情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-12T23:01:00.000-05:00

People are saying that McCain can kill Obama's bou...

2008-07-04T17:40:09.949-04:00

People are saying that McCain can kill Obama's bounce after the Democratic Convention by waiting until after that to name his choice for VP. McCain's birthday falls right in there, and I wonder how that will impact things, and if you believe it will hurt McCain in that time period? Being over sixty myself, I know that my mental acuity is definitely reduced from where it was even ten years ago. I have been watching McCain's fumbles and stumbles and I think that might be a major problem for him IF the media pay any attention to his birthday. They have refused to focus on his fumbles and stumbles so far, and will possibly continue in that vein.

Also, since McCain is breaking the law daily on public funding (since he is technically still in the primary mode until after his nomination at the Republican Convention) while carrying on over Obama's refusal to go with public financing, do you think the media will ever wake up and point that out, or will it be another of those things that are totally ignored and that McCain will get a free pass on it?

Thanks.

There is an argument for campaigning in Georgia an...

2008-07-04T17:09:24.221-04:00

There is an argument for campaigning in Georgia and a few other States that Obama will, nevertheless, likely lose, and that argument rests on the strategic effect on McCain's messaging.

Georgia, in particular, is a State, where McCain's efforts to look centrist elsewhere in the country, will alienate Republican voters. The Barr candidacy increases the opportunity to leverage this effect.

McCain can be forced to choose between reiterating a conservative message that alienates people in, say, Ohio, or moving to the center and losing Georgia to the dissatisfaction of Republican conservatives.

The fact that the South votes Republican is not a ...

2008-07-03T14:24:13.144-04:00

The fact that the South votes Republican is not a case of "GOP's deliberate embrace of racism" as was stated above. Southerners vote Republican because the GOP embodies their moral values, gun rights, and way of life. City Democrats still think the South is a racist, seperatist nation run by the KKK. This is not at all the case.

I am sorry, Nate, but you must either "plateau" or...

2008-07-02T17:39:39.145-04:00

I am sorry, Nate, but you must either "plateau" or you must "peak". They are mutually exclusive. I think he has peaked, based on his failure to move in the Rasmussen survey and the narrowing trend in the Gallup.

I am beigning to like the polls of registered as opposed to likely voters as they seem less susceptible to pollster bias and give us a better sense of the acutal political mood of the country.

The news cycle had itself stalled over the past two weeks with the focus on Obama's clinching and his moves toward unitfying the party.

Now we seem enmeshed in a new cycle brought on by left wing angst over Obama's so-called moved toward the center (abandoment of priciples?). This is coupled with the club-footed behavior of Gen. Clark and the Obama campaign vis-a-vis McCain's war service and the degree to which it qualifies him to be President.

Obama does not want a debate on expereince and while he is trying to burnish his own patriotic patina he does not want to be associated with an attack on a honored and decorated serviceman who happens to be his opponent.

McCain curiosly choose to be in latin America this week, further evidence of a campaign that does not seem to want to do itself any favors, but net, net a good week for him.

Expect him to bounce in the national polls and see further erosion of Obama support in the purple states.

Kublaa000 and Frank: I agree with almost all your ...

2008-07-02T10:16:42.724-04:00

Kublaa000 and Frank: I agree with almost all your points, except one. No attack is ever presented to the people as "unprovoked". A series of minor and/or fictitious outrages and insults can be and always is invented first.
Perhaps the enormous effects on the price of oil will keep the Bush administration from doing this. However, that restraint is much more likely if Obama and friends are out making the case soon. If the R's calculation is that Obama will cave, then a carefully timed 'limited' war could be a winner for McCain. (Sorry for this whole side issue, just got going from Kubla's scenarios.)

I have been checking the polls from Florida. I am ...

2008-07-02T07:12:47.682-04:00

I have been checking the polls from Florida. I am beginning to suspect bias.

The Rasmussen (June 26) skews the 1’st question “How do you rate the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?”

Few people wish to give the top or bottom mark to a question, so the range of possible answers counts. In this case there are 3 positive answer (Excellent, good, fair) and only one negative (poor). The result is an unbelievable 51% rating of fair or better. 48% gave the answer poor. One can only speculate what would have happened if the answers had included very poor & dreadful.

That Rasmussen knows how to ask an unbiased question is shown in question 3 “I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.” Here you see a matching of negative to positive answers.

Now we come to the drilling question “John McCain favors drilling in offshore oil wells to help reduce the price of gas. Barack Obama opposes offshore oil wells and says it would not reduce the price of gas. Should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?”

First drilling is presented as an Economic question, avoiding the environmental arguments. This is against the most basic rule of polling - Not to ask leading questions. But it gets worse. It refers to “gas”. No mention of crude oil. The Strategic Vision poll (06/27 - 06/29) asks the question much the same way “Do you favor or oppose increased exploration and drilling of natural gas off the shores of Florida?”

