How Obama organizers spent the extra hour:
Taken at tonight's first 1:40 AM eastern. "Speed Limit 186,000 Miles/Sec" indeed.
In the last pic's comments, a Republican organizer suggested that if the office isn't making phone calls during the 72 hours, it has no reason to be open. Kind of says it all.
206 comments
"a Republican organizer"
Zogby?
Simulation Shows Obama Will Win
Brian Adams, a mathematics and computer science professor at Franklin & Marshall College, reports that there's a 99.98% chance that Sen. Barack Obama will win the presidential election on Tuesday.
Adams has developed a simulation model that involves running 50 million simulated state-by-state races, using the late-October poll results for each state. He ran his simulation 50 million times to allow him to calculate all the different combinations of electoral votes that might result, even long shots. While the number of possible outcomes is very large, the result is always the same. Obama receives 270 or more electoral votes 99.98% of the time. Using intervals of electoral vote results, there is a 95 percent chance that the outcome will have Obama winning between 303 and 381 electoral votes.
Go Obama!!!
lol a math joke
"Speed Limit 186,000 Miles/Sec"
Its not just a good idea, its the law!
aw - snap!
I think that we will actually get a reverse Bradley effect. This election will not be as close as the polls show. It will be an historic blowout.
It's posts like these that made me knock on 60+ doors today in Northern Virginia. It feels so good to be a part of this!
I guess working while time is "stopped" means you're at the speed of light...
As a great mathematician once said, it's all relative.
Early the morning of the 2nd, it will be the same time in Florida and Oregon.
As for the "reverse Bradley" - I remember Ralph Nader speaking about how people like to vote for someone seen as a winner. My guess is that Obama's positive and inviting campaign makes it easier for fence sitters to get on the bandwagon.
Is Nate planning on responding to Zogby?
"Remember, as I said yesterday, one day does not make a trend. This is a three-day rolling average and no changes have been tectonic. A special note to blogger friends: calm it down. Lay off the cable television noise and look at your baseball cards in your spare time. It is better for your (and everyone else's) health."
There's the potential Bradley effect, Steve. But there's also the legions and legions of people with no landlines --- starting with college-age folks and going all the way up to folks my age (my husband and I are in our early-to-mid 40s, or in other words, the oldest possible "gen Xers").
People without landlines don't get polled. The pollsters who are even a little bit honest about this topic will tell you that they have no idea how to adjust for it.
The folks without landlines...well, that group maps, roughly, onto Obama's strongest demographic: the youth vote. The youth vote, effectively, has NOT been polled.
I'n not going to use the "B" word that Steve used at the end of his post, nor am I going to use the "L" word that rhymes with "hang glide" (after all, I'm from NH, and I remember what happened here last January). But it is, indeed, a possibility.
Elise in NH
www.obamastraws.blogspot.com
They make calls at 2 AM? I'd be mighty pissed if I get a call that late.
Zogby?? - Oh no he di'nt!!!
It doesn't look like they're making calls. I think they're putting together and cutting apart GOTV literature to hand out/drop off the next day.
Do these predictions take into account Republican voter fraud such as that which alegedly occurred in Ohio in 2004?
Blogger Munkie said...
"They make calls at 2 AM? I'd be mighty pissed if I get a call that late."
The data from the day's calls and canvass sheets must be recorded. New call and canvass sheets printed. GOTV packets assembled. There is a lot of "behind the scenes" work to support GOTV calls and GOTV canvassing.
I put up seven Obama signs in my Republican neighborhood today (Wisconsin), all right next to McCain signs. I want to make sure that if there are any undecideds left in my community that they feel that it's not "wrong" to vote for Obama.
I have to comment about McCain's SNL sketch. I am for Obama as the next guy or gal, but I was really touched by the sketch. It showed a human side that reassured me that after the election, things will be OK for McCain. It also showed me the huge contrast between McCain and Palin. Palin's appearance on SNL showed a stiff person who doesn't have a warm, human side. What a mistake it was for McCain to pick Palin. A total disaster of historic proportions.
Using McCain's own words, I can't wish him luck, but I wish him well.
Ah, my hometown. Hope you're enjoying your time there. It's a nice place.
VOTE...Don't Gloat!
We want to be part of history and deliver our state to Obama and be done with this McSame administration.
Vote...Don't Gloat!
-- Vivienne in Pa.
we take our Obama signs down at night because they get stolen.
funny how the mccain signs of which there more of never get touched.
@thor81,
> Do these predictions take into account Republican voter fraud such as that which alegedly occurred in Ohio in 2004?
Ohio has a Democratic Secretary of State this time -- not nearly as much opportunity for GOP skullduggery. Not that they won't try, but they won't have nearly as much inside help as they did with Blackwell.
i feel bad
i'm in tallahassee right now not doin a god damn thing
Roman, be careful talking about roadsigns and "comfort" on this site, you might just get hit over the head with a giant wall of text about how little value yard signs bring to the campaign.
As for yard signs: our local organizer claims signs don't do anything for national elections.
They're most effective in a reverse kind of way: when campaign staff are caught red handed stealing signs of the other party.
In my neighborhood over twenty signs were stolen, all Democratic signs or for progressive amendments. In the next election I'll set up a photo trap.
Or 300,000 km/s.
Has Obama or McCain ever said anything about metrication? Obviously that isn't really the most pressing issue right now (it's 3rd, after unification with Canada and dealing with Cuba.)
Point taken. I'm not an experienced campaigner and done only little canvasing. Hopefully WI polls are all true
I think Zogby's comment was really directed to Drudge, not Nate.
That's how I read it anyway.
wv - housti: How happy Houston would be if Texas went Dem this year.
The picture links never work. If the photo links to your photos page, i expect to be taken to a gallery which includes that photo. It does not.
God bless those organizers!
Makes my own efforts seem awfully lame in comparison. Maybe thinking about them will motivate me to make more calls these next few days!
I've solved the stolen sign problem: I've turned my big front window into an Obama sign collage.
I tend to agree with the campaign's contention that signs don't vote, but when one lives in a red community (albeit in a blue state!), I think it's a good idea to fly the colors, if only to let people know the neighborhood is a little more diverse than they may think.
why yard signs are good
1. name repetition
2.comfort that people you know-
neighbors support that candidate.
3.commits the person who places the sign to support-they will feel more compelled to vote
4. reminders to others that an election is coming which helps GOTV
remember that campaigns do everthing for a reason at least a good campaign. mccain leaves alot wanting when it comes to a GOOD campaign
Zogby's comment was clearly directed at Nate, who's love of baseball is well known.
Zogby's poor polling is enough reason for me to have lost respect for him, but his condescending attitude sealed the deal. In four years when Nate is held in much higher regard than he is, Zogby will have been put in his placce.
On Tuesday I'll be volunteering at the www.866ourvote.org. attorney voting rights call center. This non-partisan non-profit organization is being run by the Election Protection, the nation's largest non partisan voter protection organization led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington.
If you or someone has a problem with being blocked, challenged or disenfranchised you at the polls, or have a question about registration or voting rights, please urge them to call the hotline 1-866-ourvote and speak to a volunteer attorney or other trained volunteer who will explain, and try and help with information.
Volunteers are standing by to attempt to resolve problems with local government officials and provide proper advice to voters.
applepie, I agree with you on 3 for 3
wv:rudala
A reddish type of apple.
Pat,
I also live in a red community. I have a yard sign and a removable bumper sticker. I was surprised by the number of people who would sneak a look around, then whisper their support for Obama.
Some campaigns do not like yard signs because some local laws require removal of signs after an election and make removal the direct responsibility of the candidate. THAT would be an onerous task!
wv backet...bucket, beckett
YA mean JSMIII might not win???
Jupiter's utility belt... What will happen to SARAH?
Better question, can you store used ear plugs for four years and reuse them? Anybody?
I predict CHEATING on the highest order! I believe the copious amount of airtime fox has being burning focusing on the "BRADLEY EFFECT" is to create a "reason" for a MCCAIN/PITBULL win.
People... For the amount shady crap we have observed and the pass seven years do you think such an occurrence is unlikely? How about a couple of localized voting machine data bases lose power
in a couple of states? I think we will get rolled over,greased up and "they" will stampede MCCAIN and arctic ANNIE right on thru.
DO ANY OF YOU REALY REMEMBER THE LAST SEVEN?
WE are torturing people now?
There is a news station that is dedicated to one particular ideology.
We invaded a nation for reasons UNKNOWN.
Half of the population has been twisted and brain washed into farm yard bliss.
I think we are going to get screwed in the smallest quarters available. There are to many cracks that can mask the truth in our system
and media. One thing we need to remember is that who ever says it first and loud enough holds the "ball". All FOX has to do is call em early and act faux/fox ASTONISHED!!! :0
"IT looks like JOHN MCCAIN is the come back kid..."
