AUSTIN, TX -- While it isn't as buzzworthy as Al Gore's surprise appearance, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr dropped into the Netroots Nation conference today. I spotted him at a panel discussion on House and Senate races a few moments ago, where he had sat down quietly, accompanied by a couple of staffers. After about half an hour, Barr got up to leave, but one of the panelists was sharp enough to work Barr's name into the discussion and he turned around and waved to the audience to a mild round of applause.
What was Barr doing here? The conventional wisdom is that he might be trying to draw out some fundraising support. This is one place where you'll find quite a few maxed out ($2,300) Obama donors, and those people could plausibly contribute to Barr if they think his candidacy would help the Democrat. Barr is also attending the competing Right Online Summit, which is also in Austin tonight, and where interestingly enough he was invited to deliver a keynote speech.
I think it's equally likely, however, that Barr is here simply to get a sense for what makes the netroots tick. Whereas the Ron Paul campaign very much played off the netroots model of highly networked, online-based fundraising and activism, Barr has had less success in getting his candidacy to go viral.
I still find it unlikely that Barr is going to wind up with more than about 1.5 percent of the vote. But if he learns a couple of things, and begins to cultivate support from the right-leaning netroots (an intrinsically libertarianish demographic), his threshold might be higher than that.
7.19.2008
Cellphones (and Open Thread)
@ 12:36 PM
I've been waiting to post something on the "cellphone problem" -- the fact that almost all pollsters don't include cellphone numbers in their sample, and that cellphone-only voters tend to be different from landline voters. But Mark Blumenthal has covered pretty much everything that I might want to say, and so I'll direct you over there for the detail. It's a real issue, and one reason that, even on the morning of the election, there is going to be a larger margin of error than the pollsters advertise.
7.18.2008
It's A Dry Heat
@ 5:47 PM
I've spent the past couple of days in Austin at the Netroots Nation conference. It's very hot here, but not humid, and I'll take wandering around an air-conditioned conference center any day over lugging a laptop bag between meetings in Manhattan.
Let me caveat the following in a couple of ways: firstly, I see my function as an analyst rather than a reporter. Secondly, I am a participant in the conference as well as an observer. Thirdly, my observations are based on a limited sample size -- a series of friendly conversations I've had here, as well as a couple that I had in New York.
But here's the sense that I've gotten on the ground. There are very few displays of anger at Obama over things like his affirmative vote in FISA. The people here in Austin are mature and seasoned political aficionados -- there are plenty of folks in their 20s and 30s here, but just as many in their 50s and 60s. They come from a wide diversity of backgrounds, and bring with them a fairly wide diversity of viewpoints running from the center to the left. They understand electoral politics, and they understand why Obama has positioned himself on these issues as he has.
If the good news for Obama is that people aren't talking much about FISA, the potentially bad news for him is that people aren't talking much about Obama, period. The focus is more on long-term organization and party-building, House and Senate races, and governance if and when Obama takes office. The Obama campaign itself also does not have much presence here.
So there is a certain amount of ... I don't know quite how to put it. There is a certain amount of arm's-lengthedness, aloofness, toward the Democratic nominee. Of the 2500 or so attendees here, Obama can probably count on about 2475 votes, and for significant fractions to donate, knock on doors, and volunteer for the campaign. But the enthusiasm toward Obama is a bit more cerebral than you might expect.
Some of this is an inevitable consequence of the long- and drawn-out primary campaign. I don't mean that you have a bunch of bitter ex-Hillary supporters here; there are plenty of Hillary supporters here, and they've (mostly) gotten over it. But the primary process was exhausting -- an 18-month campaign that concluded barely a month ago. People are taking a bit of a breather before the conventions begin and the campaign really gets underway.
At the same time, the complaints I've heard about Obama are not about policy so much as presentation. I think people want to see and hear a little more of him, for him to let down his guard a little bit. There is some danger to the Obama campaign in being a bit overscheduled: Iraq Trip, Europe Trip, VP Pick, Convention, Debates, Election, FIN. Sometimes you have to take a little time out with your friends -- and I don't just mean progressives, but all American voters.
Let me caveat the following in a couple of ways: firstly, I see my function as an analyst rather than a reporter. Secondly, I am a participant in the conference as well as an observer. Thirdly, my observations are based on a limited sample size -- a series of friendly conversations I've had here, as well as a couple that I had in New York.
But here's the sense that I've gotten on the ground. There are very few displays of anger at Obama over things like his affirmative vote in FISA. The people here in Austin are mature and seasoned political aficionados -- there are plenty of folks in their 20s and 30s here, but just as many in their 50s and 60s. They come from a wide diversity of backgrounds, and bring with them a fairly wide diversity of viewpoints running from the center to the left. They understand electoral politics, and they understand why Obama has positioned himself on these issues as he has.
If the good news for Obama is that people aren't talking much about FISA, the potentially bad news for him is that people aren't talking much about Obama, period. The focus is more on long-term organization and party-building, House and Senate races, and governance if and when Obama takes office. The Obama campaign itself also does not have much presence here.
So there is a certain amount of ... I don't know quite how to put it. There is a certain amount of arm's-lengthedness, aloofness, toward the Democratic nominee. Of the 2500 or so attendees here, Obama can probably count on about 2475 votes, and for significant fractions to donate, knock on doors, and volunteer for the campaign. But the enthusiasm toward Obama is a bit more cerebral than you might expect.
Some of this is an inevitable consequence of the long- and drawn-out primary campaign. I don't mean that you have a bunch of bitter ex-Hillary supporters here; there are plenty of Hillary supporters here, and they've (mostly) gotten over it. But the primary process was exhausting -- an 18-month campaign that concluded barely a month ago. People are taking a bit of a breather before the conventions begin and the campaign really gets underway.
At the same time, the complaints I've heard about Obama are not about policy so much as presentation. I think people want to see and hear a little more of him, for him to let down his guard a little bit. There is some danger to the Obama campaign in being a bit overscheduled: Iraq Trip, Europe Trip, VP Pick, Convention, Debates, Election, FIN. Sometimes you have to take a little time out with your friends -- and I don't just mean progressives, but all American voters.
Today's Polls, 7/18
@ 5:08 PM
Although it is more apparent in some polling than in others, there now unambiguously seems to have been some movement toward John McCain.
In Maine, Barack Obama now leads by 8 points according to the latest numbers from Rasmussen. While Maine is unlikely to be competitive, Obama had led by 22 points in Rasmussen's June poll of the state. Polling movement like this in Maine, and what Rasmussen had shown earlier in the week in Kansas, is probably caused by statistical noise to a certain degree. Nevertheless, it is of a large enough magnitude that it almost certianly isn't caused entirely by statistical noise, especially considering that Obama's lead in both the major national tracking polls is down to a single point. McCain's electoral position has brightened a bit since the July 4 holiday.
In Alaska, a Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos has McCain expanding his lead to 10 points; he had led by 7 in Research 2000's only previous poll of the state in May. While it would certainly be worth Obama's while to visit Alaska, the state now looks like a somewhat less attractive target than Montana or either of the Dakotas.
