.
New idea to convert the racist undecideds: Tell them the way to keep blacks "in their place" is to have Obama win just as the country is sliding into a depression and he will be forever know as the 21st Century's Depression President.
It saddens me to sink to their (the racists) level, but it's for their own good. Maybe the sequel to "What's the Matter with Kansas?" should be called "What's the Matter with White People?"
Alex S. - That does make sense (that undecideds at this point likely have some sort of bias against Obama) BUT Obama did win the CBS News poll of undecideds 40 to 26. I think there's still some room for Obama to improve in the polls.
It does make sense that he has a lot more room for improvement in places like Texas... So that does beg the question - does he go somewhere like that to try and increase his national numbers and to help congressional races? It could be a great psychological advantage as well. It would throw McCain off a bit I think.
Ipsos-McClatchy
10/2-6/08; 858 RV, 3.3%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
National
Obama 47, McCain 40, Nader 3, Barr 1
I restate part of another post;
If you are undecided at this point when the vision and policies for America are diametrically opposites, you really shouldn't be allowed to vote, there has never been a clearer choice to be made.
I canvassed in PA and noticed the same thing. I think most "undecideds" are people who would never vote for BO, regardless of the economy. They need an excuse!! Its best to pick the harvest of decided BO voters between now and Nov. 4. Things have probably plateaued. Also get OUT the youth vote
Even if he were scraping the bottom of the barrel, as it were, the fact that these "ungettable" voters are nevertheless undecided could still translate into a significant gain for Obama: Even if they won't vote for him, their concern over the economy might lead them not to vote for McCain, either.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Obama leads McCain 50 to 40, with 10% undecided. If all of those still-undecided voters simply don't show up, then Obama ends up winning 55.6 to 44.4 -- his margin improves by 1.2 points, increasing the size of the gap by 12%.
It's an oversimplified example, of course, but I think it illustrates how even when we hit a ceiling in polling, the actual vote could reasonably overshoot it by a noticeable amount.
Mark has a good point.
McCain already has the racist vote.
We won't see any movement there.
The ceiling breaker is the youth vote.
sam wang,
that´s also why pollster.com has no states except WV leaning Republican.
Obama is in a way more volatile position now. McCain has sort of reached his floor and can only come back (barring a complete breakdown in the third debate or a new Palin/McCain scandal that brings TX and GA into the Toss-Up range).
Obama can only lose ground or best case hold the position he has now.
THIS IS THE KIND OF CRAP THAT MACAIN IS RELEASING TO THE MASSES,
OBAMA HAS TO RESPOND TO THIS PREPOSTEROUS ALLEGATIONS
McCain campaign releases statement from a man whose home was firebombed by the Weather Underground
Below is a press release by the McCain campaign with a statement by John M. Murtagh and Obama's relationship with William Ayers:
"When I was 9 years-old the Weather Underground, the terrorist group founded by Barack Obama's friend William Ayers, firebombed my house. Barack Obama has dismissed concerns about his relationship with Ayers by noting that he was only a child when Ayers was planting bombs at the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. But Ayers has never apologized for his crimes, he has reveled in them, expressing regret only for the fact that he didn't do more.
"While Barack Obama once downplayed his relationship with Ayers, today his campaign took that deceit one step further. Barack Obama now denies he was even aware of his friend's violent past when, in 1995, Ayers hosted a party launching Obama's political career. Given Ayers' celebrity status among the left, it's difficult to believe. The question remains: what did Obama know, and when did he know it? When did Obama learn the truth about his friend? Barack Obama helped Ayers promote his book in 1997, served on charitable boards with him through 2002, and regularly exchanged emails and phone calls with him through 2005. At what point did Barack Obama discover that his friend was an unrepentant terrorist? And if he is so repulsed by the acts of terror committed by William Ayers, why did the relationship continue? Any honest accounting by Barack Obama will necessarily cast further doubt on his judgment and his fitness to serve as commander in chief.
"Barack Obama may have been a child when William Ayers was plotting attacks against U.S. targets -- but I was one of those targets. Barack Obama's friend tried to kill my family."
In February 1970 John Murtagh's father was a New York State Supreme Court justice presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at their home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. A few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. In late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers's wife, promised more bombings.
So, is the Zogby policy now to console the losing team. The Democrats clung to Zogby in 04. My how the tables have turned.
I had an ominous thought yesterday and did a little checking. If ( and I know it's a huge IF) the EC ends up tied 269-269, the election goes to the House. Simple, right? Not so. The House votes by states, each state having 1 vote and the winner must win 26 states. Based upon the current make up of the state delegations, the Republicans would have more states...CA, NY, etc pad the numbers for the Democrats. Of course, the election in Nov could change that somewhat but somehow 2000 is lurking in my mind. McCain would have to win all 8 toss up states ro get there (or at least 7 out of 8) but we didn't think we'd have W for 8 years, either.
I agree with Fwiffo'a analysis: not every perceived movement is "real movement" - a one or two point tick in either direction is most likely just noise.
Nate, do you have any statistical magic to help us understand the effect of the voter suppression efforts going on around the country?
A marginally related question: how often (if ever) has a candidate been in the position McCain is now, in the polls, at this stage in the election, but gone on to win?
Holy effing shit!
Nate: you're mentioned on Wonkette! The DC Gossip!
we have most of the rednecks on our side
some rednecks will stay home or vote for Barr
the problem for us is that all whites are not rednecks like us
I was canvassing in North Carolina yesterday and had similar results. The most reliably anti-Obama demographic here is downscale whites. We were doing our usual polite goodbye after a 5 second interaction with one of these last night when she noted that one of the three of us (white) canvassers had a "nice tan too". It took us a minute to figure out that she must have been referring to Obama.
But I rarely get the feeling that these folks are scared enough by Obama to vote for McCain. If the election were held today, they would probably skip it.
If things do plateau, I'm going to have to spend weeks on pins and needles waiting to see how much of a difference the voter reg and GOTV operations make. I think it will be quite a bit, especially if McCain supporters are demoralized, but I tend to be too much of an optimist.
We could use a little Obama Mania here in WA state. If he would give some support to Chris Gregoire, it would be greatly appreciated.
Bowers' article should be required reading for all us 538ers.
He ends it: "If you want to watch daily polls in our current age of politics and elections, then these are the margins you have to learn to deal with."
I would expect the race to tighten in the last two weeks--and the election to be "surprisingly tight" (3-4%).
Sadly some folks won't be able to vote for the "black" dude.
If someone can find a way of pointing out that 20 years of supply-side economics were a total failure (for most Americans), then I think the ceiling is 100%.
PPP on their VA poll, due to be released tomorrow: "We haven't finished it yet, but at first glance Survey USA and Suffolk look pretty reasonable there."
Juris, Nate is also in this week's Sports Illustrated. Big 538 media week.
Nate,
I wish you wouldn't quote Ben from Politico. He is a hack and McCain sympathizer.
I left Politico for 538.com and glad about it.
You are waaayyy better than Ben Smith and have a lot more credibility.
Gonna watch you again today on Colbert Report. Great Job.1
I'm kinda freaked out about that Diageo Hotline poll. Nate, Sean, I'd really like you guys to tell us what you're take is on that. I've been going from site to site reading comments from everyone congratulating themselves that they've nailed this thing, and then I see THAT!! Polling closed over the last few days to just a single point?!?! WTF? Please give us the real scoop on this..you guys are the only ones I trust to give it to us straight.
Here is anecdotal evidence about racism based on my talks to many immigrants from former Soviet Union. I would estimate over 60% of people I have talked to are racists. However that is not revealed after first question about Obama. Only after you dig deeper for a while you will understand that. And this is in California, in Silicon Valley, which are light years ahead in terms of tolerance.
The point is there are a lot of implicit racists who would not reveal that in polls.