"MAYBE the BRADLEY effect was in full EFFECT?!"
( wink, fucking, wink wink)
SO people, I think we all need to figure out what we WILL do TUES when we are expected to bite the pillow again.
What on Earth could YOU do about a mystical MCCAIN "win"? We have let to much go unchecked, so such an occurrence should grace your thoughts
in the next few days. We are using voting machines that are PROGRAMED, CONTROLLED and MAINTAINED by REPUBLICAN partisans. NEWS stations will be "forced" to report findings at a pace that does not make them look inept.
SOOOOOOOOO
FOX can lead the charge and call em with gusto!!!
By NOT reporting on discrepancies, while utilizing the FOG of war that they are well versed in, combo meal.
squeeze MCFUCKFACE and TBI Palin past the substance into the oval office.
Anyhow just ramblings...
P.S then FOX will say... THE LIBERAL liberal, LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL? LIBERAL!!!
AND you will get a brain tumor from all the anger you wil be harboring!
Goodnight all
Whoa. Looks like someone might want to switch to decaffeinated.
I really like all of these images of energetic Obama supporters. Makes me wish I had the time/funds/transportation to volunteer, myself.
cugel - I'm so glad people are doing this. Almost makes me wish I was in law instead of being a science nerd (that, and I'd be done law school by now instead of still stuck in grad school.)
And on that note - I've always said the speed limit is C... unless otherwise posted.
First off, forgive the epic post. I hope I'm saying something worth reading.
Reading an earlier thread, I saw a couple of people talking about realignment. Now, I'm not convinced an Obama win will represent a realignment, but all that talk reminded me of some of the "what if" scenarios over at Dave Leip's US Election Atlas:
1976: Gerald Ford (R) – 48.03%, 277 EVs; Jimmy Carter (D) – 50.03%, 261 EVs. Shift – 0.03%.
1992: George Bush (R) – 37.74%, 271 EVs; Bill Clinton (D) – 42.71%, 267 EVs. Shift – 0.29%.
1996: Bob Dole (R) – 41.36%, 270 EVs; Bill Clinton (D) – 48.59%, 268 EVs. Shift – 0.64%.
The "Shift" represents the percentage of the total national vote necessary to swing the Electoral College in the opposite direction.
I think one of the key factors in a realignment is structural advantage, and it's pretty clear from these examples that, even when losing, Republicans in the last 32 years have enjoyed a structural advantage in the Electoral College. Even Bob Dole, a disastrous candidate, could have won with a 7%+ deficit in the popular vote.
Bush's victory in 2000 also bears this out. Of course, whether or not Bush "won" is subject to argument, but the fact that he could eke out a victory against Gore despite losing the popular vote by half a million votes is a testament to considerable structural advantage.
Bear this in mind: If Bush had won every state Gore won by less than half a point, Bush would have racked up 301 electoral votes even while still losing the popular vote to Gore.
But look at 2004:
2004: John Kerry (D) – 48.32%, 272 EVs; George W. Bush (R) – 50.68%, 266 EVs. Shift – 0.05%.
2004 marked the first time since 1968 that Leip's scenario has a Democrat winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. That represents a shift - however tiny - in structural advantage.
Now look at Nate's scenarios. McCain wins the popular vote in 3.78% of those scenarios; in 29% of those cases (1.11% of the total), he wins the popular vote and still loses the election. Only 1.25% of Obama's popular vote wins end in him losing the election. Structural advantage.
If this does turn out to be some kind of electoral realignment, that structural advantage is going to be the key to it. And Kerry's narrow loss in 2004 - much like Al Smith's loss in 1928 - may represent the moment when it began.
Down here in the "real" VA, the Richmond Obama office was still thriving when I left at the (first) 1AM. I (while testing a voter information call system) talked to, or at least called, every office in the state. Morale is cautiously high all throughout, and if the level of volunteers is any indicator (especially when compared to Kerry), we are preparing for a historic turnout.
There's a whole mess of us southerners who've been sick of living in a "red" commonwealth for a very, very long time. A charter bus full of college students from MD showed up today- sure would be nice to see a few more of those (cough cough wink wink nudge nudge)!!
To those of you about to vote, WE SALUTE YOU!
"
> Do these predictions take into account Republican voter fraud such as that which alegedly occurred in Ohio in 2004?
Ohio has a Democratic Secretary of State this time -- not nearly as much opportunity for GOP skullduggery. Not that they won't try, but they won't have nearly as much inside help as they did with Blackwell."
The Republican party already TRIED to pull the same crap as in 2004, but got stiffed by Ohio Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner.
Republicans wanted to have the same "voter fraud" scam they did in 2004, but she blocked them. They wanted to have a "vote caging list" they could use to challenge Democratic newly registered voters at the polls to try and slow down voting in Democratic precincts, and disenfranchise as many minorities and prevent them from voting as possible.
They are now furious because the federal appellate courts sided with her and the S.Ct. refused to take the case. Ohio Republicans then tried to get the Bush administration to recommend that the Justice Department intervene and DEMAND that the voter lists be released so swarms of right-wing lawyers could have lists to challenge and block AA voters. Bush actually referred the matter to the Justice Department in an outrageous echo of the Attorney firing scandal, but then they failed to act.
"Skirmishing with the GOP escalated in recent months as Ms. Brunner implemented new state laws. Ohio voters can now cast an absentee ballot without providing an excuse. That has vastly expanded early voting. The new laws also increased, to about 12,800 people, the number of Ohioans who could register and cast votes at the same time, during a one-week overlap from Sept. 30 through Oct. 6. The state GOP contested the overlap period, saying the sped-up process could encourage voter fraud. Courts sided with Ms. Brunner.
[Republicans passed this Ohio law but then were FURIOUS that Obama was taking advantage of it! It's only supposed to be used by WHITE people, not BLACKS who might vote Democratic! Horrors! We have to stop it! It was all perfectly legal and no evidence of voter fraud exists -- in Ohio or anywhere else for that matter.]
She again clashed with Republicans over their effort to have many newly registered voters subjected to greater scrutiny; the U.S. Supreme Court said the Ohio party lacked standing to bring the case.
Republicans badly want to unseat Ms. Brunner in 2010. Ms. Brunner says she's thinking about this election, not the next one."
Republicans aren't used to having their efforts to steal elections blocked and are furious about their phony "voting fraud" issue not being accepted.
They will run an intense smear campaign against her to try and install another Ken Blackwell fraud-meister for 2010. Hopefully, before that we'll have a national voting rights act that will prevent this kind of voter suppression tactics.
The Wall Street Journal has the story on the Ohio Republican scams: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122550106553589991.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"Steve Terranova said...
I think that we will actually get a reverse Bradley effect. This election will not be as close as the polls show. It will be an historic blowout."
I've been saying that for weeks. About 52/44 in the polls will translate to ~55/40/5 in the vote tallies as a large chunk of "McCain" voters just don't bother to show or vote 3rd party. Electoral vote I guesstimated 387-151, that was with WV and Omaha as well as an Obama sweep of all "battlegrounds"; now I would take away WV and maybe MT but expect Obama to take either AZ or GA, maybe both, in compensation.
vitin: Be sure to take your vitin B and C if you're getting stressed out.
Thanks for the clarification on Zogby. He really is snippy then since Nate was the one explaining / defending Zogby and pointing out that it was a one-day note that Drudge splattered like it was earth-shattering news.
Guess it would be more correct to say Zogby's comment tonight SHOULD have been directed towards Drudge.
wv - misma: When someone misses mom so much they run their words together?
Here's one for you all, which states will Obama perform worse than Kerry in?
Off the top of my head: MA, RI, AR and TN. Maybe AL or OK???
Also is DC a possibility for Obama to do worse? (only saying this because Nate's model projects 'only' a 63 pt win)
Thank God they're burning the midnight oil because I'm very pessimistic about FL after doing FL data entry at an Obama center in CA today. A whole lot of FL dems are voting for McCain and throwing around the n-word as if they don't even know it's frowned on these days.
I mean - maybe the data sheets they gave me to enter were from some in-bred swampland precincts, but it was discouraging. On the positive side, the people who were doing IN and CO were more pleased with what they were seeing.
So I'm VERY glad to see that every effort is being made because FL would not only be the ultimate insurance policy; it would also make any victory look a lot more like a mandate.
@Cugel,
Thanks for the amplification of my brief remarks. One thing you didn't mention was the curious lack of voting machines in precincts where a large Democratic vote was expected. A friend in Gambier, OH, home of Kenyon College and possibly the most liberal small town in the entire state, said that people were waiting more than eight hours to cast their vote. I don't think we'll have [as much of] that problem this time around.