In Virginia, Rasmussen has John McCain with a one-point lead (the candidates are tied if leaners are not included). In June, Rasmussen had shown Obama with a one-point lead -- however, McCain had led in all of its previous polling of the state. We have characterized Virginia for some time as the closest of the toss-up states. (With the entire Washington establishment within driving distance of Richmond, one can only imagine the chaos that might ensue if there were a recount there).
Lastly, in New Jersey, Strategic Vision has Obama ahead by 9. Based on some research that I have done, Strategic Vision is one of only two polling agencies so far this cycle to show a statistically significant bias in their numbers; their polls tend to be tilted about 3 or 4 points toward the Republican candidate. (The other polling firm in this category is Zogby Interactive, whose numbers tend to be tilted by 3 or 4 points toward the Democratic candidate). So, if Strategic Vision is showing Obama with a 9-point lead in New Jersey, the state is probably pretty darn safe for him.
In Maine, Barack Obama now leads by 8 points according to the latest numbers from Rasmussen. While Maine is unlikely to be competitive, Obama had led by 22 points in Rasmussen's June poll of the state. Polling movement like this in Maine, and what Rasmussen had shown earlier in the week in Kansas, is probably caused by statistical noise to a certain degree. Nevertheless, it is of a large enough magnitude that it almost certianly isn't caused entirely by statistical noise, especially considering that Obama's lead in both the major national tracking polls is down to a single point. McCain's electoral position has brightened a bit since the July 4 holiday.
In Alaska, a Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos has McCain expanding his lead to 10 points; he had led by 7 in Research 2000's only previous poll of the state in May. While it would certainly be worth Obama's while to visit Alaska, the state now looks like a somewhat less attractive target than Montana or either of the Dakotas.
In Virginia, Rasmussen has John McCain with a one-point lead (the candidates are tied if leaners are not included). In June, Rasmussen had shown Obama with a one-point lead -- however, McCain had led in all of its previous polling of the state. We have characterized Virginia for some time as the closest of the toss-up states. (With the entire Washington establishment within driving distance of Richmond, one can only imagine the chaos that might ensue if there were a recount there).
Lastly, in New Jersey, Strategic Vision has Obama ahead by 9. Based on some research that I have done, Strategic Vision is one of only two polling agencies so far this cycle to show a statistically significant bias in their numbers; their polls tend to be tilted about 3 or 4 points toward the Republican candidate. (The other polling firm in this category is Zogby Interactive, whose numbers tend to be tilted by 3 or 4 points toward the Democratic candidate). So, if Strategic Vision is showing Obama with a 9-point lead in New Jersey, the state is probably pretty darn safe for him.
Ready for the Next Mini-Maelstrom?
@ 7:52 AM
Dan Rather, on Morning Joe, just said something a handful of minutes ago that will dominate a lot of chatter today and will have implications for the race going forward. Asked by Tiki Barber about his take on Fox News' release of the Jesse Jackson off-camera video, Rather premised his take by noting that in today's 24/7 news media culture, you had better be ready for anything you say to be on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow, after being all over TV the day before.
Rather then proceeded to talk about his respect for Jesse Jackson, who had certainly "paved the way for Osama bin Laden." (Yes, the whole name.) Nobody reacted or said a word, and Rather did not notice. To drive the irony point home, he then finished by referring back to the "front page of the newspaper" a 2d time.
Rather has just given carte blanche for Republicans to "slip" and negate the hue and cry with "Rather made the slip too... innocent mistake!" Wonder if McCain himself will do it in one high profile way and Plead the Rather.
EDIT: slight quote correction (video link here)... "paving the way for an Osama bin Laden."
Rather then proceeded to talk about his respect for Jesse Jackson, who had certainly "paved the way for Osama bin Laden." (Yes, the whole name.) Nobody reacted or said a word, and Rather did not notice. To drive the irony point home, he then finished by referring back to the "front page of the newspaper" a 2d time.
Rather has just given carte blanche for Republicans to "slip" and negate the hue and cry with "Rather made the slip too... innocent mistake!" Wonder if McCain himself will do it in one high profile way and Plead the Rather.
EDIT: slight quote correction (video link here)... "paving the way for an Osama bin Laden."
Likely Voters More Republican?
@ 12:57 AM
In the ABC/Washington Post poll that showed Obama leading 50-42 among registered voters, the “likely voter” screen they used showed Obama only leading 49-46. When a pollster uses a “likely voter” screen they are applying their own special secret sauce formula to determine who is likeliest to vote.
The critical element that skews likely voters more Republican this time is that likely voters = engaged voters, engaged voters skew older, and older voters skew McCain in this race.
Marc Ambinder explains:
This predicted dynamic flies in the face of the evidence. Pew reports two unprecedented findings in their poll. First, Democrats are expressing stronger interest in the campaign than Republicans for the first time since Pew began tracking in 1992. Second, the percent of voters more interested in the campaign relative to four years ago (usually hovering near 50% across the board) shows a huge jump on the Democratic side to 71%.
If engagement and interest is what makes a voter a likely voter, and if younger voters have reached saturation ahead of older voters reflected in their superior grasp of information, then any likely voter screen that doesn't currently skew Democratic is probably an incorrect likely voter screen.
The critical element that skews likely voters more Republican this time is that likely voters = engaged voters, engaged voters skew older, and older voters skew McCain in this race.
Marc Ambinder explains:
Based on data, studies and experience, pollsters assume that older voters tend to reach information saturation earliest, tune in the earliest, and pick their candidates the earliest. Likely voter models this far out don't oversample older voters per se -- they oversample voters who have made up their mind and aren't likely, even if they say they're likely, to change their minds. John McCain's leading among older voters, but not by much. So when younger voters -- younger than 65 -- begin to make up their minds in the fall, likely voter models will move back into equilibrium and Obama's lead among registered voters should begin to match his lead among likely voters.Chuck Todd-led First Read agrees:
[R]ight now, pollsters will tell you that with older voters leaning McCain these days, any likely voter model is going to favor McCain for now. If Obama moves younger voters as well as many observers assume come October, the likely voter numbers could change.However, a key assumption needs to be called into question. This year, are the engaged voters skewing older? Are older voters reaching information saturation the earliest? Pew finds a surprise for pollster likely voter assumptions:
Compared with previous election cycles, voter engagement is up among all demographic groups, but has increased more among voters under age 50 than among older voters. Uncharacteristically, the youngest voters -- those under age 30 -- are at least as knowledgeable, and in some cases more knowledgeable, about candidates' positions on Iraq and abortion than are older voters.The assumption reported by Ambinder and Todd is that younger voters will be making up their minds closer to the election and that this will change the likely voter screen at that time. In other words, the pollsters are correct now (but not predictive of November) and they will also be correct in October (and predictive of November) when they expand their likely voter screen. All we are waiting on is the young voters to tune in and make up their minds (presumably skewing things back toward Obama).
This predicted dynamic flies in the face of the evidence. Pew reports two unprecedented findings in their poll. First, Democrats are expressing stronger interest in the campaign than Republicans for the first time since Pew began tracking in 1992. Second, the percent of voters more interested in the campaign relative to four years ago (usually hovering near 50% across the board) shows a huge jump on the Democratic side to 71%.
If engagement and interest is what makes a voter a likely voter, and if younger voters have reached saturation ahead of older voters reflected in their superior grasp of information, then any likely voter screen that doesn't currently skew Democratic is probably an incorrect likely voter screen.