Real Joe;
That's how I am attempting to peel away support from McCain amongst my republican friends. Showing them that the repubs have lost their way, they are no longer true fiscal or even social conservatives and that if they can't vote for Obama due to idealogical reasons then they should lodge a protest vote for Barr and that if Barr get's 5% or more it will be a wake up call for the repubs, force them to re-evaluate how they are treating their members, what the republican party used to stand for, and the public with such disrespect. With the hope that such a move will make them realise they (republicans) are off track to the extent that they will bring about a true fiscal/social conservative platform for 2012.
I can't believe how short people's memories are.
Even if you choose to ignore all the information out there that explains why single polls are irrelevant relative to the larger picture, there's still the fact that Hotline did the exact same thing a few weeks ago.
Another question is "how low is McCain's floor?" With the dispirited posts of right-wing bloggers, McCain might poll below 40%.
McCain's campaign is definitely pushing the Ayers attack today with that letter from a Weatherman bombing victim. Surprising angle to it, I must admit, but I don't think the victim actually wrote that letter as it's filled with the standard talking points and neglects to mention many Republicans who have also befriended Ayers (aren't they just as guilty of bad judgment, as well?).
McCain was too chicken, though, to bring up Ayers in the debate, instead referring to undefined "cronies" of Obama. I think people will catch on to that disconnect. He should at least publicly take possession of the mud his campaign is throwing.
niedda, that pisses me off. I mean it literally makes my body shake to know these slimeballs (McCain/Palin) are going this route in such a way. It's the media's responsibility to call them out on this shit. GOD DAMN IT MEDIA, the blood will be on your hands you fucks.
Pleease, remember to send any $$$ You may have to defenders of wildlife~they are really helping women to see Palin for what she is~an enemy to the environment Thank-You!
~Special council for the Trees..
"Based upon the current make up of the state delegations, the Republicans would have more states...CA, NY, etc pad the numbers for the Democrats."
No, this is wrong. The Democrats control more House delegations, and their lead is likely to stay the same or increase in the new Congress. Nate has posted on this topic: click on the "12th Amendment" label on the left to see them. An EV tie almost certainly means President Obama.
shyewoods - Diageo/Hotline have, for some reason, recently changed their sampling. It now leans further towards the Republican voters, and is less representitive of the population than Gallup, Rasmussen and even Battleground now. That's why there's been a dip.
Um, this is all great, but where are the polls themselves. I mean, I love your opinions and all, but I come to this site to see your stats. And I don't see any stats.
Fact is, you guys have stats, and everybody with a computer has an opinion. If you just post your opinions, how are you different from the other 2 billion bloggers?
Please put up the polling numbers.
Stupid people always possess the capacity to make a good decision - but, sadly, they make a conscious decision to do the opposite. As a result, their lives are a hell of a lot worse than they have to be.
A lot of racists and bigots fall into that category.
They'll later provide some excuse to explain away the miserable quality of their lives, but deep down, they know it's the choices they made that cause their lives to suck as badly as they do.
"Life's tough. It's tougher when you're stupid." - Sgt John Stryker, The Sands of Iwo Jima
Huh, I was just thinking about this very fact this morning. My opinion from watching other races is that there is still a small pool of people (a couple percent?) who are very apolitical and are just tuning in and making their decisions now. I would bet this group tuned out politics to pay attention to the economic news, rather than having it force their hand.
Obama could also get a boost from McCain voters staying home, and a "boost" if some of the polls are undersampling cell phone-only voters. But I have to think he's near his ceiling. It's not just racism, it's also that a lot of single-issue voters have to be lining up behind McCain.
niedda -- no, he doesn't need to respond extensively; that's just the sort of distraction the McCain people are hoping for (like their stupidly strong reaction to the Keating video.) Ayers is red meat for the Republican base, but it's been trotted out multiple times, and isn't going to have a significant effect.
The correct response is the one they've been giving: At a time when Americans are facing tremendous challenges, Sen. McCain wants to talk about what some guy I barely know did forty years ago. His campaign spokesmen have openly said they need to change the subject from our pressing economic problems or they'll lose. It's a desperate attack from a candidate who doesn't have positive solutions to offer.
I think this is a smart analysis. The hard work that Obama's crew has been doing in the trenches has carved out a sizable lead, but even if the undecideds break 50-50 from here to election day, Obama's numbers will go down.
Three points come to mind: 1) Pre-voting. How many people polled have *already* cast their votes? Every pre-election day vote cast for Obama is one that McCain will have to match somewhere. 2) Racism is a silent factor that will break against Obama. But as many in the 538 crew have argued, (3) I also think that youth are a silent factor breaking against McCain. None of these are going to show in the polling to date, but they will be on full display in the final results.
I'm sure the Obama campaign is monitoring the "Ayers" situation closely. I thought the Obama campaign was making a mistake not countering this quicker.
Character attacks must be fought, especially those carrying the hateful message espoused by the McCain camp lately. Obama is black. His name is Barack Hussein Obama. There has been a Email smear campaign for months and we know Americans are particularly susceptible to fear.
Monday evening most news channels covered the Ayers story and I do not believe it will be covered on a recurring basis, so most of the damage has probably been inflicted. Seeing Obama on the debate stage last night certainly halted that attack in its tracks with Obama utterly destroying McCain on "Presidential" feel. It wasn't even close.
We will see some movement in the polls in both directions before Nov 4, the question is, how solid is Obama's support? How susceptible is he to the character attack? If the attacks start to cause persistent deterioration in poll numbers, how strongly will Obama counter?
I have a hard time believing any Democrats can get more than 52% of the vote.
No one has hit that since Roosevelt, so if that's Obama's ceiling, he's in great shape.
"We could use a little Obama Mania here in WA state. If he would give some support to Chris Gregoire, it would be greatly appreciated."
No kidding. I'm surprised that the polls in WA are so close for the gov race. The Stranger (Seattle's alt-weekly) even wrapped their last issue in a voter registration form and this article trying to shoot down Obama-complacency.
Seems strange that Obama is in such a strong position to help his party, when normally the party-candidate relationship during a presidential election is the other way around at this point.
@Tom Maroun
That is simply false. Democrats currently lead in the number of state delegations, and are likely to expand that by one or two this year.
There are scenarios where certain low-population states may flip, but that only comes into play if, even after the unlikely event of a tie, the chips fall in precisely McCain's way in downwind elections.
In countering the ridiculous Ayers allegations, I keep wondering why more hasn't been made of Palin's own prior associations with "America-hating" Alaskan separatists. This video is interesting:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-palling-around-wit.html
Should we be worried about early voting in certain states? What if so many Dems vote early for Obama, that the exit polls are in favor of McCain? Doesn't that make it easier to "fix" the vote and just point to the exit polls saying McCain winning was accurate??
@Tom Maroun,
Sorry, but the Dems currently control 27 House delegations while Republicans are the majority in 21. (Two states--KS and AZ--are evenly divided.)
If there is a tie, the new Congress will break it, and Democrats will in all likelihood control 28 or 29 delegations in January. (If vulnerable incumbent Republicans in NV and NM lose, Democrats would control a majority of both state's delegations.)
The GOP might gain an edge in currently tied Kansas, but they could lose their advantage in Ohio (which might wind up split 9-9).
Bottom line: John McCain probably wouldn't prevail in the House. (It's even less likely that the newly enlarged Democratic majority in the Senate would pick Palin over Biden for VP.)
But winning a tie should be the least of McCain's concerns.
Good point Nate, and I agree, Obama has to have a ceiling, as hardly any candidates can break 50% these days, much less get far above it.
But, if economic news keeps going the way it has, and Obama keeps his focus on the voters, I think it is realistic for him to rise to 54-55% as a high water mark. He'll probably recede from that, but I think he can end the election at the point he's at now.