Like your handle, btw. Are you a fan of Jack Vance?
Here's a good summary of the Republican disenfranchisement strategy. Briefly, they are screaming "vote fraud!" but they are NOT doing ANYTHING to challenge any registration efforts, EXCEPT in 14 battleground states: including MI, CO, NV, FL, OH, VA, NC.
GOP's 2008 Legal Strategy: Target Every Battleground Statehttp://www.alternet.org/democracy/105720/gop%27s_2008_legal_strategy:_target_every_battleground_state/?page=entire
Here's a typical example:
"In Florida, where the Governor appoints the Secretary of State, "no match, no vote" is being implemented wherever a registrant's ID does not match exactly with government databases.
Appointed Secretary of State Kurt Browning has been sued by nonpartisan voting rights groups over his implementation of the "no match, no vote" law. He has threatened to sue a local board of elections over plans to allow voters with incorrect information to make corrections when they vote."
By all means! If there's some glitch in the database that has a middle initial or something "Bob Q. Smith" instead of "Robert Smith" then DON'T LET THEM VOTE!
That's the Republican motto! Block the vote!
I have no idea how many hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away from the polls on election day due to this Republican dirty tricks campaign, but it's going to be "operation chaos" all right.
"Like your handle, btw. Are you a fan of Jack Vance?"
Yes, the Dying Earth trilogy is quite amusing. You're one of the few who recognizes "Cugel the Clever" as the basis for my screen-name.
I'm not quite as dishonorable as him of course!
; ^ )
Dr. Killjoy, the reason this is a realigning election is that it's the end of the Reagan conservative coalition that has dominated American politics since 1968.
America is becoming a majority minority country, at the rate of about 1% per year.
1996: White vote was 83%
2000: White vote was 81%
2004: White vote was 77%
2008: White vote 73% ????
The voting rights act in 1964, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, spelled the end of the solid South. Nixon campaigned on "crime" (i.e. anti-integration code word for racists) and won.
Reagan completed the Republican re-alignment in 1980. Northern moderate Republicans combined with Southern racists to form a nationwide block that won every state but Minnesota, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia in 1984.
Despite being Southern and an immensely gifted politician, Bill Clinton was only able to win because he faced an amazingly inept George Bush during a major recession.
Then Bush II came along and wove all the threads of the right-wing movement together to try and create a "permanent Republican governing coalition" in the words of Rove.
Now it's all ending. Obama would be the first NORTHERN Democratic President since Jack Kennedy (the ONLY Northern Democratic President of the 20th Century -- and he only won by a razor thin margin).
Cugel said...
Here's a good summary of the Republican disenfranchisement strategy. Briefly, they are screaming "vote fraud!" but they are NOT doing ANYTHING to challenge any registration efforts, EXCEPT in 14 battleground states: including MI, CO, NV, FL, OH, VA, NC. "
All quite true. Don't forget the mailings and robo calls that try to trick voters into thinking they can vote by phone or extended voting time for democrats on the 5th, etc.
The key in my mind is that, as Nate pointed out, even if you give all of the close states to McCain, he still has to essentially win out 5 additional states that are currently in the high single or low double digits. Basically McCain would have to successfully steal close to a dozen states all told to manage a win. While that isn't impossible, it would almost certainly be improbable, particularly when up against the Obama GOTV effort without a matching or apparently even any funded effort on the McCain side.
And with it being so likely that Obama will win by some margin, only the most diehard advocates of the Republican machine are likely to push the effort strongly as the repercussions should Obama get into office could be quite severe. Remember he has already asked that the special prosecutor look into the Republican suppression and disenfranchisement efforts of this year that are similiar to what she's looking into from 2004. If he's President, he can make that request more official and then heads probably will roll if folks are blatent enough that it can track back to them. But to steal over a dozen states, many that aren't even close, nor trending to BE close, would require VERY blatent efforts on absolutely every front.
Obama knows this and that's why he's been pushing so hard the entire time no matter how good it looks. That's why his team was prepared with counter tactics and lawsuits as soon as the Republicans started their normal moves. Even if they can somehow subvert 3-5% of the vote in X state somehow, he wants to have his win percentage at 8-10% to offset it and still win.
Additionally, two of the key states are PA and OH. In both the election and key goverment offices are being run by Democrats which makes it even harder to subvert the process. I'm not saying they won't are aren't trying. But so long as we all go out and vote Obama, I cannot see how they succeed purely through those forms of tactics when they cannot put forth a candidate with any credibility.
James,
I think Obama gets a lower % than Kerry in:
AR (PUMA central and trending R nationally)
MA (Obvious reasons)
RI (Similar reasons to MA)
The only state where I think Obama's margin will be lower than Kerry's is MA (again, for obvious reasons). This is at least in part due to a higher percentage going to third party candidates.
DC's a tricky one. It's so much more partisan than any state. But I'd say anyone who predicts a Dem margin in the neighborhood of 75-80% would probably be pretty close to the truth. I kind of wish someone else would poll it; that ARG poll with a 69 point lead was just bizarre.
Dr. Killjoy/Leips's data says nothing about realignment. In each case the shift is from the losing candidate to the winning. There is a simple scaling law which holds in all four cases to pretty fair accuracy: if the popular vote difference is x%, you can shift the electoral college to the loser by changing X^2*.01% of the vote.
Cugel:
I agree with everything you've said, though I would point out that Reagan won Massachusetts both times he ran for President.
I'm still not entirely convinced we're dealing with a possible realignment, as I think realignments are best seen in retrospect. Also, I think the last true (read: total) realignment was in 1932. The realignment we see beginning in 1968 was for the most part confined to the Presidential level; the Democrats held on to one or both houses of Congress for all but 12 of the last 40 years.
Still, the demographic shifts we're seeing are a good sign; the fact that we have a damned good candidate (with a strong organization) who can take advantage of that situation is an even better sign.
I just wanted to stop in and say that I saw Obama in Springfield, Missouri tonight. The crowd was estimated at around 40 thousand. Palin came through about a week ago and brought in a crowd of about 10 to 15 thousand.
Having lived in the bible belt with a large conservative population for most of my life, I was very elated to see such a large crowd come out for Obama.
I tend to use this site to keep my hopes up. After tonight, I have a much better feeling that Obama can take Missouri. I'm looking very foward to Tuesday.
Dr. Killjoy said...
"Cugel:
I agree with everything you've said, though I would point out that Reagan won Massachusetts both times he ran for President.
I'm still not entirely convinced we're dealing with a possible realignment, as I think realignments are best seen in retrospect. Also, I think the last true (read: total) realignment was in 1932. The realignment we see beginning in 1968 was for the most part confined to the Presidential level; the Democrats held on to one or both houses of Congress for all but 12 of the last 40 years.
Still, the demographic shifts we're seeing are a good sign; the fact that we have a damned good candidate (with a strong organization) who can take advantage of that situation is an even better sign."
I think the biggest determinate of a possible re-alignment is two fold. The first is quite simply the effectiveness of Obama, most likely in his first 2 years. If he does a good job, keeps goverment growth in check while making it more efficient as he says he wants to, then you'll likely see the fiscal conservatives more willing to work with the moderate democrats. Particularly if he can show a benefit to the people as a united whole without having to place a straining burden on industrial/comercial business.
The second key detail is the voter turnout. If the youth vote does indeed turn out in a massive swell as many hope, they may wake up to find themselves powerful. The minorities that often felt that the old white male demographic would always get its way may also start to realize that if they put the effort into voting no matter what, they can indeed have a say in the outcome. Should both aspects of this happen, you would likely see a larger hurdle for the "religious right" to have to get past in order to have any hope of returning to power. That would mean they'd have to moderate their position to have any hopes. They've have to change their ideals to match the new power, the younger, more moderate/liberal minded youth and minority demographics.
Should both of those above factors play out in full, Obama is a lock for 8 years and might also be able to promote a whole new way of governing responsibly. But all of this is a huge if.
Cugel said...
Obama would be the first NORTHERN Democratic President since Jack Kennedy (the ONLY Northern Democratic President of the 20th Century -- and he only won by a razor thin margin).
Are you categorizing Franklin Roosevelt as a southerner?
dbrane:
I'm not making an argument that the data proves realignment. I'm making an argument that the data suggests structual advantage.
The Republicans did not lose those elections because their Democratic opponents were dominating the map. Carter and Clinton's victories were, ultimately, paper-thin and rather flukish. The same cannot easily be said about Reagan or Bush 41's wins. Nor can it easily be said if Obama wins under the present circumstances, regardless of what formulas one wishes to apply.