7.17.2008
Today's Polls, 7/17
@ 6:47 PM
A trio of polls from Rasmussen Reports contain relatively good news for Barack Obama.
In Nevada, Obama leads by 2 points after having trailed McCain in each of Rasmussen's last three polls of the state. We tend to group Nevada together with Colorado and New Mexico; but really the states do not have that much in common. Colorado is young, wealthy, and well-educated --increasingly hard to distinguish from reliably blue states like Minnesota or Washington. New Mexico, by contrast, has considerably below-average incomes, and is one of just three majority-minority states on the US mainland.
And Nevada presents a whole different set of circumstances, full of unionized workers and libertarians and Mormons and professional gamblers; and a whole host of local issues ranging from Yucca Mountain to one of the nation's highest foreclosure rates. Point being, it's a difficult state to figure out to begin with, and especially so given its paucity of polling. But between this poll and the Democrats' major gains in voter registration, I think we have to give a slight edge to Obama in Nevada, even though my model is still wont to give a slight edge to McCain.
In North Carolina, John McCain leads Barack Obama by 3 points, which is about the same lead he's held in nearly every poll of the state since April. While the state should remain reasonably close, our model does not particularly like North Carolina as an investment target for Obama, figuring that Obama won't win it without having won Virginia, and that if he's won Virginia, he won't need it.
Lastly, in Arkansas, McCain is 13 points ahead. Obama had trailed 9 points in the June edition of this poll, but by margins a large as 29 points earlier in the spring. Arkansas can't be completely dismissed as an electoral target, simply because if the Clintons commit themselves to some vigorous and sincere barnstorming on Barack Obama's behalf, they'll bring some voters in along with them. But 13 points worth? Probably not without a Clinton on the ticket.
In Nevada, Obama leads by 2 points after having trailed McCain in each of Rasmussen's last three polls of the state. We tend to group Nevada together with Colorado and New Mexico; but really the states do not have that much in common. Colorado is young, wealthy, and well-educated --increasingly hard to distinguish from reliably blue states like Minnesota or Washington. New Mexico, by contrast, has considerably below-average incomes, and is one of just three majority-minority states on the US mainland.
And Nevada presents a whole different set of circumstances, full of unionized workers and libertarians and Mormons and professional gamblers; and a whole host of local issues ranging from Yucca Mountain to one of the nation's highest foreclosure rates. Point being, it's a difficult state to figure out to begin with, and especially so given its paucity of polling. But between this poll and the Democrats' major gains in voter registration, I think we have to give a slight edge to Obama in Nevada, even though my model is still wont to give a slight edge to McCain.
In North Carolina, John McCain leads Barack Obama by 3 points, which is about the same lead he's held in nearly every poll of the state since April. While the state should remain reasonably close, our model does not particularly like North Carolina as an investment target for Obama, figuring that Obama won't win it without having won Virginia, and that if he's won Virginia, he won't need it.
Lastly, in Arkansas, McCain is 13 points ahead. Obama had trailed 9 points in the June edition of this poll, but by margins a large as 29 points earlier in the spring. Arkansas can't be completely dismissed as an electoral target, simply because if the Clintons commit themselves to some vigorous and sincere barnstorming on Barack Obama's behalf, they'll bring some voters in along with them. But 13 points worth? Probably not without a Clinton on the ticket.
Yesterday's Polls, 7/16
@ 8:45 AM
It's just one poll, and it's not in a state of any enormous amount of electoral significance, but the new Rasmussen poll that shows Barack Obama trailing by 23 points in Kansas -- he had been down by just 10 last month -- is a little ominous. Obama's numbers are bad across the board: he's getting a relatively low percentage of Democrats, trailing by 17 points among independent voters, and his approval ratings are negative. Obama had recently been polling well in other states like Iowa and the Dakotas, and so this may turn out to be some kind of outlier. But the real question is what's going to happen the next time states like Ohio and Indiana are polled, which they haven't been in several weeks and where there's a little bit more at stake. In the meantime, our model is starting to hedge its bets a little more in the Midwest.
Obama has no such problems on the West Coast. Rasmussen has him ahead by 9 in Oregon; the Field Poll gives him a 24-point edge in California, and SurveyUSA has him up by 16 in Washington. Any advantage John McCain might have gained by being a Westerner is being outweighed by his positioning on foreign policy, as the Pacific Coast tends to be the most dovish region of the country.
Obama has no such problems on the West Coast. Rasmussen has him ahead by 9 in Oregon; the Field Poll gives him a 24-point edge in California, and SurveyUSA has him up by 16 in Washington. Any advantage John McCain might have gained by being a Westerner is being outweighed by his positioning on foreign policy, as the Pacific Coast tends to be the most dovish region of the country.
7.16.2008
538 Battlegrounds as of Mid-July
@ 5:16 PM
A month ago, we brought you the battleground states based on the site's model, and it's time for an update. Recall that the projection is not what would happen if the election were held today (that's the snapshot), but what 538 projects will be the November result.
Based on the data, we project 11 states inside of five points:
Five points is somewhat arbitrary (why not four, six, seven, etc.). One argument supporting five points is that ground organization and GOTV tends to not be able to make up much more margin against an accurate poll of voter preference. Whatever the dividing line, it is important to pick one number and stay consistent over updates. We've used five before; we'll stick with it.
Since the mid-June update, New Hampshire and North Dakota have moved outside the five-point range, toward Obama and McCain respectively. They remain the next two closest states outside the five-point dividing line (Pennsylvania ties New Hampshire at a 6.0% projected Obama win). Colorado has moved into the range, and all the other states have remained in place. Within the battleground group the states have jostled for ranking position, but given that Nate's tweaked the model a bit in the interim it's not worth attaching much importance to the tiny changes.
As for the Penumbra States, the model projects, eight McCain states will finish between 5-10 percentage points, for 81 EVs:
Seven Obama Penumbra States project between 5-10 percentage points, for 67 EVs:
Obama's safe base states (projected double-digit wins) total 175 EVs, while McCain's safe base states total 79 EVs. We project Minnesota as an 11.6% Obama win.
Adding in the 5-10 point projected wins, the totals are Obama 242, McCain 160. Last month, this projection was Obama 247, McCain 157.
Obama needs 28 EVs out of the battleground group for a clean win, 27 EVs for a tie and a messy but near-certain win. We predict Obama will win 51 EVs out of the 11-state battleground group.
The 538 mid-July projection: Obama 293, McCain 245.
Other 538 breakdowns:
Polling Average: Obama 309, McCain 229
Trend-Adjusted: Obama 309, McCain 229
538 Regression: Obama 298, McCain 240
Snapshot (if the election were held today): Obama 303, McCain 235
Based on the data, we project 11 states inside of five points:
Five points is somewhat arbitrary (why not four, six, seven, etc.). One argument supporting five points is that ground organization and GOTV tends to not be able to make up much more margin against an accurate poll of voter preference. Whatever the dividing line, it is important to pick one number and stay consistent over updates. We've used five before; we'll stick with it.
Since the mid-June update, New Hampshire and North Dakota have moved outside the five-point range, toward Obama and McCain respectively. They remain the next two closest states outside the five-point dividing line (Pennsylvania ties New Hampshire at a 6.0% projected Obama win). Colorado has moved into the range, and all the other states have remained in place. Within the battleground group the states have jostled for ranking position, but given that Nate's tweaked the model a bit in the interim it's not worth attaching much importance to the tiny changes.