Good to have Biden back on the trail, he is the person to use to rebut McCain/Palin negative attacks. Looks like he got right back out there swinging on 3 morning shows and a rally today!
the racist UNDs may decide to sit this one out rather than vote for McCain - or maybe throw their vote away on a 3rd party candidate in protest.
either way, that would be good news for Obama IMHO
-------------------------------
my favorite part of the GALLUP commentary today:
"Voter preferences seem to have stabilized for the moment, as Obama has held a double-digit lead over McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling."
I will take a solid double digit lead in 3 straight days of polling anytime !!! WOW
--------------------------------
BIDEN: [re: McCain] maverick = sidekick of Bush
excellent sound bite - we will see it all over the MSM
almost as good as Rudy = noun, verb, 9/11
I just want to say that this may be the best blog I have ever seen. Keep up the good work.
we need t-shirts: i love 538.com
Antony - There is at least one polling post a day, when enough of the polls have come out to make it worth running the numbers. If you don't like the analysis posts, it's pretty easy to recognize them from the front page and skip them. It's pretty rude to come to a blog and demand that they not post things that you don't want to read. You're not the only one here, and no one is making you read every post.
Let's wait till Friday when Troopergate breaks (deo volente.) If that sticks then McCain could be looking at a scary low floor.
Don't forget that we're still talking about polls, not votes. So the factors that affect voting turnout and choices still must be taken into account.
Nate's and the Obama campaign's general assumption would seem to be that the polls underestimate the Obama share of the vote due to the polls missing cellphone-only people, and due to the special mobilization of African Americans and Latinos in particular in this election.
Working on the other side, however, is some lingering thought that there's a Bradley Effect (people overreporting their intention to vote for Obama) as well as the unknown ultimate effects of vote suppression efforts by the GOP.
My guess is that these net out to another Obama advantage of a point or two nationally, based in part on Obama's strong ground operation.
I would like to hear expert opinion on the Diageo-Hotline poll as well. I notice that they are not listed in the pollster ratings so I assume they are not used in your projections. Why is this?
I don't think that there is any indication of a ceiling for Obama. While Obama is unlikely to get a majority of the racist vote, he probably won't get 0% of the racist vote. I think that racism is much softer than it was back in the 60's and 70's. As Ben Smith's anecdote suggests, it is certainly possible for racists to decide that they prefer the n---r over the rich guy who can't remember how many houses he owns.
I agree with other posters here, that playing defense to hold onto his slight leads in swing states is the right way to go... while simultaneously making appearances to support Democratic candidates in close Senate/House races, no matter what color the state is for Obama. He's nearly got the race locked (barring our friend the October Surprise), time to stretch to bring more in on his coattails.
FL DEM
I want a t-shirt that says:
"I am voting for THAT ONE"
"you should too"
You can't make this up.
Via Open Left
====================
NRCC Somehow Gets Credit From Wachovia
In a move that should turn into an attack ad all on its own, the NRCC somehow secured an $8 million loan from Wachovia today (from subscription only Roll Call):
The National Republican Congressional Committee, trailing its Democratic counterpart considerably in cash on hand, has secured an $8 million loan to spend on House races during the last few weeks of the campaign, according to sources.
The NRCC reported $14.4 million in cash on hand as of Aug. 31, compared to $54 million in the bank for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. As it did last cycle, the NRCC is procuring its loan from Wachovia Bank, sources confirmed.
Now, I guess this is legal because the loan will be paid with hard money donations later on. However, in the short term, this is effectively an $8 million donation to the NRCC from Wachovia at a time when Wachovia is supposedly in dire straits, about to be bought out by other banks, and will receive money from the government via the bailout. Does anyone see the attack ad in this move?
Campaigns and political parties that operate on hard money donations probably shouldn't be allowed to receive such large loans. I know that Democrats have done this in the past, too, so blame can be found on both sides. However, this still seems like a real violation of the spirit and purpose of campaign finance laws.
====================
"shyewoods - Diageo/Hotline have, for some reason, recently changed their sampling. It now leans further towards the Republican voters, and is less representitive of the population than Gallup, Rasmussen and even Battleground now. That's why there's been a dip."
I think "changed their sampling" is probably more sinister than what actually happened. I suspect they don't weight by Party ID, they simply report it, and on Monday, by chance, they hit a Republican-heavy sample.
Somebody here speculated that Monday was probably around a +5 for McCain on the Diageo sample. That's only a 300-person sample - you'll see very strange results like this every so often. If Monday was M+5, then Sunday and Tuesday must have averaged around +4 or so for Obama to produce a 3-day average O+1. Obama +4 would put them in the same general ballpark as Rasmussen (O+6), for example, if slightly on the low side.
Most likely, I would expect Diageo to show a big spike up toward Obama in their Friday release, when Monday drops out of their 3-day sample.
I have a hard time believing any Democrats can get more than 52% of the vote.
No one has hit that since Roosevelt, so if that's Obama's ceiling, he's in great shape.
In 1964, Lyndon Johnson got 61% of the vote. In 1996, Bill Clinton probably would have if Ross Perot weren't around.
OK, to be serious. I was really hoping that instead of the rejected handshake, that McCain would have grabbed Obama and bitten his ear.
THAT would have been a literal race changing moment ... it would fire up his (base) base and we'd talk about it years hence as setting a new, bar (Bush kind of bar: low, very low) for presidential debates.
@dcm
http://shop.cafepress.com/that-one?cmp=knc--g--us--pol--elect08--a--default_ad_URL&gclid=CNDCya2cmJYCFQkiagodu3KK7Q
for those of you needing some ground-level encouragement:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-exley/the-new-organizers-part-1_b_132782.html
Just to add - why is Obama in Indiana, anyway? There's no chance it's the tipping point state, it's just about his worst state before we get to WV or GA. I want to see him hit MN, CO, VA, FL, OH, NV 2-3x each before the election. Trips to WI, PA, NH, MO wouldn't hurt either If he spends another 3-4 days in NC I'm going to be pissed.
Ear, Gary?
One reason he stayed away is the 8 inch height difference.
MATT J. H. - it's important to respond, but you have to respond smart. Rebutting smears too loudly reinforces them. Based on Obama's current numbers after the long series of smears the Republicans circulated through various channels (and with people screaming that he needed to respond more forcefully in nearly every case), at this point I'm willing to trust that they know what they're doing.
JURIS
but leading at this point has it's specific advantages
some analysts are predicting up to 40% of the national voting will be submitted BEFORE November 4th through growing absentee ballotting, mail-in voting, as well as more wide-spread early voting options.
so the more votes banked for Obama now, the better hedge when they are counted on election day.
however, I wish someone would figure out how to poll specifically on the absentee ballotting & early voting #'s.
today I saw in at least one poll release that the pollster asks if the respondent has voted yet...
hope they will ALL be tracking those results over the next 4 weeks - very important IMHO
Foo Fighters: McCain Stop Using MY HERO.
McCain/Palin are just flat out SCUMBAGS. I hate them. I truly do.
I stand corrected; I was doing a manual count of the state delegations and could easily have erred. Rampant paranoia....2000 Bush Gore weighs heavily on my mind. Sedi et al have made me sleep better.
I live in AZ...no doubt that AZ will 'swing' to the D column in Nov. And NV will elect one or two D's to replace R's, too.
nicholas said, "In 1996, Bill Clinton probably would have if Ross Perot weren't around."
Truth is Ross Perot spoiled the show for Bush 41. Had Perot not run, Clinton probably won't have won. Don't get me wrong, I loved the outcome.
philadelphian here, have spent plenty of time in fishtown and have gone door-to-door around town. in fishtown, you can get beat up for having glasses or looking like a hipster. anyways, the small percent of racist fishtown voters who actually make it to the polls will be swamped by how ridiculously black and/or white progressive the rest of philadelphia (and pittsburgh) is. so don't worry.
Interesting post.
I couldn't help thinking of "Blazing Saddles", when the townspeople keep saying "But the Sheriff is a (horse whinnies in the background)!"