Certainly, one could calculate the percentage of the vote necessary to shift any election. But when one is talking about a fairly large margin, the likelihood of efforts on the part of the losing candidate/campaign/party (such as GOTV) shifting enough votes to change the outcome of that election is considerably smaller. You may, for instance, be able to calculate how many votes Mondale would have needed to pass Reagan in the EC, but how could he have won those votes?
Are you categorizing Franklin Roosevelt as a southerner?
He was born in NY and also governor of NY.
Are you categorizing Franklin Roosevelt as a southerner?
FDR was born in NY and was governor of NY before being elected President.
UK perspective now that most of you are asleep and the posts arent coming in at 100/minute.
Apples and oranges to compare the two systems I know, but here goes:
I ask myself - is this like our 1997 election when one poll showing the Tories close got everyone panicking (it was an outlier, Blair won in a landslide) or the closer 1992 which the polls got wrong?
USA 2008 has the 1997 feel - moment in history and all that - but the polls are not as decisive.
What went wrong for the polls in 1992? Well, there was a lot of analysis of this but four main things.
1) Mainly, the polls used an old model of the electorate, based on the 1981 census which gave figures on tenancy models, car ownership etc which were way out of date. This was main cause of error.
2) Nobody much was lying to the pollsters, but some were refusing to say how they were going to vote, and these were disproportionately Tory.
3) There was a last minute swing to the Tories which wasn't caught.
4) Some potential voters were not registered because of the hated Poll Tax (Google this if you don't know of it)
I'd add a fifth, purely anecdotal reason - some English voters couldn't bring themselves to vote Kinnock because he was Welsh. Our Bradley effect?
By 1997 pollsters were using better demographic data that solved problem 1), there wasn't a 3), and 2) and 4) had become minimal.
I'd say that in 2008 most pollsters other than Zogby have updated their model, so not much of a 1). 2) and 3) you can't model for, and 4) is the big unknown - I mean your apparent deliberate Republican voter suppression in some states.
If Obama is 2% up in the final polls, and 4% up in the states were shenanigans might happen, I think that's enough.
UK perspective now that most of you are asleep and the posts arent coming in at 100/minute.
Apples and oranges to compare the two systems I know, but here goes:
I ask myself - is this like our 1997 election when one poll showing the Tories close got everyone panicking (it was an outlier, Blair won in a landslide) or the closer 1992 which the polls got wrong?
USA 2008 has the 1997 feel - moment in history and all that - but the polls are not as decisive.
What went wrong for the polls in 1992? Well, there was a lot of analysis of this but four main things.
1) Mainly, the polls used an old model of the electorate, based on the 1981 census which gave figures on tenancy models, car ownership etc which were way out of date. This was main cause of error.
2) Nobody much was lying to the pollsters, but some were refusing to say how they were going to vote, and these were disproportionately Tory.
3) There was a last minute swing to the Tories which wasn't caught.
4) Some potential voters were not registered because of the hated Poll Tax (Google this if you don't know of it)
I'd add a fifth, purely anecdotal reason - some English voters couldn't bring themselves to vote Kinnock because he was Welsh. Our Bradley effect?
By 1997 pollsters were using better demographic data that solved problem 1), there wasn't a 3), and 2) and 4) had become minimal.
I'd say that in 2008 most pollsters other than Zogby have updated their model, so not much of a 1). 2) and 3) you can't model for, and 4) is the big unknown - I mean your apparent deliberate Republican voter suppression in some states.
If Obama is 2% up in the final polls, and 4% up in the states were shenanigans might happen, I think that's enough.
bushworstever said...
Cugel said...
"Obama would be the first NORTHERN Democratic President since Jack Kennedy (the ONLY Northern Democratic President of the 20th Century -- and he only won by a razor thin margin)."
Are you categorizing Franklin Roosevelt as a southerner?
Heh. I was just about to point that out -- last I checked, New Yorker != southerner. =)
[WV] andazin: Obama's masterful electoral strategy has been confusin' andazin McCain's inept tactics.
Also, sorry for repost, but I just put this in a dead thread before realizing it:
InkStain said ...
[in reference to the statement that Bush lost the electoral college in 2000]
You are delusional.
I am honestly very surprised that, as a journalist, you're unaware of the study released by just about every newspaper on May 11, 2001, that showed that Gore would have won had the recount been allowed to complete.
We're talking "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of evidence here. Way beyond. As in, "the odds of this happening by chance and Bush being the legitimate victor are less than the odds of picking the Sun randomly out of all stars in the known universe ... four times in a row."
Hear that? Yeah, that's the sound of the binomial theorem taking your argument out behind the woodshed and gettin' medieval. Like, Pulp Fiction, "Bring out the gimp," ball-gag kind of medieval.
For a summary along with a rather extensive statistical analysis (squee!), look up Agresti & Presnell (2002), "Misvotes, Undervotes, and Overvotes," Statistical Science 17:436-440.
One quick quote: "Of the overvotes, Gore was marked on 84,197 ballots and Bush on 37,731. Voter intent was clear on only 3% of these ballots (e.g. on some ballots voters had both voted for Gore and written his name on the write-in line). These overvotes, if counted, would have yielded a net of 682 more votes for Gore than Bush."
And that's just the beginning. In all likelihood, Gore would have won by thousands, if not tens of thousands, of votes. There is no question -- none -- that Gore was the choice of more Florida voters in 2000.
Therefore, calling someone "delusional" for stating that Bush "lost" the electoral college is absolutely uncalled for. You can quite reasonably say that he did lose it, but the Supreme Court gave it to him, anyway. Sure, you can quibble with the nuance of the word "lost" (and there certainly could be a better way to phrase that), but there's no need to be insulting and degrading to another poster here.
[WV] notedbyo. Something Barack Obama has taken note of. (archaic [pre-2008]: generally refers to Oprah Winfrey)
I've got 3 kids, a high demand tech job managing a team here and overseas. I gave money to the Obama campaign, I've done emails and some phone calls to friends in the swing states, but I really haven't done that much.
I just want to say to all those volunteers, especially the young ones, who are putting in the hours and now burning the midnight oil. Thanks .
It's really your election for the society you'll have to grow up in. It's a stark choice between what Palin-McCain represents and what Obama-Biden represents. I'd relate it all the way back to 1776 where the enlightenment finally bore fruit. This sets the stage for the path that America and much of the world will travel down in the new millennium. My 3 kids are too young to materially contribute to living in a future of compassion and reason, so thanks to the volunteers for helping set the path.
Obama is going to have a hell of a time with the mess he inherits. He might not even be able to fix a lot of what went wrong in 8 years. But it doesn't matter, if this can set us down the right path, things will eventually turn out well...we just need to correct the course we're on and allies and fellow travelers will be found and things will improve by and by.
New Star Tribune numbers from a poll conducted October 29-31:
Franken 42
Coleman 38
Barkley 15
Last week of polling
Minnesota Public Radio Franken +4
Mason-Dixon Coleman +6
PPP Franken +5
Rasmussen Coleman +4
Research 2000 Coleman +3
Star Tribune Franken +4
Average of those six polls: Tie
Man, I hope Obama's got some coat tails in Minny.
I should have added to my post - my argument mostly from Bob Worcester, American pollster based in England, from his book on the 1997 election "Explaining Labours Landslide".
Worcesters outfit here is MORI who are in some way related to IPSOS, who are hardly polling at all in 2008 it seems
To what extent are the Christian Right a homogenous block? How many of them believe in this scary "Rapture" business? Does Palin? I ask as a Brit - this stuff is unknown here.
Gah!
I think the end of daylight saving time is screwing with the posting system -- it was holding posts for an hour before actually putting them up.
It's probably done by now, but just FYI. =)
John Zogby got owned by Nate. Zogby claimed not to know what 538 was in an interview last week, LOL! Baseball cards? Nate is 30 with degrees from the best schools in the country, Nate has owned you John "old fart" Zogby.
As for John's empty commentary, read him yesterday and then read him today. Good pollsters do not make shit up based on a single day of polling with a tiny sample.
I logged it just to say - John Zogby YOU SUCK!
Go Nate!
Go Obama!
Many of them believe in the rapture. The religion really seems to be something out of the middle ages.
A story - I just quit living in MO and moved to DE to get with more like minded people, a fellow attorney in MO is a huge republican and went to one of those religious schools out there - he claims to be a huge conservative - until he met me he did not know who William Buckley and George Will were! I kid you a not. These people are dead ass scary, Palin must be stopped!
John Zogby said:
"A special note to blogger friends: calm it down. Lay off the cable television noise and look at your baseball cards in your spare time. It is better for your (and everyone else's) health."