As for the Penumbra States, the model projects, eight McCain states will finish between 5-10 percentage points, for 81 EVs:
Seven Obama Penumbra States project between 5-10 percentage points, for 67 EVs:
Obama's safe base states (projected double-digit wins) total 175 EVs, while McCain's safe base states total 79 EVs. We project Minnesota as an 11.6% Obama win.
Adding in the 5-10 point projected wins, the totals are Obama 242, McCain 160. Last month, this projection was Obama 247, McCain 157.
Obama needs 28 EVs out of the battleground group for a clean win, 27 EVs for a tie and a messy but near-certain win. We predict Obama will win 51 EVs out of the 11-state battleground group.
The 538 mid-July projection: Obama 293, McCain 245.
Other 538 breakdowns:
Polling Average: Obama 309, McCain 229
Trend-Adjusted: Obama 309, McCain 229
538 Regression: Obama 298, McCain 240
Snapshot (if the election were held today): Obama 303, McCain 235
7.15.2008
Today's Polls, 7/15
@ 8:00 PM
After a slow couple of weeks, the pollsters have been very busy in the past 48 hours:
So, what's going on here? A pretty decent set of results for Obama -- but also not ones out of line with our expectations. South Carolina and South Dakota are relatively competitive? We knew that based on how North Carolina and North Dakota had been polling. Iowa looks out of reach for McCain? It's looked that way all year, with the exception of one or two polls taken during the flooding. Obama's numbers look pretty good in the CBS/NYT and ABC/WaPo national polls? Those pollsters have tended to show relatively favorable results for the Democrats all year.
So what looks like a pretty interesting set of polling is really more of the same. Obama is polling a bit of his peak numbers (note that the trendline adjustment now tweaks his numbers downward in states like Florida), but he retains a meaningful lead in the popular vote and some structural advantages in terms of the electoral math.
(Full disclosure: I also caught a small bug that was failing to roll in the trendline adjustment properly in recent days and also overstating the third-party vote. This was inflating Obama's popular vote margin by half a point or so. It has been corrected.)
So, what's going on here? A pretty decent set of results for Obama -- but also not ones out of line with our expectations. South Carolina and South Dakota are relatively competitive? We knew that based on how North Carolina and North Dakota had been polling. Iowa looks out of reach for McCain? It's looked that way all year, with the exception of one or two polls taken during the flooding. Obama's numbers look pretty good in the CBS/NYT and ABC/WaPo national polls? Those pollsters have tended to show relatively favorable results for the Democrats all year.
So what looks like a pretty interesting set of polling is really more of the same. Obama is polling a bit of his peak numbers (note that the trendline adjustment now tweaks his numbers downward in states like Florida), but he retains a meaningful lead in the popular vote and some structural advantages in terms of the electoral math.
(Full disclosure: I also caught a small bug that was failing to roll in the trendline adjustment properly in recent days and also overstating the third-party vote. This was inflating Obama's popular vote margin by half a point or so. It has been corrected.)
Democrats Swayed More By Muslim Misinfo
@ 7:12 PM
A few hours after Nate argued earlier today that:
That's called prescient good timing.
Put differently, if you oppose Obama, it becomes much more likely that you do so for reasons related to his race, or because you believe one of the smears about his character, if we also learn that you're a Democrat.By coincidence a brand new Pew poll confirms exactly that insight. The title of the article explaining the poll results says it all: "Belief that Obama is Muslim is Durable, Bipartisan - but Most Likely to Sway Democratic Votes."
That's called prescient good timing.
Hard Support vs. Soft Support
@ 5:05 PM
On Friday, Nate highlighted a significant element in the crosstabs of the Newsweek poll: the difference in hard support versus soft support for each candidate, and what that implies about the task at hand for each campaign in the general election. I want to follow on and amplify that point with more data from Pew from its large late-June survey of 2,004 voters.
The Newsweek poll showed that 61% to 39% of Obama’s support was hard vs. soft and that the mirror image was true for McCain. Applied to the whole electorate, the Newsweek poll showed:
27% hard support Obama
17% soft support Obama
15% totally undecided
25% soft support McCain
16% hard support McCain
Pew’s numbers are strikingly similar. From its June 2008 poll (June 18-29, 2,004 participants):
28% hard support Obama
20% soft support Obama
12% totally undecided
26% soft support McCain
14% hard support McCain
According to Pew’s findings, 58% of the electorate is undecided or soft support (potentially peel-able). To get to a 50%-50% tie with Obama, McCain would need to win 36/58ths of this group, or roughly 62%. I agree with Nate both that this is probably a Republican-shaded group on the whole, and also with his speculation that McCain’s and Obama’s respective ceilings are probably 60% and 50%. 60% for McCain in no small part because 35% of that middle group consists of decided (but soft) Obama supporters and certainly Obama will win some of the truly undecided even if McCain winds up taking the lion’s share. Obama’s ceiling at 50% seems reasonable because splitting that middle group 50-50 means Obama wins by 14 in the Pew poll.
With Pew showing McCain needing 62% of that group to get tied, poll findings like these (non-state specific as they are) indicate McCain either needs to introduce a game-changer that fundamentally undermines the Obama voter commitment level or he needs to almost perfectly maximize his messaging to grab nearly everyone gettable within this group.
Keep in mind, this is before the ground organization edge and additional voter registration boost is factored in.
The distressing news for McCain in these numbers is that Obama and McCain pull an identical 82% of their respective bases and that the poll shows independents evenly split. There isn’t an obvious untapped well of voters McCain’s camp simply needs to target with its message. Any argument of “McCain just needs to reach out to X” is balanced by a corresponding “Obama just needs to shore up support with X.” Nothing is glaringly unaligned in these numbers. There are just more Democratic voters in 2008.
Historically, Pew compares the 2008 hard/soft support data to its past summer polling in presidential years:
The two most noticeable elements in Pew’s recent historical data are (1) pre-convention support for Obama in 2008 essentially equal to post-convention support for Kerry in 2004; and (2) the hard Bush support in 2000 and especially 2004 looks like the Republican outlier, as McCain’s numbers appear to revert to match the hard support inspired by previous Republican nominees.
In 2004, the Democratic convention took place July 26-29; Pew conducted its 2004 poll in August and before the Republican convention August 30-Sept 2. With a convention still in front of him that Obama hopes will inure to his benefit in terms of party unity, there’s reason for optimism that Obama will edge past Kerry’s hard/overall support numbers after the convention has passed. There is also risk – as soon as Obama picks Not Hillary Clinton as his VP, that unity gets its stiffest test since the primaries ended.
As for the second point, George W. Bush’s hard/soft support numbers remind us that McCain’s support is not the outlier at this stage of the game (he just has a proportionally much smaller base). Bush seems to be the outlier. Republicans loved him exponentially more than they have loved their other recent nominees. Inspired Republicans felt thrilled to have found a nearly perfect ideological match. Republicans worshipped that guy. Mired as we are in the great conservative walkback revisionist mythology that insists George W. Bush was “not a true conservative” and certainly “not the apotheosis of conservative evolutionary ideological perfection,” it’s inconvenient to notice that Republican base values only four short years ago tracked closely with hard support for Bush. Just look at the numbers. These days, little old ladies are banished from McCain town halls for daring to associate the nominee with the president in his own party.