They were in a similar situation to that anecdote you told: Lose the town or accept the new Sheriff. They chose to ignore their prejudices and save the town, but the Sheriff also had to win them over with the kind of competence that Obama has shown during this campaign.
John McCain was too much of a coward to bring up Ayers in the debate last night. Hiding behind a simpering press release won't save Johnny Two-Face from certain defeat.
I hope you've seen this website; it's pretty good in terms of aggregating results:
http://research.uvsc.edu/DeSart/forecasting/index.html
Lichtman et. al., have some interesting predictions -- all similar to yours.
I think Obama will get 55-58% of the vote.
Why? Because if you look at it demographically, Obama, conservatively speaking, will get 90% of the black vote (13% of the electorate, translating into 12-13% of total vote), 67% of the Latino vote (10% translation into total vote), 67% of other (native, asian, translated into 3% total vote) and 36-40% of the white vote (translates into 29.36% of total vote). When you ad this up you get Obama at 55% of the overall vote (depending on the variables).
Obama wins in a landslide! It's all in the numbers and the demographics guys. As "Poblano" used to say on Kos, they don't lie!
Record this!
Truth is Ross Perot spoiled the show for Bush 41. Had Perot not run, Clinton probably won't have won. Don't get me wrong, I loved the outcome.
I don't think there's a lot of evidence of that. I believe when Perot temporarily dropped out over the summer, Bill Clinton's poll numbers shot up dramatically. I think a lot of Perot voters wouldn't have voted if he wasn't around, and some of them would have voted for Bush, some for Clinton.
Not only did Nate get mentioned at Wonkette, but if you read the comments it seems that most of the readership would do him. Depending on your view of Wonkette, this is an excellent reason to go to/stay away from D.C.
A note I want to make is that maybe that ceiling is because of the polarization of the electorate more than outright racism (sure being a racist you usually end up republican but it is not certain). From a quick study (and personal experience in my country), I found that when there is heavy polarization in the electorate it is VERY rare to see victories with higher than 5% margins and NEVER more than 10% even if the sky is falling. USA (along with UK) was the least politically polarized nation of the western world but mister Bush junior took changed all that and now USA voters are as polarized as European ones.
Bottom line, the repubs could nominate the elephant on their party sign and get 40% and the dems could nominate a donkey and get another 40%. That leaves just 10% to play with and even those people usually lean towards the left or the right to begin with so it is next to impossible to get them all supporting one candidate. Thus it is really tough to get large margins of victory/defeat but it is also difficult to overcome those differences (In the '80s McCain could just find a good punch line in last debate and win but now he needs A LOT MORE)
Agre on polling early voters. Not sure how to do it, but it could be a robo call that asks the early vote question first.
So many calls would need to be made to hit the 10% or so that have voted that it would almost have to be a robo-call.
josh said...
Foo Fighters: McCain Stop Using MY HERO.
McCain/Palin are just flat out SCUMBAGS. I hate them. I truly do.
that's just not good
as a McCain supporter i'm sorry Dave
:-(
big fan !
I remember reading a similarly mind-blowing quote from a West Virginian voter in the primaries: "I'm voting for the n----r, he's a smart fella."
At some point, one starts wondering if the name-calling isn't just a matter of habit as opposed to any actual malice. One would assume that if you call someone a n----r, then it's sort of a given that you wouldn't want this person to be President. There's just no way to leap from "This person is inherently inferior to everybody who is white" to "Let's make them Commander-in-Chief and effective ruler of the world!"
I beg to differ
If folks who are such out-and-out racists that they are willing to use America's most famous racial epithet in the presence of a Democratic canvasser, if these folks are the undecided right now, that tells me that there is no ceiling to Obama's potential support.
We're talking about rigid thinkers, folks who need some simple theory of how the world operates. If even the rigid thinkers on the other side, the folks so beyond the pale that the Republicans needed to use the dog whistle to communicate with them, if even these people are coming over to our side because of the pragmatics of the n****r being obviously more likely to save their jobs, their homes and their pensions -- all of which seem on the line right now -- the more nuanced folks in their coalition will follow. More educated voters are far more susceptible to propaganda and group-think and keeping current with the the conventional wisdom than folks who vote their guts and their rigid, unchanging prejudices.
If we've got even their troglodytes voting our way, their more educated types will soon follow, and in droves.
Sarah has had a make-over...
she is delivering her stump speech in PA
no more nags & no knot...
but it does not help her - she still is talking 'maverick.
and claiming that McCain won the debate
next she will claim she mopped the floor with Biden !!!
more fodder for Tina Fey
I swear she said "alrighty then"
she claims PA is tight & will come right down to the wire...
but the crowd loves her - and she has some bleached blonde bimbette right behind her up on stage that looks odd as if she is trying to stay in camera too - see for yourself on MSNBC
If McCain brought up Ayers, Obama would have easily refuted the allegtion on national television and McCain woul have lost credibility on the smear.
By not mentioning Ayers, it allows the McCain campaign to use it in stump speechs and hopefully draw votes away from Obama.
It's all they got. Nothin' else.
"Just to add - why is Obama in Indiana, anyway? There's no chance it's the tipping point state, it's just about his worst state before we get to WV or GA."
Going strictly by polling numbers, you're right. But if you assume that polls are not picking up the difference in organization and energy on the ground, then IN looks a lot better. McCain has ignored the state while Obama has saturated it with organizers, something that the Democratic candidate hasn't done in decades. Obama might be thinking that if the Eastern states (VA, NC, OH, & FL) and the Western states (CO & NV) turn against him, he might have an out by going the Midwestern route (MO or IN). Obama is definitely a Midwesterner by outlook and temperament, and he supports policy (e.g. ethanol) that play well in this part of the country. Combined with the huge pool of organizers and volunteers from nearby IL that he has, it makes sense to take a shot in IN. He likely won't win it, but it could theoretically be a tipping point state, especially if McCain fights Obama everywhere else but continues to ignore IN.
Doctor Pion,
Hilarious parallel.
Don't forget that the sheriff needed a fast shooting, pot smoking sidekick and the help of a German dance hall queen.
Truth is Ross Perot spoiled the show for Bush 41. Had Perot not run, Clinton probably won't have won. Don't get me wrong, I loved the outcome.
------------
I see that repeated a lot, especially by Republicans (not calling you one though). But, I've never seen any hard evidence for what it's based on. Not saying it's not true, but I remain skeptical.
Let's look at the question from another angle: what is the floor for either candidate?
For Obama, that's easy: in all of the polling he's never been less than in the low 40%s.
For McCain, that's a little harder. Is it fair to say his floor is equal to Bush's approval rating? If so, then we're looking at a number in the high 20%s.
Now take the difference from 100%, deduct about 10% for those who would chose a third party candidate over their opponent, & you have a sense of the possible range: Obama's ceiling is in the low 60%s, McCain in the low 50%s.
More detailed than that, & I'd need more exact data, not just some off-the-cuff guesses.
Geoff
The racism argument is overblown, and just media hype and speculation.
Not that it doesn't exist. It does! It's just not that important.
Besides the fact that Obama overperformed in most primaries (as Nate demonstrated), and numerous studies have debunked the Bradley Effect; there are other reasons.
1) A lot of Obama's vote is not being counted (new voters, blacks, latino's, cell phone users).
2) As many whites who may not want to vote for Obama, there are many who probably want to (for the good of the country and themselves).
3) Many conservative whites many not tell their friends, family and TV reporters, who their going to vote for, but the economy may make them do it in private.
4) Lastly, you can be a racist and still vote for Obama. Who cares! "We just want your vote." "We don't care what your beliefs are". "Voting for Obama will only help yourself vs another disastrous GOP administration". It just takes a skill full Obama volunteer, to stay on message and exploit this (realizing that a complaint, is actually a voter reaching out to be convinced).