I say:
It is beter for everyone's health to have a pollster who acts like a professional pollsteer. Professional pollsters do not:
1) Announce polls on Drudge
2) Provide Drudge quotes to support said polls that are not based on stastically valid analyis
3) Make sweeping changes on a daily basis when no other poll agres with them
4) And finally, make sweeping statements based on 1/6 of a rolling sample when that sample was taken at a time that should show bias to one candidate (e.g. Friday afternoon, when only gray hairs, like John Zogby, are home).
5) Stake their reputation on "interactive" polls with a self selecting sample
6) Publicly announce polls on XM radio as tied and have a long conversation about the tie and how Obama is failing to connect - only to release the same poll the next day with Obama up by 4!
John Zogby, I believe you have already ruined your reputation, but I would propose you take a vacation, play with some baseball stats, and come back and become a pollster who is knowledgeable and good.
John - maybe you should move to Oklahoma where they watch Fox News, believe in Dick Cheney, and create their own reality. They need a pollster who creates his own reality too.
John, you are not a pollster, you are an arrogant prick.
thanks Fred,
Yes but any knowledge on Palin's beliefs?
I ask because we have a few of these extreme churches over here and what they have in common is they believe they alone are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell, including members of other extreme churches.
How do Mormons sit with this? I've looked at their religion and it has so little in common with any other sort of Christianity (if it can be called Christian at all.
How do they feel about being brought into a coalition by a cynical atheist like Rove? (I read on here that he is - do they know that?)
chris said...
"To what extent are the Christian Right a homogenous block? How many of them believe in this scary "Rapture" business? Does Palin? I ask as a Brit - this stuff is unknown here."
It isn't so much an issue of believing in rapture and such. It is more about the abortion and gay rights issues which they all agree upon and gets them out in force.
chris said...
"thanks Fred,
Yes but any knowledge on Palin's beliefs?"
I cannot speak specifically to Sarah Palin's beliefs. However, the church she attended most of her life in Wasilla professed a belief in rapture, speaking in tongues, witches and demons. They also believe the end of days is near when God will start a holy war that pushes all Jews to Israel where they will either convert or be damned and that Alaska will be one of the few safe havens during this war. Yes, everyone that disagrees with their view is likely a heretic and will be damned. Again, this is the belief of a church she attended and I do not know to what degree she specifically agrees with those beliefs.
There are at least wo other fred's posting on this board, so from now on I will post as:
JUSTSOMEGUY
She did attend the church from the time she was young, to just before she started the run for governor.
Interestingly, her tax returns showed no church giving, I think.
Hi Rick,
I see - but over here the main movers on abortion are the Catholics (lots more of them) and they're not part of this US coalition - a majority seem to vote Democrat.
justsomeguy said...
"She did attend the church from the time she was young, to just before she started the run for governor.
Interestingly, her tax returns showed no church giving, I think."
The returns she was required to file for this run at VP were after she was running as governor, so after she tooks steps to attend a more moderate church. But she also returned to the Wasilla church to speak to some departing missionaries and she praised Pastor Muthee, the witch hunter who prayed for her election. Both the prayer and her comments after are on youtube.
PLEASE, PLEASE provide a detailed post-mortem on poll accuracy and the relationship between methods and accuracy after all the results are in
Also...about yard sign comments. I've been told by the Obama people here that his campaign does not believe yard signs have any value in terms of name recognition. The McCain camp gives away thousands. (The other day I saw a stack of them in a church down here in Neanderthal Jacksonville.) The Obama side principally sells them.
I believe it's a mistake for a well-funded campaign like O's not to inundate lawns with free signs. They are much cheaper than commercials. Nevertheless, the competitive number of them in many places says plenty about his support. Plenty of the people who had Bush/Cheney signs littering their lawns four years ago have nothing this election.
O. apparently will be here tomorrow in the same place where McCain said our "economy is fundamentally sound" while Wall Street was in a panic. McCain had less than 3,000 rabid right wingers in that audience in a place that seats 18,000. Obama will probably fill it up -- even on a Monday and even in this primitive burg.
It would be just lovely if his team saw to it to distribute a yard sign to everyone who shows up!
Evangelicals are not homogeneous - they do have alot of things in common. These include:
1) Anti gay hate agenda
2) Pro-life even if it kills the mother
3) A huge ability to bury their head in the sand and avoid real world facts and cling to their belief system
4) Most do speak in tongues and believe in the rapture
5) They are splintered, and have many singular churches, like Wasilla, where the preacher is the road to God and adds weird stuff to the core values (like AIP's agenda)
6) I think we can even add the white supremacists to this group, as they have the core beliefs and just add a sprinkling of true hate of "mud people"
I find them an interesting sociological study, but living amiong them was like living on a different continenet with a tribe that has not yet learned science.
So Obama the Muslim tithes to a Christian church but Palin does not?
Scratches head.
I worked in Germany once and was asked if I would tithe from my wages (Lutheran or Catholic only - I didn't). Is this how it works for you? We don't have this.
chris said...
"Hi Rick,
I see - but over here the main movers on abortion are the Catholics (lots more of them) and they're not part of this US coalition - a majority seem to vote Democrat."
The Catholics over here are a much smaller group as a whole. Likely due to the distance from the center of the Catholic church in Rome. The more generic and diverse group of Christian religions as a whole, Evangelicals and Protestants are the ones that push anti-abortion and gay rights and for the collective group known as the "Religious Right". I cannot speak to the what or whys of the Catholic position towards politics. They aren't as outspoken that I've seen and so I have no solid take on them.
Did Dick Cheney endorse becuse he hates John McCain or because he is so deluded he thought it would help?
What ever the reason, Obama is using Dick to star in Obama's next ad.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_CHENEY_AD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Oh the Alaska Independence Party are sent by God, are they?
I wish I'd kept the URL for that YouTube clip I saw where the (quite normal looking) AIP guy slated the State for doing business with a "Foreign Communist Corporation".
Oxymoron aside, I thought "Oh, they can see Russia too." But no, a Republican came on and responded "Last time I looked Canada were our Allies!"
Sheesh, he meant Palin's pipeline. If these people think Canada's centre-right govt are Commies.......
justsomeguy said...
"Did Dick Cheney endorse becuse he hates John McCain or because he is so deluded he thought it would help?
What ever the reason, Obama is using Dick to star in Obama's next ad.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_CHENEY_AD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT"
I personally have troubles viewing Cheney as deluded. He did a pretty good job of manipulating quite a few events to this point. Then again he did also shoot a hunting partner. It's really too hard to say which way it could go.
Have you seen the lead on Barrack's youtube site? Very good Kennedy ad.
http://www.youtube.com/barackobama
chris said...
"Oh the Alaska Independence Party are sent by God, are they?
I wish I'd kept the URL for that YouTube clip I saw where the (quite normal looking) AIP guy slated the State for doing business with a "Foreign Communist Corporation".
Oxymoron aside, I thought "Oh, they can see Russia too." But no, a Republican came on and responded "Last time I looked Canada were our Allies!"
Sheesh, he meant Palin's pipeline. If these people think Canada's centre-right govt are Commies......."
I don't know how religious the AIP folks are in the base of their ideals, but I suspect they use the regional churches for support. That is to say their ideology might not be religiously inspired, but they have no issues of working with the small churches to further their goals.
As for the communist bit. Sadly, it is, like socialism, a burning scathing condemnation they like to throw down on any goverment they feel is too "big" and involved. The main ideal they all share is the smallest possible goverment that lets them do whatever they like, though they are all for goverment banning the things they are against ideologically, such as abortion and gay relationships. So any goverment with socialized health care such as Canada would fall under their ideological attacks.
Palin greatest hits!
Praying with Sarah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg
Previous Sarah violent mobs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKEpsrwyiLk
This is not normal evangelical stuff, this is completely whacked even by their standards.
justsomeguy said...
"Palin greatest hits!
Praying with Sarah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwkb9_zB2Pg
Previous Sarah violent mobs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKEpsrwyiLk
This is not normal evangelical stuff, this is completely whacked even by their standards."
I agree it is not the normal mainstream Evangelical belief. However, it isn't unheard of in Alaska, though also not shouted about or loudly advertised either. But I do believe that many of the core beliefs of the evangelicals are included within the Wasilla church. And one of the main fundamentals of that religious style is that each pastor gets to put their own interpretation on the scripture so each will vary, particularly in remote areas such as Alaska.
And that's also why I was careful in my disclaimers to not suggest a guarantee that this is a belief she herself strongly supports, though her own actions and statements within the church seem to indicate it is possible.
Thanks Rick and Just Fred for your informative replies.
I'll look out for these people if they look like getting started in a big way over here. We have evangelicals, but they don't seem this bad.