In terms of base enthusiasm, what separates George W. Bush from his father, from Dole, and from McCain is that only the younger Bush was a hero to evangelicals. Evangelical Christians remain the organizing engine of the Republican Party, and they typically don’t get the credit they deserve for winning the race for Bush in 2004 (usually pundits like to frame the outcome as "John Kerry lost," despite unprecedented Democratic turnout). McCain’s current level of milquetoast support from that group is a major obstacle to him winning in an environment where Democrats are both more numerous and significantly harder in their support for Obama.
It’s awareness that these evangelicals are still the pumping heart of the Republican organizing infrastructure that motivates my belief McCain ought to seriously consider Mike Huckabee as his VP. (Nate has offered Republican VP speculation here.) Huckabee may have a few gaffes here and there, and he may be wildly out of the American mainstream for some of his views once those views reach sunlight, but I simply don’t think those views are going to capture enough voter attention nor be meaningfully damaging enough (as merely the VP) to outweigh the benefits Huckabee would bring the ticket. If McCain isn’t able to get any oxygen in the narrative (good or bad), how much scrutiny will his VP choice really get? Would a perceived base pander pick truly hurt McCain with the undecideds in a way that has any staying power?
Importantly, Huckabee has the virtue of coming across as empathetic. No matter how ungenerous his policies might actually be if and when implemented, he has a way of leaving the impression on viewers of a man who cares. He passes the likability test.
As for political skill, Huckabee seems to understand deference to the top of the ticket. He was far and away the most telegenic communicator among the Republican hopefuls during the primary (and certainly hands down the best on Nate’s list), and it’s certainly the simplest and most direct way for McCain to lock down the support and enthusiasm of that desperately-needed evangelical organizing engine. McCain’s age would probably inspire the evangelicals to view Huckabee’s heir apparent spot in line as an object in the mirror closer than it may appear. As base Republican enthusiasm for McCain would rise, the deliberate Obama effort to encroach on evangelical voter territory that has long been Republican by acclaim may find frustration.
Huckabee has plenty of drawbacks as the choice and it's easy to pick him apart as a bad choice for the ticket. The problem is, it's easy to do that with any Republican VP choice since nobody brings everything, and McCain has to pick someone.
The Newsweek poll showed that 61% to 39% of Obama’s support was hard vs. soft and that the mirror image was true for McCain. Applied to the whole electorate, the Newsweek poll showed:
27% hard support Obama
17% soft support Obama
15% totally undecided
25% soft support McCain
16% hard support McCain
Pew’s numbers are strikingly similar. From its June 2008 poll (June 18-29, 2,004 participants):
28% hard support Obama
20% soft support Obama
12% totally undecided
26% soft support McCain
14% hard support McCain
According to Pew’s findings, 58% of the electorate is undecided or soft support (potentially peel-able). To get to a 50%-50% tie with Obama, McCain would need to win 36/58ths of this group, or roughly 62%. I agree with Nate both that this is probably a Republican-shaded group on the whole, and also with his speculation that McCain’s and Obama’s respective ceilings are probably 60% and 50%. 60% for McCain in no small part because 35% of that middle group consists of decided (but soft) Obama supporters and certainly Obama will win some of the truly undecided even if McCain winds up taking the lion’s share. Obama’s ceiling at 50% seems reasonable because splitting that middle group 50-50 means Obama wins by 14 in the Pew poll.
With Pew showing McCain needing 62% of that group to get tied, poll findings like these (non-state specific as they are) indicate McCain either needs to introduce a game-changer that fundamentally undermines the Obama voter commitment level or he needs to almost perfectly maximize his messaging to grab nearly everyone gettable within this group.
Keep in mind, this is before the ground organization edge and additional voter registration boost is factored in.
The distressing news for McCain in these numbers is that Obama and McCain pull an identical 82% of their respective bases and that the poll shows independents evenly split. There isn’t an obvious untapped well of voters McCain’s camp simply needs to target with its message. Any argument of “McCain just needs to reach out to X” is balanced by a corresponding “Obama just needs to shore up support with X.” Nothing is glaringly unaligned in these numbers. There are just more Democratic voters in 2008.
Historically, Pew compares the 2008 hard/soft support data to its past summer polling in presidential years:
The two most noticeable elements in Pew’s recent historical data are (1) pre-convention support for Obama in 2008 essentially equal to post-convention support for Kerry in 2004; and (2) the hard Bush support in 2000 and especially 2004 looks like the Republican outlier, as McCain’s numbers appear to revert to match the hard support inspired by previous Republican nominees.
In 2004, the Democratic convention took place July 26-29; Pew conducted its 2004 poll in August and before the Republican convention August 30-Sept 2. With a convention still in front of him that Obama hopes will inure to his benefit in terms of party unity, there’s reason for optimism that Obama will edge past Kerry’s hard/overall support numbers after the convention has passed. There is also risk – as soon as Obama picks Not Hillary Clinton as his VP, that unity gets its stiffest test since the primaries ended.
As for the second point, George W. Bush’s hard/soft support numbers remind us that McCain’s support is not the outlier at this stage of the game (he just has a proportionally much smaller base). Bush seems to be the outlier. Republicans loved him exponentially more than they have loved their other recent nominees. Inspired Republicans felt thrilled to have found a nearly perfect ideological match. Republicans worshipped that guy. Mired as we are in the great conservative walkback revisionist mythology that insists George W. Bush was “not a true conservative” and certainly “not the apotheosis of conservative evolutionary ideological perfection,” it’s inconvenient to notice that Republican base values only four short years ago tracked closely with hard support for Bush. Just look at the numbers. These days, little old ladies are banished from McCain town halls for daring to associate the nominee with the president in his own party.
In terms of base enthusiasm, what separates George W. Bush from his father, from Dole, and from McCain is that only the younger Bush was a hero to evangelicals. Evangelical Christians remain the organizing engine of the Republican Party, and they typically don’t get the credit they deserve for winning the race for Bush in 2004 (usually pundits like to frame the outcome as "John Kerry lost," despite unprecedented Democratic turnout). McCain’s current level of milquetoast support from that group is a major obstacle to him winning in an environment where Democrats are both more numerous and significantly harder in their support for Obama.
It’s awareness that these evangelicals are still the pumping heart of the Republican organizing infrastructure that motivates my belief McCain ought to seriously consider Mike Huckabee as his VP. (Nate has offered Republican VP speculation here.) Huckabee may have a few gaffes here and there, and he may be wildly out of the American mainstream for some of his views once those views reach sunlight, but I simply don’t think those views are going to capture enough voter attention nor be meaningfully damaging enough (as merely the VP) to outweigh the benefits Huckabee would bring the ticket. If McCain isn’t able to get any oxygen in the narrative (good or bad), how much scrutiny will his VP choice really get? Would a perceived base pander pick truly hurt McCain with the undecideds in a way that has any staying power?
Importantly, Huckabee has the virtue of coming across as empathetic. No matter how ungenerous his policies might actually be if and when implemented, he has a way of leaving the impression on viewers of a man who cares. He passes the likability test.