I mentioned above,that above, that Obama will get 54-58% of the vote, because of demographics (give or tak a few). No joke!
Have we not learned anything from previous elections. When your character is being attacked, and you do nothing, you will regret it. Obama will regret not responding to this.
Republicans specialize in hate. Their radio jocks spew it, their fans believe it, and their candidates use it. Does anyone believe the GOP are going to stop this line of attack? This will hurt Obama.
When a multimillion dollar organization with total press access is willing to sink to any depth imaginable to tear a persons character down, sooner or later they will succeed. No person is immune to millions of dollars worth of advertising and constant bombardment of ruthless attacks.
The media in this country has failed. They take the position that calling the McCain campaign's hatred what it is, is "Taking sides." Obama will lose support if McCain isn't called on this hate. You can't run and hide for 27 days. The commercials are coming. It will worsen, the media will cover it, it will have an effect. It must be stopped.
You can't run from hate. It must be confronted.
"Truth is Ross Perot spoiled the show for Bush 41. Had Perot not run, Clinton probably won't have won. Don't get me wrong, I loved the outcome.
------------
I see that repeated a lot, especially by Republicans (not calling you one though). But, I've never seen any hard evidence for what it's based on. Not saying it's not true, but I remain skeptical."
I'm saying it's not true.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DB1F3FF936A35752C1A964958260
"If Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14 by Mr. Bush."
FRED
the tracking of early voters throughout the last month of the race would be great for mining data now & for future modeling.
not only who they voted for, but nail down WHEN they cast their vote & how & where.
eventually I believe we will all be voting remotely in some manner - by mail-in ballot or online rather than polling places.
so they better start learning how to build in for this variable - just like new registration, GOTV, cellphone only, etc.
new rules for a new century - the old ones do not apply anymore. those pollsters & analysts who rely upon the historical trends with no adjustments to account for these changing variables will be shown to produce skewed results.
that is already evident at this point in 2008
same for exit pollling results - they will not take into account the early voters & absentees
What is Obama's ceiling? That depends, what is the stock market's floor?
I think it's true that Obama is close to his polling ceiling. His actual margin may end up being a few points higher due to Republican apathy/defeatism, and Obama's strong GOTV operation.
That said, I think the 375-163 EV landslide is VERY close to Obama's ceiling. We may see Omaha or West Virginia flip, but I don't think we're going to see Georgia or Montana or North Dakota go blue. That said, I can live with 375.
wonkette is a tasteless site. Ugh!
I have a question for everyone here: Nate's model still shows a 10.8% chance of McCain managing to win this one. Presumably most of that corresponds to the republicans pulling a larger-than-normal October surprise. Just what do people think would be needed to make that happen?
1) Al'Quaeda (who would undoubtedly prefer McCain in the White House, he's far more likely to piss off people on the arab street and help Al'Quaeda's recruiting and propaganda) pull off another major terrorist attack. (The trouble is, at this point, a lot of people would blame the Republicans for not stopping it, and many might not trust McCain as the best person to handle it. Still, net it could help him.)
2) McCain was (for once) telling the truth when he said that he knows where Bin Laden is, and just before the election the Administration finally kills Bin Laden, who they've had in their sights all along. (If I was Bin Laden, I'd be spending the next month on an extended vacation to a country I picked by closing my eyes and throwing a dart at the map.) Would the public reaction be "Wow, the Republicans aren't completely incompetent after all" or "I'm glad that terrorist thing is over, now let's have Obama stop the wars and deal with the economic crisis"?
3) Some kind of Swiftboat like claims about Chicago political scandals?
Thanks justin. That's basically what I remembered. I do believe Perot may have greatly helped Clinton in one respect--by focusing the media narrative on the woeful economy under Bush I, rather than some other issue where Clinton was not as strong. However, I don't know anyway to prove that speculation.
Well, Palin didn't bring up Ayers. Although, McCain was at her side. Maybe that is what stopped her from bringing it up. From her tone, it sounds like they are going back to the resume argument, McCain's vs. Obama again.
I guess we'll know for sure next time Palin is on her own.
geez, now McCain is onstage with Palin in PA.
she is standing in frame behing him - and the blonds is McCain's daughter Megan. why is she onstage distracting in frame ?
Mac sounds tired & angry - and is trying too hard. Obama was all confident & comfortable in his speech in IN earlier.
also the crowd can't help it - they were chanting "drill, baby, drill"
John thinks he won the debate - didn't anyone tell him the terrible truth yet ?
the crowd is stepping all over his speech points... he is visibly anxious for them to stop interrupting him...
even his own supporters are tripping him up
Cindy McCain:
While introducing Gov. Palin in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, the potential first lady suggests Obama can’t sympathize with military families.
Says his Senate vote that allegedly blocked funding for the troops “sent a cold chill through my body.”
“I would suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day and see what it means to have a loved one in the armed forces.”
matt j. h said:
Have we not learned anything from previous elections. When your character is being attacked, and you do nothing, you will regret it. Obama will regret not responding to this.
Um, it's less than a month before the election. If lying smears don't bring a candidate's approval rating below 50% by this point, the smears can safely be called 'ineffective'. The swift boat liars were long done with Kerry by now, and the Willie Horton smear had long since run by this point in 1988.
John McCain is apparently as good at running for president as he is at flying military aircraft.
I agree with you, Nate, that the ordinary rules may not apply. So far they haven't in many ways.
The CW said Hillary would win the primary regardless of who else ran.
At one point the CW said McCain's primary run was over.
The CW said Hillary would raise more money than Obama.
The CW said Hillary would beat Obama.
The CW was that Obama needed Hillary as vice president to pull in the blue collar voters and the women voters.
CW would have said Obama spending time and money in NC or Indiana or Nebraska was a waste of resources.
The CW said a man of mixed-race could not be elected president. (I'm confident this too will be proven wrong.)
So if the CW says that there is a ceiling for Obama based on party polarization or racial politics, then it seems possible that the CW will be proven wrong, again.
If anyone can move the electorate beyond the ordinary rules, this is the guy to do it.
The race could get tighter, but there is a possibility for an Obama landslide scenario. This may not entail converting conservative voters to cross over and vote for Obama. Instead, it involves conservatives getting so frustrated, alienated, and discouraged by the whole ugly mess that they don't vote at all. This is precisely what has happened with a Fox News watching, Bush-voting, senior citizen Georgia relative of mine - he has pledged to sit out this year's election. That is easily the best result that could have been hoped for in this case, and maybe it will be reproduced across the nation.
I have always counted Obama's best case/probable scenario (many of you guys will call it his ceiling, lol) as 375 electoral votes (sweeping the rest of the "battleground states).
But I would not be shocked if Obama approached or surpassed 400 (with unforseen market & debate events) electoral votes, because he won Georgia, WV, Miss and Louisiana. I would not be suprised at all! Shoot maybe even Montana.
What we all forget, is that these elections are either close, or blow outs. There's usually no in betweens. Most of us, keep focusing on a close election (because of the last two), but this can be like the George HW Bush, and Bill Clinton wins.
We are at a tipping point in our country, regarding GOP dis-satisfaction. Don't be suprised if it all falls apart at the ballot booth (regardless of Obama being black).
I'm listening to McCain and Palin right now, and my mind and heart just tells me (at this point) there preaching to the choir. I'm not afraid, interested or worried at all. These guys are now also rans!
Stick around to see!
Cindy must still be stealing drugs, because by that logic her husband also voted against her son. I wonder if she gets a cold chill going home at night?
Regarding Obama's movement toward McCain...
I think that is a misleading idea. It suggests he's losing points. I highly doubt that's true.
But as we get closer to election day, more people are making up their minds. It probably also means that people who were "undecided" because they would never vote for a Democrat/black candidate but didn't like McCain have now gotten over themselves and committed themselves to McCain. As more people make up their minds to vote for McCain, that narrows the gap. This make the percentages change: the higher McCain goes, the lower Obama does.