And any Jewish people who encounter some oddball Christian exhorting them to move to Israel should ask "why are you so keen on that?"
Sarah opening the seccisionist AIP convention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
Remember, she did not run as a repub until after the AIP called for their members to run for office as REPUBLICANS.
More on her AIP ties: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmt0rLtgmK0
Todd Palin suggests Alaskans are not Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGvqlc91974
CNN on the AIP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx3BCajchD8
Obama camapign guy Robert Gibbs on the crank call:
November 01, 2008 9:54 PM
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- Asked by ABC News if he'd heard the prank call played on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Robert Gibbs, a senior adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told reporters that he'd heard parts of it.
His response?
"I'm glad we check out our calls before we hand the phone to Barack Obama," Gibbs said.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obama-campaign.html
Assuming Obama wins, it will be interesting to see how seriously the new administration take the pronouncements of the governor of Alaska during the campaign.
Both campaigns were clear that federal spending needs to be reduced, and both have talked about line-by-line scrutiny of the federal budget.
It would seem only reasonable to regard any lines of the budget which refer to spending in Alaska as non-essential.
After all, Palin didn't put the "alas" in Alaska for naught.
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but let's use SI units: 3 x 10^8 m/s, not 186,000 mi/sec.
Badgerhair said...
"Assuming Obama wins, it will be interesting to see how seriously the new administration take the pronouncements of the governor of Alaska during the campaign.
Both campaigns were clear that federal spending needs to be reduced, and both have talked about line-by-line scrutiny of the federal budget.
It would seem only reasonable to regard any lines of the budget which refer to spending in Alaska as non-essential.
After all, Palin didn't put the "alas" in Alaska for naught."
Obama would be well served to not do anything that looked vindictive against Alaska just because of Palin. However, with Stevens likely out and a largly democratic congress I would forsee greatly reduced earmark spending sent up that way.
But that said, I don't see Palin getting re-elected unless she changes her ways big time. If she goes back and lashes out at all her critics such as the ADN which endorsed Obama then she's going to be on thin and melting ice.
So this is completely off topic but I'm at a loss and you guys on 538.com are some of the smartest people I know so... one of my best friends has had a felony conviction (or 3) a couple of years ago but he has changed for the better. He's older and has dealt with some of his issues and is ready to rebuild his life. The problem is he has been unable to get a job due to his record. It has been too short of a time to get his record expunged and Workforce Oklahoma has been no help. Does anyone have any suggestions?
PA tracker down to O+7, but BHO holding steady at 52%. You cannot lose with more than half the vote!
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pa_obama_52_mccain_45_muhlenbe.php
derek-
I am an attorney, and our overzealous prosecution and want to convict people has ruined many lives. Expungement is state by state, and unfortunately many records can never be expunged. This is particualrly bad in the southern states. You can go to an attorney and find the OK law, but judges seldom go outside the guidelines.
Sorry, wish I could be more positive. Read the OK civil code and search for aloophole he fits in, then go to an attorney and see if your analysis is correct.
Hopefully Obama can change the federal sentencing guidelines while he is blowing up every Bush change he can find...
Tallahassee!!!
I was sitting in that very chair in the picture today!! I'm so glad Brett had a chance to visit and see what's happening in this not-very-sleepy quasi-southern town.
That office was rocking today. Hundreds of volunteers hustling in and out, busloads of out of staters showing up to get out the vote, and a big event with Joe Biden this morning to get excited about!
Don't discount Florida just yet. I'd bet good money we pull this one off!!!
Keep it up Andrew! My real work starts election day to make sure everyone can vote!
derek-
You might also want your friend to look for jobs in areas where the record will be less of an issue - like Chicago, NY, etc.
2008 v 2004 v 2000
Looking good!
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/campaign_08_vs_04_and_00_updat.php
@Rick
Being vindictive is one thing. But getting the Governor to have to make public statements about how important federal spending is so that they are on her record and can be endlessly quoted should she attempt another run towards Washington cannot hurt.
McCain on SNL:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/mccain-saturday.html
Badgerhair said...
"@Rick
Being vindictive is one thing. But getting the Governor to have to make public statements about how important federal spending is so that they are on her record and can be endlessly quoted should she attempt another run towards Washington cannot hurt."
Sure, but while Palin is cunning, she's not too big on deep thinking. I think with only minimal nudging from congress, she can be made to say that. Particularly if she has to deal with democratic senators and representatives. I think she's already given her opponents enough ammo to shoot down any attempt at re-election in Alaska presuming she isn't impeached due to ethics violations or jailed due to her house ala Stevens.
Additionally, if Obama does well in his first few years he'll almost certainly retain the support of the fiscal conservatives, particularly if running against Palin. So long as the Dem's don't go big goverment overboard, Palin would have only the religious/social support and that won't be nearly enough to get her elected on a presidential ticket. Her only hope on that score is Obama taking actions or inactions that anger too many folks center and center-right.
Palin is an afterthought to OBama, no problems with Alaska. Heck, if Alaska gets in trouble Sarah will just pass another socialist bill taking from the oil companies (and raising our gas prices) and distribute the money to her fellow non-American Alaskans!
Columbus Dispatch poll...
O: 52
M: 46
Ohio
Dunno who the pollster is.
Structural shift? Here in NC, yesterday was the final day to do "One-Stop" Registration and Early Voting. Our AWESOME state Board of Elections updates their stats on the web in the early AM every night.
The final totals are Voter Registration as of 11/02/2008 Democratic: 2,860,556 Republican: 2,000,360 Libertarian: 3,546 Unaffiliated: 1,392,209 Total: 6,256,671.
In percentages: 46% Dem, 31% Rep, 22% Independent
Two caveats:
1. These are NOT early vote stats - these are registration stats.
2. Some portion of the electorate still registered as Democrats are older folks who chose that affiliation in the pre-Civil Rights era when the South was almost completely Democrat (why? - because Lincoln was a Republican). Phone banking and canvassing in years back I would estimate 5-10% of Dems fell into this category based on my limited sample. This year I would estimate it well under 2%, but again: limited sample and all of this comes from the notoriously cosmopolitan Raleigh area (just ask Barney Fife). But even statewide, I would bet that a lot of conservatives updated their affiliation over the last decade just so they could vote in Republican primaries.
"Gov. Palin received a phone call on Saturday from a French Canadian talk show host claiming to be French President Nicholas Sarkozy," emailed spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "Gov. Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy, and other celebrities in being targeted by these pranksters. C'est la vie."
R2K
Obama 51 (unchanged)
McCain 44 (unchanged)
Yesterday's sample was +4 Obama, closest margin since the poll began.
It would be beyond my wildest dreams to finally have the south join the union. That would be the true sea change of the election. Can GA and NC and VA go blue? Why not LA and SC!
+4 in R2K is a tough number, but Obama has tended to do worse in other trackers on weekends (see Zogby).
It sucks to have to wait an extra hour for Ras this morning.
Another Brit here watching with avid interest. I really, really hope these numbers are right. The world wants America back in the fold. Oh, and I might be moving there next year!
Go Obama!
vw: fraten: sausages in a can.
I live in Connecticut hand have not had a single robo call from either party. I feel left out, ignored, diminished. What have I done wrong to be so ignored?
I suspect Ras will be tighter again. He's upped the % of GOP voters in his sample.
Joe Scarborough is BEGGING for a race. According to Mason-Dixon, PA, VA, and NV all (barely) within the margin of error, so the Republicans are "coming home" (god, I hate that phrase). Says he's just trying to keep Democrats from rioting on Wednesday. Please.
Not sure if anyone reported it yet or not, but the Reverend Wright commercials are now on TV in PA. First time I have seen them.
WordVerif: SETRANT...nice
Could anybody assess the attention given to Obama's aunt's story in the MSM? Not living in the state it is hard for me to grasp what kind of influence the story could have on the outcome of this milestone election (since it can be spun in two directions, her breaking the law and Obama not really caring about her fate)
Sean, you and Brett should put together a nice coffee table book with Brett's best photographs, your text from on the road, maybe a progression of maps and a final set of box scores from Nate. And, if you can pull it off, a forward from the President Elect or one of his key advisors. If someone could rush production by the end of the month I bet it would be successful for this Christmas season.
Hi new Fred, I am the old Fred (earlier in the thread) but am now posting as "justsomeguy"
I think you are the third or fourth fred on the board. Welcome!
This scares me, but just a little, it is the partisan ID in Ras:
"r polling data released during the final days of Election 2008, the partisan weighting targets will be 39.9% Democratic, 33.4% Republican, and 26.7% unaffiliated. For the preceding week, the partisan weighting targets were 40.0% Democratic, 32.8% Republican, and 27.2% unaffiliated. "
This caught late movement in 2004, lets hope the hate does not win this time, turn out the vote!