As for political skill, Huckabee seems to understand deference to the top of the ticket. He was far and away the most telegenic communicator among the Republican hopefuls during the primary (and certainly hands down the best on Nate’s list), and it’s certainly the simplest and most direct way for McCain to lock down the support and enthusiasm of that desperately-needed evangelical organizing engine. McCain’s age would probably inspire the evangelicals to view Huckabee’s heir apparent spot in line as an object in the mirror closer than it may appear. As base Republican enthusiasm for McCain would rise, the deliberate Obama effort to encroach on evangelical voter territory that has long been Republican by acclaim may find frustration.
Huckabee has plenty of drawbacks as the choice and it's easy to pick him apart as a bad choice for the ticket. The problem is, it's easy to do that with any Republican VP choice since nobody brings everything, and McCain has to pick someone.
Equal Time
@ 11:30 AM
Dan Riehl of Riehl World View, whom I directed some criticism at the other night over the New Yorker cover faux-controversy, writes in.
Here's from my original post:
Certainly, the right is not without blame. Fox News was responsible for the madrassa smear, the "terrorist fist jab", and the original and widely-distributed Muslim smear e-mail has been traced back to a RedState poster.
Still, there is no site more virulently and violently anti-Obama than the ostensibly left-leaning No Quarter, which bore responsibility for spreading the "whitey" smear" and on a daily basis accuses Obama of things ranging from faking his birth certificate to encouraging pedophiles through his "Kids for Obama" website.
Moreover, there is reason to believe that the "whitey" smear may have been propagated by pro-Clinton forces that went beyond Johnson. This is from a post I drafted about a month ago and never went live with, but which seems topical now.
Here, I suppose, is the thing. There are all sorts of reasons to be opposed to Barack Obama's candidacy. Most of them are perfectly legitimate -- you think he'll raise your taxes, you want to keep in the troops in Iraq, you think he's too young and inexperienced to handle a crisis, etc. A small minority of them aren't as legitimate: you don't like black people. You think he's part of a Muslim sleeper cell.
If you take your typical Republican, they'll have lots of these legitimate reasons for opposing Obama's candidacy. They might have some illegitimate ones too, but the basic disagreements with the Democrats on economic and foreign policy would suffice to preclude from voting for Obama. That doesn't mean there might not be some strategic benefit to their spreading smears about Obama (see Dan's warning about expecting such things in the fall), but of the Republicans who oppose Obama, I'd assume that relatively few of them do so for such reasons.
On the other hand, if you're a Democrat, that takes a whole lot of the legitimate reasons for opposing Obama off the table -- particularly as his views were in alignment with those of his leading opponent, Hillary Clinton, on about 98 percent of issues. So most of the criticisms necessarily go to character, some of which are reasonable enough ("he's too arrogant") and some of which are not ("he's a black dude").
Put differently, if you oppose Obama, it becomes much more likely that you do so for reasons related to his race, or because you believe one of the smears about his character, if we also learn that you're a Democrat. Of course, there are many fewer Democrats who oppose Obama than Republicans. But I would guess that racism, hatred and stupidity are pretty evenly divided across the political spectrum.
Here's from my original post:
Hence, the irony of the cover art. (The right's favorite punchline about the cover seems to be, "all humor has it's basis in reality" [sic]. To which I'd ask: what part has the basis in reality? The terrorist part or the terrorist part?)Here is the passage I quoted from Dan in fuller context:
"Oh, and lest someone else forget to point it out ... all humor has its basis in reality. Evidently the article doesn't, as it suggests the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has been painting Obama to fit the cover. Since when has Hillary been considered part of that?"Here is Dan (over e-mail):
I don't believe Obama is a "terrorist." If you read the reality portion of my post, it's in the graph with Hillary. In other words, yes, some have tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, potentially even a terrorist sympathizer - making the satire on mark. But much of that came from Hillary and Co. not the right. Though I'd expect it in the Fall when it matters. Hopefully a careful reading will make that more clear, though perhaps not. Best -- DanYou can determine for yourself whether I mischaracterized Dan's original argument, but I'm actually very much in agreement with the argument as he clarified it in his e-mail. An awful lot of the most vicious anti-Obama smears have in fact come from the disillusioned left. Probably not "most of" -- but as Dan says, "much of".
Certainly, the right is not without blame. Fox News was responsible for the madrassa smear, the "terrorist fist jab", and the original and widely-distributed Muslim smear e-mail has been traced back to a RedState poster.
Still, there is no site more virulently and violently anti-Obama than the ostensibly left-leaning No Quarter, which bore responsibility for spreading the "whitey" smear" and on a daily basis accuses Obama of things ranging from faking his birth certificate to encouraging pedophiles through his "Kids for Obama" website.
Moreover, there is reason to believe that the "whitey" smear may have been propagated by pro-Clinton forces that went beyond Johnson. This is from a post I drafted about a month ago and never went live with, but which seems topical now.
There are no people who have to have seen the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape.I might also add that county chairs in the Clinton campaign were caught distributing the Muslim smear e-mail.
Furthermore, there are no people who claim to have spoken with anybody who has seen the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape.
This is because the tape does not exist.
There are three people who claim to have spoken with people who have spoken with people who have seen the tape. Those people are Larry C. Johnson, Bob Beckel, and Roger Stone.
What do these people have in common?
Larry C. Johnson is a Clinton -- let's call him a Clinton enthusiast.
Bob Beckel is a Democratic strategist.
So we have two Democrats. The oddball was always Roger Stone, who is a Republican dirty tricks maestro.
Except that today, in a video posted at Barack Obama's smear-fighting website, we see that Beckel told Sean Hannity that his source was someone in the Clinton campaign:Because I have heard this from people who are not mid-level in the Clinton campaign, not at the lower level -- I've heard this from people who have a lot of credibility, to me, as serious people.I am not suggesting that this was any sort of organized effort on the Clinton campaign's behalf. For one thing, many of the people involved may be capable of lying. For another, part of the Clinton campaign's problem was a lack of coordination, so we would probably be talking more a lone wolf sort of scenario where something went off and did something stupid without approval. But it does seem plausible to me that someone with some measure of authority in the campaign was inventing, and disseminating, these rumors.
If you want to get into circumstantial evidence, the timing of the rumors, coming at the very end of the primary process when Clinton's prospects for the nomination were slim and her campaign was desperate, would certainly seem to be more fortuitous for Clinton than the for the GOP. Her main objective at that point was to find some way to freeze the superdelegates and extend her clock, and this is the sort of thing that might have done it.
It would also make sense in terms of the degrees of separation involved. Nobody on the Clinton campaign can claim to have had access to the tape, because then the question would be why weren't they using it. But they can claim to have spoken with people who have access to the tape, and claim that those people were Republicans who were waiting to use it as an October Surprise. Why a Republican who was in possession of the tape would tell a high-level operative in the Clinton campaign about it, I don't know -- this would certainly seem to ruin the 'surprise' element -- but it provides some cover for plausible deniability.
Finally, the Clinton campaign was accused of this precise kind of behavior before -- not spreading a rumor, but spreading a rumor about a rumor -- back in November through the vehicle of Bob Novak.