I think it's nothing to freak about now. Like Nate said, it's probably just noise. If it is a trend that continues over the week, I think that's something to start wondering about.
WHY would the GOPers have Palin with Mac on such a critical day in a state where they are losing big ???
does John require Sarah to draw a crowd & energy & attention ?
geez, spread them out & cover twice the territory & get twice the MSM coverage.
combined they are hibbling themselves - amazing... WTF
now they are chanting "NOBAMA"
interrupting his stump speech & rythmn but John is smiling as they dis Barack... the Chi-town pol [big applause]
Antony said...
Um, this is all great, but where are the polls themselves. I mean, I love your opinions and all, but I come to this site to see your stats. And I don't see any stats.
Fact is, you guys have stats, and everybody with a computer has an opinion. If you just post your opinions, how are you different from the other 2 billion bloggers?
Please put up the polling numbers.
Oh, I don't know, maybe you could look at THE ENTIRE WEBSITE to see the stats? You can't turn around without tripping over some statistics.
And, if everyone has an opinion, why are you begrudging Nate his on his own site? Unlike most people, Nate actually has the facts to back up his opinions. =)
"Says his Senate vote that allegedly blocked funding for the troops “sent a cold chill through my body.”
We'll just presume that McCain's vote rejecting funding for the troops if it were accompanied by withdrawal guidelines sent a similar cold chill through her body.
Or she's bullshitting. Who knows!
I think the question of where Obama's ceiling lies (and, conversely, where McCain's floor lies) will actually depend on what happens next. If McCain campaigns reasonably effectively over the next month, then the current polling may be a little better than Obama will do on Nov. 4.
If, on the other hand, the McCain campaign implodes, launches character attacks that backfire, and ends in an orgy of finger-pointing, his floor could get a lot lower.
I'm a Canadian (who has lived in the US for the last 11 years), and I've seen the latter happen several times in Canada, to the Conservatives in 1993 and to the Liberals in 1984 and 2006. In each case, the losing party started out at a disadvantage, but made that disadvantage vastly worse through the incompetence and viciousness of their campaign, and through very public infighting in the losing party. The Republicans are beginning to feel like they're going down the same road.
real joe,
check out: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015088.php
Obama can never get 60% of the people, but he could easily get 60% of the vote.
Remember, a good turnout for the U.S. would be 2/3 of the eligible voters.
So what could happen is:
Eligibles: 55% Obama, 45% McCain
Non-voting Eligibles: 70% McCain, 30% Obama.
This would mean:
Voting Eligibles: 67.5% Obama 32.4% McCain
So that would be the actual upper limit, if lots of McCain voters stay home because the negative campaigning turns them off, and lots of Obama supports come out to be a voice in a historic election.
At any rate, I don't think Obama will actually get 67% of the vote. The point is that turnout is far more important than the division of the voters. At this point, Obama's job isn't to convince people to want him as President. It's to convince the people who prefer him as President to actually vote.
The trajectory of the crisis we are in offers no real knowledge of how things might be on election day. Barack could well win bigger than has been anticipated.
Factors that would contribute to this would be -- continued and growing disgust with McCain attack politics.
Resulting Republican disgust and staying home in November.
Unprecedented actual voting by those regarded as iffy prospects.
My own anticipation of over 400 evs for Barack and carrying Texas which is not out of reach but no one now thinks he can win.
PS: I forgot to mention South Carolina above as well.
If Obama get's humongous black turnout in the southern states, and acceptable white votes, he can steal many Southern States I think. That can push him over 400, after reaching a hopeful 375 electoral votes.
Public sentiment has to continue to break Obama's way.
But we'll see.
Should we be worried about early voting in certain states? What if so many Dems vote early for Obama, that the exit polls are in favor of McCain? Doesn't that make it easier to "fix" the vote and just point to the exit polls saying McCain winning was accurate??
WOW - eye-popping #'s..
-------------------------
'Obama Gets Surge of Donors'
'How is Sen. Barack Obama dramatically outspending Sen. John McCain?'
from First Read: "Interviewed on MSNBC, Obama strategist David Axelrod revealed that 4 million individuals have now donated to the Obama camp. That's up from 2.5 million last month, meaning -- if our math is correct -- that 1.5 million new people gave money to Obama. So how big will Obama's September fundraising haul be? It looks like it might be BIG. Will it top the 100-million mark? (1.5 million new donors at 100 a pop... Well, you get the math.)"
THIS IS THE KIND OF CRAP THAT MACAIN IS RELEASING TO THE MASSES,
OBAMA HAS TO RESPOND TO THIS PREPOSTEROUS ALLEGATIONS
I read this and was going to contribute another $25 to Obama.
Then I thought about that vile Palin creature and the pigs she has foaming at the mouth at her rallies, and the guy yelling, "Kill him!" Then I made it $50.
Just a quick note to point out that Sam Wang at the Princeton Election Consortium made this same point last week: Obama's Red Ceiling
If you think Obama is +11 you are deluding yourselves.
More like a +4/+5 in my opinion.
I doubt Obama will reach the polls ahead more than 2%.
I still think he will win the election. The decision to go out in Florida was Brilliant.
Tomorrow Obama will have 3 events in Ohio (Dayton, Cincinnati and Portsmouth) and Biden will have 3 events in Missouri (St. Joseph, Liberty, Jefferson City).
Thankfully they don't masturbate over polls and are going to be working hard with 3 events a day for the next 4 weeks.
Roger wrote:
"I have a question for everyone here: Nate's model still shows a 10.8% chance of McCain managing to win this one. Presumably most of that corresponds to the republicans pulling a larger-than-normal October surprise."
Just a clarification: That 10.8% win probability in no way factors in any kind of "October Surprise". The model is not that magical.
That probability reflects the uncertainties in the measurements by polling of voter preferences --- both sampling error and systematic error due to methodological choices. There's a fairly simple projection process to get us from "Today" to "Election Day", but it makes no political assumptions about developments such as "Surprises".
Put another way: if pollster methodology were perfect and their samples were vastly larger than about 1000 people at a time, their margins of error would shrink to zero and the model predictions would lose all uncertainty. Which means that at the moment, most likely the model would judge that BO has a 100% chance of victory.
If later a surprise large enough to turn the election were to occur, these perfect polls would record the newly-aligned voter preferences, and JMC would now show up as having a 100% victory "chance".
The bottom line is, only polling uncertainty in measurement of voter preferences is reflected in that win probability.
So what do you guys think the party gap will be on election night? historically, the widest its been is Dem+5 in 1996. Most polls have a wider gap Dem+7, Dem+9 etc.
Just wanted to get your thoughts. The hedgehogreport.com guys are absolutely convinced of a McCain victory due to current polls oversampling dems.
If McCain has also 'hit his ceiling' then the race doesn't tighten. Behhh, talk about something else.
this editorial sums it up for me
most despicable campaign ever
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/opinion/08wed1.html?ref=opinion
Does anyone know of any exciting polls coming out today? Last wednesday had so many of them, today its a bit slow
Hey Josh.
The tightening in the other polls shouldn't concern you. Those other polls are just re-weighted party ID, so they can show McCain gaining for the media.
Remember. McCain would not go nuclear (or had picked Palin) if he thought he had a legitimate of winning this election.
That's the bottom line and you need to keep that in mind.
PEC -Princeton Election Consortium is a most excellent site. definitely worth monitoring it along with 538.
PEC also quotes Nate & 538 from time to time, and is a predition site [not a snapshot like Pollster]
currently predictimg Obama 353, Mac 185
I think there's another group that I haven't heard anyone talking about, and that is registered Republicans who will simply not vote, that is, they can't bring themselves to vote for McCain and won't vote for a Democrat either. What about them?