North Carolina - FINAL statistics combining early vote and absentee ballots:
Total Votes: 2,573,206
Total RV: 6,232,230
Early vote turnout: 41%
# Early voters who are registered Dems: 1325226 (52%), Reps: (30%)
As I wrote in my previous post, as of today, the NC registration statistics are 46% Dem and 31% Republican, so early vote has already outperformed even THAT hopeful statistic! Gotta go back into the office now and prepare some canvass packs ;-).
Fired UP!
This scares me, but just a little, it is the partisan ID in Ras:
"r polling data released during the final days of Election 2008, the partisan weighting targets will be 39.9% Democratic, 33.4% Republican, and 26.7% unaffiliated. For the preceding week, the partisan weighting targets were 40.0% Democratic, 32.8% Republican, and 27.2% unaffiliated. "
This caught late movement in 2004, lets hope the hate does not win this time, turn out the vote!
Why are you scared cause of a party weighing? Quit being so scared! Now I understand when folks call Democrats weak sometimes. A lot of us like to wallow in fear. And not fight. We gonna win this.
I was in North Philly yesterday. And I will say this cause I am a black man. I was volunteering with the Obama Campaign there. The biggest thugs in the neighborhood were looking where to go Tuesday Morning. Gangs of thugs wanting to vote for Obama.
Folks you are going to be amazed by the AA Vote this year.
Its a movement.
Sit back and relax and let's win the election. This aint 04 and 00
Joe Scarboro should be put in a bottle and let out with the tide - I miss Hunter Thompson!
"s"
I will be one of those attorneys making sure everyone gets to vote in PA. We have your back!
For Obama we can't make calls till 9AM.
Okay, I'm starting to feel like Rachel Maddow...needing to be talked down.
Why hasn't Obama or any surrogates campaigned in PA recently? It almost feels like he is intentionally ignoring the state.
Someone, please explain.
Julie-
PA is a blue state, and all polls still show a lead. Kerry won PA by an easy 2.5% and the AA turnout is being underestimated in the polls. PA seems very safe, and if Plouffe is acting like it is safe it is.
They are agressively running ads here, and Rendell has been out for them.
PA will stay blue, and if it does it is dman near impossible for McCain to win.
That said, all this fails if the AA or youth decide not turn out - so GOTV!
Julie,
Joe Biden will hold a rally in PA tomorrow.
why is the obama campaign wasting 232 miles/second?
@juliephx
I thought Hillary was there yesterday. Chill, just take a deep breath.
I read something like there have been 300+ national polls since mid-sept and mccain has not lead in one.
Give the MOE, does anyone know the statistical odds that McCain has never lead in one?
It's above my pay grade to figure this out...
I wish that MSNBC would put a cameron on Joe asshat Scarborough the entirity of Tuesday night.
I would like to see the exact moment his balls explode.
@justsomeguy
Thank you for the pollster graph link. That made me calmer. :)
We all need some Xanax, anyone dealing?
LOL!
I freking hate Joe Scarborough. He is on there bragging about his ratings - we watch not because of you Joe, but despite you!
Fire Joe Scarborough! He needs to be on Fix News!
Why hasn't Obama or any surrogates campaigned in PA recently? It almost feels like he is intentionally ignoring the state.
He has had surrogates there. Bill Clinton did a sweep Weds., Caroline Kennedy is doing a sweep today, Biden closes here tomorrow.
Where are you pa john? I write this from Landenberg, PA. I move to DE next week - can't beat those low taxes in a blue state!
I was at my local Obama office at 10 p.m. Saturday night. We were tidying up the office (bagging the trash, running the vacuum cleaner, re-taping posters that were sagging) printing out lists for tomorrow's volunteers, talking to national staff on the phone.
And, we are a "safe" blue state.:)
IF there is an upset anywhere it will be Pa. The polls are shrinking at a rapid rate. They better have a massive turnout in Philly or McCain can steal it with the racist vote.
Well, since I will be away until after Election Day (and have traveled extensively over the past two weeks), here is my semi-informed outlook to how Tuesday will play out:
Certianly, Obama has been hurt fairly badly by the three-headed gaffe (Biden's crisis speech, his own "spread the wealth" comments and Frank's 25% defense cut). If the election were two weeks away instead of two days then McCain would have a chance but I believe that time has run out. After $600 million spent, if you are not committed to Obama by now, you never will be so I don't think he will perfrom more than 1% above his current RCP average. Accordingly, I see the results shaking out as followed:
Electoral Vote: Obama 302 - McCain 236
Popular Vote: Obama 50.5% - McCain 47.4%
Alaska: 58 - 40% McCain wins
Alabama: 60 - 38% McCain wins
Arkansas: 55 - 44% McCain wins
Arizona: 52 - 47% McCain wins
California: 58 - 39% Obama wins
Colorado: 51 - 47% Obama wins (this state will parallel VA)
Connecticut: 57 - 42% Obama wins
Delaware: 60 - 38% Obama wins
Florida: 50 - 49% McCain wins (this state overperformed the polls by 4% for Republicans in 2004, the panhandle will decide it)
Georgia: 50 - 47% McCain wins (close but enough would-be-Barr voters cast their lot with McCain)
Hawaii: 64 - 34% Obama wins
Iowa: 52 - 46% Obama wins (if Obama is visiting this state 3 days out, he doesn't have a double-digit lead)
Idaho: 60 - 39% McCain wins
Illinois: 62 - 36% Obama wins
Indiana: 50 - 49% McCain wins (One of these two will go to Obama [IN, MO] but I think IN is just a bit redder than MO)
Kansas: 58 - 40% McCain wins
Kentucky: 56 - 42% McCain wins
Louisiana: 53 - 45% McCain wins
Massachusetts: 58 - 41% Obama wins (Dislike of Deval will keep the margin under 20%)
Maryland: 58 - 40% Obama wins
Maine: 54 - 45% Obama wins
Michigan: 54 - 44% Obama wins
Minnesota: 53 - 44% Obama wins (since a double-digit win would see Franken through and since I beleive Franken will lose, a 9-point win sounds about right)
Missouri: 50 - 48% Obama wins (Missourians have long prided themselves on being 'the' bellweather. 1-2% of voters will vote for Obama just to ensure that the state leans that way)
Mississippi: 55 - 43% McCain wins
Montana: 49 - 48% McCain wins
North Carolina: 49 - 48% McCain wins (very close .. maybe in 2012)
North Dakota: 50 - 47% McCain wins (if Obama visited in Monday .. then perhaps it could go his way)
Nebraska: 56 - 43% McCain wins
New Hampshire: 53 - 45% Obama wins (I don't buy that NH will be almost as 'blue' as NJ which is what recent polling suggests)
New Jersey: 57 - 42% Obama wins (we know than in this state that Obama will be a scandal-plagued and/or ineffective president but since we have lived with Lautenberg, Corzine, McGreevey and Menendez, we can put up with a lot. The pope, himself, couldn't win as a Republican in this state this year).
New Mexico: 54 - 44% Obama wins (the one state I am 100% certain will flip from the 2004 election)
Nevada: 52 - 46% Obama wins
New York: 61 - 37% Obama wins
Ohio: 50 - 49% McCain wins (if the Dem SoS doesn't permit too much fraud, McCain will win. Since western PA is trending red thanks to Murtha, eastern OH should be at least purple which will allow the normally hard-red counties of Southern and Western OH to see McCain through)
Oklahoma: 60 - 38% McCain wins (see opposite of NJ)
Oregon: 57 - 41% Obama wins
Pennsylvania: 51 - 48% Obama wins (I was told from some of Obama's precinct 'captains', that they think that PA is more tenuous than VA or CO but that the five-counties in the SE part of the state should see him through)
Rhode Island: 60 - 39% Obama wins
South Carolina: 54 - 44% McCain wins
South Dakota: 53 - 45% McCain wins
Tennessee: 55 - 43% McCain wins
Texas: 52 - 45% McCain wins (closer than the polls but still 8 - 12 years away from becoming a competitive state nationally)
Utah: 61 - 37% McCain wins
Virginia: 51 - 47% Obama wins (this is the KEY state for Obama. If this goes red, all bets are off)
Vermont: 63 - 36% Obama wins
Washington: 55 - 44% Obama wins
Wisconsin: 54 - 44% Obama wins
West Virginia: 53 - 46% McCain wins
Wyoming: 60 - 38% McCain wins
MSNBC reporting more ground game volunteers in PA.
I think my comment thanking everyone for the reassurance re PA got lost in space...thanks.