Here, I suppose, is the thing. There are all sorts of reasons to be opposed to Barack Obama's candidacy. Most of them are perfectly legitimate -- you think he'll raise your taxes, you want to keep in the troops in Iraq, you think he's too young and inexperienced to handle a crisis, etc. A small minority of them aren't as legitimate: you don't like black people. You think he's part of a Muslim sleeper cell.
If you take your typical Republican, they'll have lots of these legitimate reasons for opposing Obama's candidacy. They might have some illegitimate ones too, but the basic disagreements with the Democrats on economic and foreign policy would suffice to preclude from voting for Obama. That doesn't mean there might not be some strategic benefit to their spreading smears about Obama (see Dan's warning about expecting such things in the fall), but of the Republicans who oppose Obama, I'd assume that relatively few of them do so for such reasons.
On the other hand, if you're a Democrat, that takes a whole lot of the legitimate reasons for opposing Obama off the table -- particularly as his views were in alignment with those of his leading opponent, Hillary Clinton, on about 98 percent of issues. So most of the criticisms necessarily go to character, some of which are reasonable enough ("he's too arrogant") and some of which are not ("he's a black dude").
Put differently, if you oppose Obama, it becomes much more likely that you do so for reasons related to his race, or because you believe one of the smears about his character, if we also learn that you're a Democrat. Of course, there are many fewer Democrats who oppose Obama than Republicans. But I would guess that racism, hatred and stupidity are pretty evenly divided across the political spectrum.
Shock and Awe, Paid Organizer Version
@ 12:50 AM
Amid on the ground reports that McCain is outspending Obama on the air at least 2-1 in places like Missouri, we learn that Obama’s team is betting on a different strategy – overwhelming ground organization early and often.
In Missouri, Obama will have 150 paid organizers and maintain a 12-1 paid organizer edge in my native state. Show-me, indeed. In Michigan, Obama will put an unprecedented 150 field organizers on the ground. In Ohio, why not go for 300 field organizers? That sounds like a nice, absurdly large, round number.
This is the campaign equivalent of invasion with overwhelming force. In the coming days, we should be hearing more reports like these from other battlegrounds (here's Iowa, for example), giving us a clearer and clearer picture of each campaign’s voter contact strategy. Already, however, Marc Ambinder has pointed out that:
Consider for a moment an oft-discussed example that directly relates to ground organizing – the burgeoning power of the Latino vote. High-information voters like you and I read stories about Obama or McCain each speaking to this or that Latino group, each man arguing why he is the better candidate to implement policies that will improve quality of life for Latinos. But which campaign is more likely to do the actual on-ground registration and one-to-one voter contact in places Latinos live, such as Nevada?
Whatever the ultimate election outcome, it’s clear the Obama campaign believes it knows what it’s doing and a wise investment of resources when it sees one. An “almost preternatural self-confidence about their strategy” is how Ambinder describes it.
And it makes sense; Obama’s team has been vindicated after undergoing months of second-guessing previously during this campaign. In the months before Iowa, outsiders and even supporters were questioning the campaign’s strategy in view of the consistent polling showing Obama lagging behind “where he should be.” Obama’s team remained confident that those polls were Charmin-soft and Obama himself trusted his sense of meeting the moment, that the Democratic electorate was so hungry to turn the page that it would even turn the page on its biggest brand name.
Yet without the deep, well-planned and executed advance work, without having recruited and built the best on-ground political organizations in the key early states, this confidence would have been a false front. Obama likes to say he "made a bet" on the American people by entering the primary despite doing so as a conventional-wisdom prohibitive underdog, now he is making another bet, that the summer's silly season mini-narratives will be washed away in convention and debate drama, and that chance will favor the better organized in the end.
In Missouri, Obama will have 150 paid organizers and maintain a 12-1 paid organizer edge in my native state. Show-me, indeed. In Michigan, Obama will put an unprecedented 150 field organizers on the ground. In Ohio, why not go for 300 field organizers? That sounds like a nice, absurdly large, round number.
This is the campaign equivalent of invasion with overwhelming force. In the coming days, we should be hearing more reports like these from other battlegrounds (here's Iowa, for example), giving us a clearer and clearer picture of each campaign’s voter contact strategy. Already, however, Marc Ambinder has pointed out that:
The polls don't account for the force multiplier effect that Obama's campaign will almost certainly bring to bear with its millions of volunteers and thousands of paid staffers. Whether that effect is 1.01, 1.05 or even 1.3 -- we don't know yet. But even the McCain campaign acknowledges its existence.Those paid organizers are each recruiting underneath them volunteers and precinct captains (themselves responsible for recruitment and management of volunteers). As I’ve said before, it’s a pyramid scheme aimed at massive voter-to-voter contact. Millions and millions and millions of voter contacts, all knocked out 5, 10, 50 at a time by volunteers. The info gleaned from the contacts is re-looped into the voter file, and repeat contacts are thereby more informed (undecideds can be persuaded; supporters can be urged to early vote; banked early votes allow campaigns to use resources more efficiently in the closing days, etc.). The principle is: voters persuade other voters more personally and powerfully than a 30-second TV ad. Ads give impressions; real people close the sale.
Consider for a moment an oft-discussed example that directly relates to ground organizing – the burgeoning power of the Latino vote. High-information voters like you and I read stories about Obama or McCain each speaking to this or that Latino group, each man arguing why he is the better candidate to implement policies that will improve quality of life for Latinos. But which campaign is more likely to do the actual on-ground registration and one-to-one voter contact in places Latinos live, such as Nevada?
Whatever the ultimate election outcome, it’s clear the Obama campaign believes it knows what it’s doing and a wise investment of resources when it sees one. An “almost preternatural self-confidence about their strategy” is how Ambinder describes it.
And it makes sense; Obama’s team has been vindicated after undergoing months of second-guessing previously during this campaign. In the months before Iowa, outsiders and even supporters were questioning the campaign’s strategy in view of the consistent polling showing Obama lagging behind “where he should be.” Obama’s team remained confident that those polls were Charmin-soft and Obama himself trusted his sense of meeting the moment, that the Democratic electorate was so hungry to turn the page that it would even turn the page on its biggest brand name.
Yet without the deep, well-planned and executed advance work, without having recruited and built the best on-ground political organizations in the key early states, this confidence would have been a false front. Obama likes to say he "made a bet" on the American people by entering the primary despite doing so as a conventional-wisdom prohibitive underdog, now he is making another bet, that the summer's silly season mini-narratives will be washed away in convention and debate drama, and that chance will favor the better organized in the end.
7.14.2008
Today's Polls, 7/14
@ 3:25 PM
So, because my hotel didn't have my room ready yet once I got in from LGA -- and because I really needed a haircut -- I decided to get a haircut. Having chosen the marginally swankier Korean-run salon over the Italian barber shop, I was treated to a bottled water and .... a hot-off-the-presses copy of the New Yorker. If you're in search of some karmatic equity, however, the Gray's Papaya down the block had a huge Barack Obama sign taking up about half its window space.
In Michigan, Rasmussen has Barack Obama moving into an 8-point lead. Obama had led by 3 points in Rasmussen's June poll, although other pollsters had shown numbers closer to the 8-point lead that Rasmussen found today.It does not surprise me that Obama had a little bit of oopmh in his Michigan numbers, even if his performance elsewhere has been tepid. The fact that Obama did not campiagn there -- and had no field offices set up, etc. -- while McCain had done so fairly vigorously, was surely affecting the numbers. But we're now far enough removed from that period that the state is regressing back to its underlying demographic reality, and particularly its high unemployment rate.