I was worried during the debate that voters would misinterpret Obama's phrase "cut taxes for 95% of Americans...working Americans -people with two jobs-" would be taken literally (rather than the rhetorical device that it was), that one had to have two jobs to receive the tax cut. I could just see voters already skeptical and being bombarded with misinformation about Obama raising their taxes would think that they'd found the "catch" in his proposal. Someone tell me I'm just being paranoid. Please.
It seems the far-famed NYT got both Teddy Roosevelt's quote wrong and McCain's garbled version of it. Now I know where those idiots who 'corrected' me on the other thread have been getting their 'historical info'.
any new polls coming out ?
Hey DCM in Fla.
An Obama spokesman said that the Obama campaign didn't have 4million donors (though I feel their probably close, if Axlerod said that). He probably rounded off.
Lets be realistic, the last democrat to get to 50% was Carter with 50.1%.I would say as dire as things are right now and as bad a candidate Mccain is Obama may win something like 52-46-others 2.
That would be an electoral landslide but no way does he even get close to 55%. I still think a lot of people who say they are voting for Obama will freeze up in the booth, may not even be racism it may just be the experience issue.
A lot will depend on the last debate.If McCain is as bad as the first 2 he will get trounced.
My guess is republican turnout will be supressed because the outcome will be obvious and they may be to depressed to vote.
Still I would be happy with 52% of the vote.
Indecision's better than wonkette IMHO.
A ZOGBY tracker? lmao
@_david_
You're being paranoid.
@chi
Truth is Ross Perot spoiled the show for Bush 41. Had Perot not run, Clinton probably won't have won. Don't get me wrong, I loved the outcome.
----
this is not true.
before Perot re-entered the race, Clinton had a huge advantage (15-25%).
The re-entry of perot draw the election much closer, and was seen as boost for bush Sr. As perot's number grew (up to the final 19%) if was mostly at the expense of clinton's.
the main reason were that the perot's went unting into was clearly clinton's turf: the economy
'Ad Spending Continues to Grow'
The Wisconsin Advertising Project reports that Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama spent over $28 million on television advertising over the last week -- $17.5 million for Obama, $11 million for McCain and the RNC.
All of McCain's advertising was negative as compared to about a third of Obama's ads.
[WOW - all negative ads by the GOPer ???]
Notes project director Ken Goldstein: "Ten of the fifteen states where both candidates are advertising were won by Bush in the 2004 election. The campaign is being played on the Republican side of the field this year."
see the table of state ad spending @
http://politicalwire.com/
"only polling uncertainty in measurement of voter preferences is reflected in that win probability"
No, Nate also factors in a "regression" factor based on the fact that races historically tighten as Election Day approaches (1976, where Ford closed from -31 to about -2, and 1996, where Dole closed from about -15 to -8, being probably the two best examples of this). That's the yellow line (prediction) below the red line (actual) on the Super Tracker. Right now, this is saying that the model predicts that Obama's current lead of ~7 pts will translate into an election day win of 5.4%.
just watch:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/festival/2008/10/brazile-campaign.html
"My guess is republican turnout will be supressed because the outcome will be obvious and they may be to depressed to vote.
Still I would be happy with 52% of the vote."
Republicans who don't vote will pump up Obama's vote percentage without his having to pick up any additional votes. If he's polling at 51-52% (which he is right now in Ras and Gallup), he could end up at 53-54% fairly easily without getting any undecideds to actually break his way, just having some of them (and some McCain supporters) stay home.
re:
Truth is Ross Perot spoiled the show for Bush 41. Had Perot not run, Clinton probably won't have won. Don't get me wrong, I loved the outcome.
------------
I see that repeated a lot, especially by Republicans (not calling you one though). But, I've never seen any hard evidence for what it's based on. Not saying it's not true, but I remain skeptical.
------------------
I use to think this as well, but got schooled pretty heavily that perot pulled votes even from both candidates, and may have actually pulled a few more from Clinton
Ceiling?
Ok... so not what's likely, but what's the upper bound, beyond which he--at this point in the time-space continuum--cannot go?
I think that's a combination of:
* Democratic turn out (enthusiasm, ground game, newly registered voters, fired up youth). We know that Democratic enthusiasm is at a high; McCain/Palin looks weak as well as politically and socially loathesome. New registration numbers are amazing almost everywhere.... We also have the tsunami turnout for the primaries as a clue that Obama-supporting Democrats (and independents) are very fired up. We also know that there's a stronger-than-usual youth engagement. Some of this is already accounted for in polling--but youth vote and ground game are notoriously iffy for polling, and there's an assumption that Democrats will turn out at typical rates (which is curious really, considering just how flat wrong that was for the primaries).
* Cell phones. Small factor, but a real one.
* Bradley effect. Small, questionable, and if real, it's swamped in some sort of anti-Bradley effect... or perhaps that's better said as if it exists it's in relatively liberal (blue) states, and the anti-Bradley effect plays in more conservative states (where people who've decided to vote for the black guy aren't going to announce it to perceived racist friends, family and neighbors). Both effects are small... and only significant in places that get close.
* Disgusted conservatives. Some will vote for Obama because they think that he's a better choice, given the choices. Some will vote for Barr, or write in, or for Paul, or... Some will just stay home.
* Economic melt down... and the perception that Democrats won't bring home as much pain to Main Street.
Coarsely, I think that it's a popular vote around 53.5 to 45--but because it'll be unevenly distributed, I think that starts to tip states like GA and LA....
Upper EV bound? Somewhere around 415. Not likely, but then the outer bounds are--by definition--not likely.
The bottom line is, only polling uncertainty in measurement of voter preferences is reflected in that win probability.
I belive you are incorrect. Given the way Nate is doing his averaging of many polls, his margin of error on the current situation should be down around 1-2% or so. Obama's current 7% lead would be at least four standard deviations, so that would give over a 99.9% Win Chance already. Systematic errors like the Bradley effect/cellphone effect/voter supression are harder to judge, but Nate has repeatedly pointed out that hes not trying to include them (except in the way he allocates indpendants based on how Obama did in that state in the primary compared to the polls).
I was under the impression that Nate's model also included "Given the amount of time remaining, how much could the national and state polls swing one way or the other in that time, based on previous races?". In other words: "Based on past history, what are the odds of getting an October surprise big enough to swing this election?". That's why, even if the tracker polls stay steady, McCain loses about 0.5% win chance per day on Nate's Win Percentage pacman: the clock is ticking for McCain, the time remaining to turn it around is shrinking.
I was assuming that the broad tails at either side of the EV distribution (which is currently the only way McCain can win) were mostly based on the chance of him getting a bigger October Surprise bounce than anyone has in the last eight-or-so elections.
The national polls will tighten to an average 2-3 point race on election day and Obama will win 51-47 with 291 EV.
One year later, in a national magazine interview, McCain will express regret for the methods used by his campaign to tighten the race.
"Coarsely, I think that it's a popular vote around 53.5 to 45--but because it'll be unevenly distributed, I think that starts to tip states like GA and LA....
Upper EV bound? Somewhere around 415. Not likely, but then the outer bounds are--by definition--not likely."
53.5% seems much, much, much more likely than 415 EVs. Obama has hit 52% in both Rasmussen and Gallup within the past few days. If we're talking upper bounds and you're going to start talking about cell phones (+2-3) and turnout (+1-2), right there you're at 57% (52+3+2) without giving him any new undecideds. Will he hit 57%? Almost certainly not. Will he get 415 EVs? Almost certainly not. But those numbers seem to me to be more consistent with each other. In fact, I'd still put the 415 EVs as being LESS likely than 57%. [To be clear: I don't think either is particularly likely. I think Obama's most likely result is 52-53% and 330-360 EVs.]
Tomthress wrote:
"No, Nate also factors in a "regression" factor based on the fact that races historically tighten as Election Day approaches (1976, where Ford closed from -31 to about -2, and 1996, where Dole closed from about -15 to -8, being probably the two best examples of this). That's the yellow line (prediction) below the red line (actual) on the Super Tracker. Right now, this is saying that the model predicts that Obama's current lead of ~7 pts will translate into an election day win of 5.4%."