Google has published an interesting historical map showing the red/blue states from the 1980 election forward.
http://maps.google.com/help/maps/elections/#historical_results
Mason Dixon VA poll O 47/M 44. I know Mason Dixon leans Reb. but... talk me down.
Mason Dixon VA poll O 47/M 44. I know Mason Dixon leans Reb. but... talk me down.
Obama was up two the last time M-D did VA on 10/21.
Mason Dixon is an annoying pollster. Every poll they have released the past few days shows Obama ahead, but in every poll he has under 50% of the vote
Mason DIxon
Virginia
O-47
M-44
Colorado
O-49
M-45
Nevada
O-47
M-43
Florida
O-49
M-47
Pennsylavina
O-47
M-43
Take all of these results together, add in a GOP lean, and it it doesn't look that bad; Obama could win all of these states. I really like the 49 number for Obama in Florida and Colorado.
MSNBC reporting Mason-Dixon polls like they are gospel. Joe Scarborough is a jerk.
Doesn't look bad? It looks really good considering the lean.
I just heard Mason Dixon has OHIO back to McCain.
Don't have the #'s
michael - it wouldn't be Ohio going "back to" McCain. M-D have never had Obama ahead there.
DATAMAR FLORIDA POLL
Obama: 46.7
McCain: 46.7
Link: http://www.datamar.net/pdf/flpg103108fri.pdf
Dem-44.2
GOP-39.2
Fair party id weightings.
I just heard Mason Dixon has OHIO back to McCain.
Mason Dixon had it +1 to McCain the last time they polled the state. So what? Everyone else, except Strategic Vision (R), has had it at least +3 to Obama since then.
Those MD numbers are great.
No doubt they are not pushing leaners. Add leaners - split the undecideds in, and Obama is winning in all the states at 50% or close.
Do you realize that Obama is winning in all those staes? Everyone one so far. Any worry warts should smoke a bowl...
Julie
270towin has maps for every election since the first George!
Interesting but mostly not particularly relevant nowadays. Under FDR it was only upper New England that totally resisted the tide. Deep South fully Democrat to 1944 but then all over the place -Thurmond, Stevenson, partly Byrd, Goldwater, Wallace, then Republican except for Carter. Carter's win interesting for geographical spread as Ford took the whole West - so different nowadays. Clinton missed the deepest South States but took many that Obama is given very little chance in - home state of course but also LA TN KY WV.
270s map for 2008 has done nothing for ages though.
Michael said...
I just heard Mason Dixon has OHIO back to McCain.
Don't have the #'s
+++++++++++++++++
Chuck Todd was saying that the Obama campaign did not feel to good about Ohio....He said that the Obama campaign feel better about winning FL than they do of winning OH....Said that on Fri....
I don't think the reporting on the Mason-Dixon Ohio poll is accurate. Most papers are saying "recent Mason-Dixon polls show," I think they are just referring to the last Mason Dixon Ohio poll that showed McCain up 1.
Mason-Dixon leans repub! Nate has said so, see paragraph three in the below post!
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/house-effects-in-da-house.html
Reading the M-D story on FL, they had McCain up by 1 last week there, this is a 3 point swing toward O
When on the phone with my mother, she had the Today's show on and she said McCain was leading in Ohio says NBC Poll out today.
I don't have the #'s...
If these polls keep all of us engaged and convince all the Obama voters to go the polls, it is worth the daily stress.
The Obama campaign has a bad feeling about Ohio because of what happened in the primary there. That's why they chose to make a bigger push for Florida (Hildebrand is in the state, spending more ad dollars, etc). That's now new, unrelated to any polls.
If anyone gets stressed about m/d look at the kentucky poll they released today.
m51 o42
Do you really think that is a well polled number?
I think Obama will win Florida and North Carolina while losing in Ohio, by the way. But multiple recent polls show Obama doing better in OH than FL, so who knows.
This morning joe is almost unwatchable. Joe Scarborough is a complete jerk.
Yeah, if Obama is getting 42% of the vote in Kentucky, he should be winning states like OH, PA and VA by large margins.
What is Scarborough saying on Morning Joe?
He is pumping the M-D polls as showing a move, and hammering Obama at every opportunity. He is such an arrogant SOB to...is he worse than Bill O'Reilly, I think it is possible.
Joe is pushing a trend to McCain hard, don't watch the numbers - look at the trend.
Re Ras McCain +1 OH:
RCP has a Columbus Dispatch poll showing O 52 M 46 MOE 2 (well they all say that). Polled on a lot of days though. Is this the "college project" poll that was dissed earlier?
justsomeguy said...
He is pumping the M-D polls as showing a move, and hammering Obama at every opportunity. He is such an arrogant SOB to...is he worse than Bill O'Reilly, I think it is possible.
Joe is pushing a trend to McCain hard, don't watch the numbers - look at the trend.
+++++++++++++++++++
thats what I dont understand...if you look at the national polls the "trend" is going Obamas way (well at least the ones I have seen recently).....
Guess joes bored and trying to pump up everyone for tues....
guess joe just wants to look at m-d and ignore the rest.....
SUSA New Mexico
O: 52
M: 45
Same as their last poll of the state. Closer than most others have shown it.
Is this the "college project" poll that was dissed earlier?
Not that was Ohio U.
yeah i am hearing joe the wanna be news guy in the background and he is giving me a headache.
those guys he is with are just going along with everything he says.
Rasmussen
ME
M43
O56
Joe is a repub, and kool-aid drinking crazy one at that. He does not belong on MSNBC, here is hoping they have their niche with Maddow and get rid of Joe.
I really don't like the way Mason-Dixon does their polling ...
However I came to this conclusion regarding their insistence on leaving in so many undecideds
( they could at least push those people to commit to leaning a certain way to reduce their
margin ) ...
Picture on election day a line so long that wait times are increased drastically ... Now
will someone who is NOT strongly in a particular candidates camp stay in that line to vote or
will they give up and leave ...?
I have personally come to the conclusion that most undecided will lean heavily towards McSame
BUT I am certainly not hoping so ...
This is why we need to get out and vote early and en masse to reduce the effect of
undecideds who may end up voting for McSame ...
Hey I figure if any McSame voters realize their man isn't going to win anyway they might as
well leave instead of waiting extended hours in line to vote ...
Basically what I am saying is , "Get Out The Vote ..."
Burton did a good job with Scarborough
I have personally come to the conclusion that most undecided will lean heavily towards McSame
What statistical analysis makes you draw that conclusion? Undecides usually break about 50/50, or basically how the rest of the population breaks.
@mind...
Every poll show a huge enthusism lead for Obama.
GOTV is the most important think to do, but I think I would be worried about the weak McCain supporters.
Chris,
Thanks for the tips for the EV maps at 270towin that go back to GW. Like a snapshot of history--I really enjoyed it.
J
Minnesota - Star Tribune
O: 53
M: 42
They also have Franken taking a slight 42-38 lead over Coleman.
justsomeguy: Thanks for going out and protecting voter rights. I was out in Bucks county canvassing 2 weeks ago, the enthusiasm among Obama suppoters was amazing. What part of PA are you going to be working?
Nate, Sean and Brett...you have officially shifted my Sunday morning reading ritual. Instead of starting with Frank Rich, I went directly to 538. Thanks guys! I should thank the commenters, too. I even read the comments before heading over to NYT-land.
Say hello to Brett. Love, assmole.
Why ain't the charlie rose i/v available yet?
Glad to help, Julie.
Seretse, RCP have that Maine poll as 56-43 which is a big diff to 53-46!
I havr requested the Philly city war zone. Rock and roll.
can someone explain this-
hotline- says that obama leads 52-47among voters that that have voted
Gallup says the early voters were ovbamb55 mccain 47
cbs seems to agreee with gallup saying that there is a nineteen pt margin.
but why is hotline so much lower
Iraq expects answer on security deal after US election
Nate demonstrated that the undecided voter demographic isn't all that favorable to John McCain.
I think anybody who is undecided at this point just probably isn't going to show up to vote.
Scarborough referred to the fact-check guy as a "leftist" for calling out the "socialist" narrative.
At least we Brits get some things right:
http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/02/palin.effigy.burn/index.html
Scarborough cooled it with his wingnuttery when it looked like he wouldn't have a show at MSNBC. Now with job security he's been an even bigger knob than in 2002-2005. He's officially the NEW Tucker Carlson.
"Remember, as I said yesterday, one day does not make a trend. This is a three-day rolling average and no changes have been tectonic. A special note to blogger friends: calm it down. Lay off the cable television noise and look at your baseball cards in your spare time. It is better for your (and everyone else's) health."
This is part of what Zogby wrote today. A shot at this 538, sounds like it. Looks like Zogby is becoming unglued.
Post a Comment