Michigan may be moving further from the Ohio end of the spectrum and closer to the Pennsylvania end of the spectrum. That's a very important development because there are quite a few ways that Obama could win the White House while losing Ohio only, but many fewer if both Ohio and Michigan were lost. Of note: we now attribute Obama with about a 4.5 percent chance of winning the election while having lost the popular vote.
McCain has improved his standing in two other states, however. In Louisiana, Rasmussen now has him with a 19-point lead, up from 9 points in late May. Although it's a little difficult to tell what's going on the the South (polls in states like Alabama have recently moved toward Obama), it is fair to classify Louisiana as "safe McCain".
And here in New York, Siena has a new poll showing Obama with a 13-point lead; he had led by 18 points in June. What's interesting is that there was no real deterioration in Obama's favorability numbers in the state, whereas McCain's improved a good bit.
In Michigan, Rasmussen has Barack Obama moving into an 8-point lead. Obama had led by 3 points in Rasmussen's June poll, although other pollsters had shown numbers closer to the 8-point lead that Rasmussen found today.It does not surprise me that Obama had a little bit of oopmh in his Michigan numbers, even if his performance elsewhere has been tepid. The fact that Obama did not campiagn there -- and had no field offices set up, etc. -- while McCain had done so fairly vigorously, was surely affecting the numbers. But we're now far enough removed from that period that the state is regressing back to its underlying demographic reality, and particularly its high unemployment rate.
Michigan may be moving further from the Ohio end of the spectrum and closer to the Pennsylvania end of the spectrum. That's a very important development because there are quite a few ways that Obama could win the White House while losing Ohio only, but many fewer if both Ohio and Michigan were lost. Of note: we now attribute Obama with about a 4.5 percent chance of winning the election while having lost the popular vote.
McCain has improved his standing in two other states, however. In Louisiana, Rasmussen now has him with a 19-point lead, up from 9 points in late May. Although it's a little difficult to tell what's going on the the South (polls in states like Alabama have recently moved toward Obama), it is fair to classify Louisiana as "safe McCain".
And here in New York, Siena has a new poll showing Obama with a 13-point lead; he had led by 18 points in June. What's interesting is that there was no real deterioration in Obama's favorability numbers in the state, whereas McCain's improved a good bit.
Travel Delays / Open Thread
@ 10:35 AM
The posting schedule is going to be a little erratic over then next week as I do a bit of travel to NYC and Austin (I'm presently 30,000 feet above a swing state!). We will hopefully have at least the polling thread going up each day, but it may come at erratic times. Thank you for your patience, and consider this as an open thread.
When Memes Collide
@ 2:35 AM
The cover is brilliant. But I read the New Yorker for the articles.
Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word epic by no means paints the most flattering picture of Barack Obama. His Obama is remarkably intelligent and very level-headed, but also understands every lever of power, and is ambitious to the point of being ruthless.
Well, no shit he's ambitious. For any American to go from a relatively unprivileged childhood (or a privileged one for that matter) to be on the doorstep of the Preisdency by the time he's age 46 requires a perfect storm of luck, intelligence, and ambition. Obama has ample amounts of each.
But the article is more remarkable for revealing what Obama is not.
One, he's not some Pierre Trudeau type of academic. Obama became interested in politics very early, and seemed to have some keen understanding of his upside potential. The sometimes languid pace of academia was not really compatible with that.
Two, Obama was not corrupt. He knew how to navigate the rules of the system. But he didn't cheat the system. Obama succeeded, for instance, in disqualifying Alice Palmer from the ballot in the Illinois State Senate because she faked hundreds of signatures to get her name on it, and then Obama called her out. That's maybe not the most mannerly, tea-and-crumpets way of doing things. But Obama didn't cheat. Palmer had cheated. What Obama did was to exploit some of the inefficiencies of the Chicago machine system. Tony Rezko donates, though legal channels, a bunch of money because he expects you to behave like a typical machine politician and do him illegal favors? What to do? Well, you take his money. And then you don't do him the favors.
Third, Obama is not any kind of radical, and particularly not any kind of radical black nationalist. His associations with people like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers may have arisen out of a certain amount of political convenience; they were significant players in the South Side political scene. But there is no evidence that he shared many of their political ideas. Hyde Park is not some liberal enclave in the way that Berkley or Boulder is. It is, rather, a place where people are very tolerant of different ideas. Liberal and even radical ideas, but notably also, conservative ones (where do Leon Kass and John Mearsheimer teach -- and where did Milton Friedman?). Hyde Park prides itself on being a laboratory of free thought and free speech, and so these people can lead a relatively happy coexistence there. But their views do not represent the consensus, and there is certainly no evidence that they represented Obama's.
And moving out of Hyde Park into the South Side community at large, Obama enjoyed relatively chilly relations with many of the district's more predictably left-liberal black politicians. Obama isn't a Black Panther. But Bobby Rush was. Obama tried to primary him out of Congress.
And so while some on the right (and others, less coherently, on the loopy left) will try and excoriate Obama for the political equivalent of not helping old ladies to cross the street, a lot of their favorite narratives about Obama are blown up by this article. Hence, the irony of the cover art. (The right's favorite punchline about the cover seems to be, "all humor has it's basis in reality" [sic]. To which I'd ask: what part has the basis in reality? The terrorist part or the terrorist part?)
That does not mean that the Obama that emerges from Lizza's piece is particularly warm and cuddly. He is certainly a very political creature, and there is something a little steely and postmodern about it all. But it is also not clear that Obama is playing some kind of angle. He seems, rather, to hold a lot of fairly mainstream, somewhat empirically-driven views -- still an idealist in certain ways, but not highly ideological. The White House may represent to him some sort of final step in his self-actualization, but he's not going there to get a blow job, or to play out some sort of Oedipal complex. It's all actually sort of ... boring.
EDIT: Here's the other important thing to understand about the cover. It's certainly provocative. But it's not scary. On the contrary, it takes a scary idea, and makes it nonscary -- literally cartoonish. If the drawing of the Obamas had been a little more photorealistic, then you might have the sort of thing that would lie dormant in people's subconsciousnesses and potentially do some damage. But it isn't.
7.13.2008
Today's Polls, 7/13
@ 2:21 PM
Just a quick note to let you know that the site has been updated to reflect today's national tracking polls. There's nothing at all on the state side today.
Obama lost another point in both Rasmussen (bringing the race to a true dead heat) and Gallup (where he retains a 3-point advantage). It's still not yet enough to convince our model that anything serious is going on. Part of what's going on here, by the way, is that we've really had very light polling volume over the past week or so -- the whole notion that Obama's numbers are tanking is really just based on two surveys (Newsweek and the Rasmussen tracker). We should know more soon enough.
Obama lost another point in both Rasmussen (bringing the race to a true dead heat) and Gallup (where he retains a 3-point advantage). It's still not yet enough to convince our model that anything serious is going on. Part of what's going on here, by the way, is that we've really had very light polling volume over the past week or so -- the whole notion that Obama's numbers are tanking is really just based on two surveys (Newsweek and the Rasmussen tracker). We should know more soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