That projection is what I referred to as the "simple" procedure for getting us from today to election day. Insofar as I understand Nate's description of that projection (and yes, I have read it), it adds no formal uncertainty to the uncertainty already present in the "today" prediction. It's just a recipe for adjusting leads based on on an empirically-observed historical trend. I can't see anywhere where Nate says that he adjusts the _uncertainty_ as well as the lead.
Which is to say, the probabilistic uncertainty in the model is entirely due to polling uncertainty, as I wrote. This is not to say that there couldn't be an uncertainty associated purely with the projection procedure -- there probably should be. It's just not in the algorithm, so far as I can see.
WOW!!!
90%!!!!!
The updated numbers, I mean.
not sure if this has been posted yet
but another shout out for Nate
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/10/the_town_hall_debate_what_was.html
new polling thread should be posted soon...
Nate must have run his simulations since the win percentages & EV totals haved more up a tick for Obama just now...
more good news - for BARACK OBAMA !!!
So...when does the model hit 100%?
I don't think comparing this campaign's ceiling to Carter's results is adequate. Whether or not youth and minorities come out in the record numbers we expect them to this year, demographically this country just is more conducive to Democrats. We're well on our way toward becoming a minority-majority country and its the Republicans that will have to find a way to overcome that.
Minnesota
Franken - 43%
Coleman - 37%
Obama - 52%
McCain - 45%
(Pretty much unchanged since September)
Georgia
McCain - 54%
Obama - 45%
This seems right
any comments on this article by DJ Drummond?
Hes claiming that most polls are junk because dems are being oversampled.
Same thing at hedgehog
Please I need someone to debunk this!
Sorry, here's the DJ drummond article:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/19/how-liberal-trolls-are-working-to-get-mccain-elected-president.php
How can you debunk someones opinion when it isnt founded in reality? And if you could, why even waste your energy?
I had a similar experience while canvassing for my Congressman. An 80ish man first told me he would never vote for the Congressman, and then added, without any inquiry on my part, "I hate that n*gger too!"
These people are out there. This was Connecticut!
Roger wrote:
"I belive you are incorrect. Given the way Nate is doing his averaging of many polls, his margin of error on the current situation should be down around 1-2% or so. Obama's current 7% lead would be at least four standard deviations, so that would give over a 99.9% Win Chance already."
I'm not sure why you believe that. The averaging of polls with different methodologies (and therefore different "house effects") does not in general cause the uncertainty to collapse in the way you suggest it should.
In effect, each such poll is estimating a different measure of voter preference, and each such measure "misses" the actual voter preference in a different way. Even if they took huge samples and their statistical errors dwindled away, they would disagree by the extent to which their estimators are biased. Averaging such estimators does nothing to collapse those discrepancies, and their attendant uncertainties.
Nate's model deals with the situation by taking that underlying systematic error seriously. You can see that in the fact that the MOE's in the state-by-state summaries are typically 7-8%, compared to the 1.5-2% nominal MOEs of the individual polls being averaged.
Antmatic, those are Ras state numbers, I assume?
the 'racism' thing could also just be a talking point at this time...
my elderly mom, bless her heart, has some of that born & bred racist 'prejudices' from her youth in KS/MO/ME... old school but not redneck hard-core
anyway, she has already cast her absentee ballot in FL for Barack Hussein Obama AND has a big yard sign in her front window for Obama/Biden plus a bumper sticker on her car for OBAMA.
how does she rationalize it ???
well, McCain scares her to death, Palin makes her nauseous.
she loves her good ol' Irish catholic Joe from Scranton PA ["he looks & sounds like a POTUS"]
and mom proudly says that the young wippersnapper Barack sounds smart, acts like he really cares alot, has a nice wife & cute kids, and after all, Obama is only "1/2 black"
balanced with Biden, I am wondering out loud how many other prejudiced folks are out there, maybe sitting on the fence due to racxist tendencies - but as they see their families & neighbors make the move for Obama/Biden then they might be able to take comfort in that confirmation + rationalize it that "Obama is only 1/2 black"
maybe that was the reason Obama has been pushing his white mother & grannie's roots all summer...
sad, but if it helps aleviate the misgivings of these good ol' folks, then that is better than fighting with them or wasting your breath trying to convince them that race should not matter...
Yes, the only reason not to vote for The Messiah is race, and even some of the racists are coming around! Hosanna!
Diageo/Hotline and Zogby are crap.
1) Diageo has only 300-person per day sample. It's the small sample ever.
2) Zogby has only Obama +2 but look the numbers. They have Obama with the same numbers than McCain with his party and has Obama lead by 9 with independents. It's not possible than with these facts he leads only by 2.
I think Zogby has the same % DEM/REP in his sample.
ANT
whose polling #'s are you quoting for MN & GA ?
the GA #'s sound wrong to me. too high for Mac.
GA polling needs to include the 3rd parties - and that lowers the spread between O & M plus they are the one's Nate incorporates here.
new polling thread
is this about the
REAL JOE EFFECT ?
Sedi, good point about IN being in a different group of states from Obama's perspective. Still, I feel a little unhappy when it's been days since Obama or Biden have been in VA and weeks since they've been in CO. Lock those states down and the election is over.
No Democrat has won a majority of white votes since 1964 (LBJ). Carter and Clinton won because of out-sized AA support. How does that affect Obama's ceiling - knowing he'll top out at around 4% of the white vote.
DCM, those are leaked Rasmussen numbers given to premium members.
McCain winning GA by 9 points is plausible to me, depending on AA turnout
Here is info on getting "That One" buttons et al...
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/jnail/blog/&blogId=4652
Ok, I'm calling it. This is officially the end. Time of death 20:47 GMT, 8th October 2008.
Petersen lets hear your shtick on this gaffe-o-rama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/mccain-calls-americans-hi_n_133037.html
Oh, no, it's over! He still thinks the bombs are dropping in Hanoi! Unstable! Unstaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayble!
On the racism thingy...
I repeat, listen to, and often enjoy: chink/irish/black/blimey/fundy/blonde etc. jokes. I find it hard to believe that America will vote for a ni**er.
As for me, I've been a life long Democrat - have worked for Barack - donated to Barack - love Barack and can't believe America's luck that such an intelligent, organized, wonderful guy is here when we need him. Barack is clearly a GAMECHANGER. NO QUESTION - he has my vote!
However, I'm sure I'll still enjoy the occasional racist joke. But despite that, I'm for Barack heart, mind and soul! I think I'm not the only one - I think lots of American's are crude and rude about a lot of "minorities" BUT only on a superficial level. When my mind kicks into gear it's clear Barack is a godsend.
Tomthress wrote...
No, Nate also factors in a "regression" factor based on the fact that races historically tighten as Election Day approaches...
Just a minor correction for the sake of clarity -- this isn't what Nate is referring to when he talks about "regression" in a technical sense. Regression is a statistical technique that determines what coefficients for each variable would produce the least total error, i.e. the distances between each actual data point and the predicted data point the model would produce. (There's a lot more to it than that, but it gives you the general idea.)
Nate's "regression" is a historical and demographic anchor that he weights as if it were a poll of average quality -- this is to prevent under-polled states from having bizarre results from a single outlier.
The thing you're describing (which could be called "regression to the mean" in any other venue) is really just a discount factor that moves the candidates closer over time. (I don't think Nate ever describes it specifically, but I think he's using an exponential decay function for this, sort of like he does for weighting older polls.)
Man, thinking about this just gave me flashbacks to when I had to do multivariate regressions by hand, just so we would understand what the computer is doing (and, more importantly, why). My professor was right to do so, of course, but it was still a hellish, grisly experience. =)
Post a Comment