There has never been a case of beaches ruined by an accidental spill of natural gas, but crude oil is a very different matter. Is there a proposal from ether candidate to drill for offshore natural gas but keep the ban for crude oil? Alternately is there convincing evidence that there is no crude oil to drill? If not then these questions are nothing less than fraud.

I can only believe that these polls have been paid for by Big Oil or Republican interests with the hope of convincing the uneducated (ok I was fooled too) that Floridians favour drilling in general. No doubt the word “gas” will be misapplied so that it appears to be an alternative to “petrol”.

Rasmussen & Strategic Vision…. Shame on you.

Entirely off topic but this whole Wes Clark manufa...

2008-07-02T06:20:34.267-04:00

Entirely off topic but this whole Wes Clark manufactured spat has really got me incensed. Now I'll be the first to admit that Clark was stupid for phrasing his point in the way he did which made it appear as if he was being dismissive of McCain's war service. His underlying point was however entirely correct.

Now we all know that the McCain camp are feigning outrage to keep this in the news cycle as long as possible and I guess that is just politics. But they have now badly overreached by suggesting that Obama should (to use McCain's own words) cut Clark loose.

If Team McCain want to set that standard, I say fine. The Obama team need to remind everyone that McCain's leading campaign adviser, Charlie Black, said that a new terrorist attack on America would be a big advantage for McCain. This is McCain's top adviser, not some informal supporter like Clark who only recently was supporting Clinton. Yet McCain seems to think it's fine that this piece of trash should remain his top adviser. Now ask yourself which is worse. Seeing a terrorist attack that kills Americans as a political opportunity or questioning a candidate's executive experience? Yet McCain thinks Clark should be "cut loose" and Black should stay.

Obama's team need to take the gloves off and fire back hard. Not by defending Clark but by nailing McCain's hypocrisy in holding onto Black but calling for Clark's head. I find it concerning that McCain is driving the media narrative on this and the Dems need to learn the lessons of the Kerry campaign and not sit there hoping it will go away. I don't know anyone on the Obama team but if any of you do, make sure you speak with them. Never ever underestimate the ability and willingness of the Republicans to lie and scare their way back into the White House

With Obama having massive leads in the first (CA),...

2008-07-02T02:12:07.449-04:00

With Obama having massive leads in the first (CA), third (NY), and fifth (IL) largest states, don't they account for his entire 5-point national margin in the polls right now?

If so, Obama and McCain are even in the other 47-states combined.

Survey USA had Kerry down by only 3 in NC in mid-O...

2008-07-02T00:50:10.572-04:00

Survey USA had Kerry down by only 3 in NC in mid-October. I think NC is a Dem tease, much like NJ has been to Republicans.

The FL Strategic Vision poll has McCain by 8, not ...

2008-07-02T00:48:50.548-04:00

The FL Strategic Vision poll has McCain by 8, not by 6.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/SV_FL_July08.html

Some reasons I think NC will remain competitive, d...

2008-07-02T00:39:21.603-04:00

Some reasons I think NC will remain competitive, despite polling:

1. Eight populous counties control 40% of NC's votes. Obama won all of these in the primary by *wide* margins - and the Democratic primary turnout in these counties dwarfed the Republican turnout, in some cases by a factor of 3- or 4-to-1.

2. In the 2004 election, 14 counties collectively provided 50.54% of NC's votes, while the remaining 86 counties together accounted for the remaining 49.46%. In the top-voting 14 counties, Bush's margin of victory was 2.77%. In the remaining 86 counties, his margin was 9.87%, for a combined statewide win of roughly 12.64%.

Now, in 2008, it is *not at all unreasonable* to think that Obama could win those "top 14 voting counties" by 10 point margins, because those counties - given both current polling and the demographics of those counties. What seems far less likely is that McCain can carry the "remaining 86" by the 10 pts he would need to offset a strong Obama showing in the "top 14" - especially given that Obama has some strength in the Eastern parts of the state which went to Bush in '04. Even in McCain managed Bush's 10%, we're talking about a toss-up, not a 4% lead as current polling suggests. The regional breakdowns in polling have not yet been specific enough for my liking - voting in NC is very much a county-by-county business, and Obama has visited (in some cases multiple times), sent surrogates to, delivered major speeches in, and otherwise intelligently targeted the key locals that he will need to win.

3. NC has "One Stop" Early Voting with on-site registration. The Obama campaign worked this masterfully in the primary, and so has the technique down for the general. Based on their ground game with Early Voting, they came into the NC primary with enough of an early vote advantage that even if he had polled even with Clinton on election day proper, Obama still would have won by 5%. Expect to see this again in November. Obama will come into election day with a huge early vote advantage, and only a massive election day turnout for McCain (which won't materialize) would allow for an upset/close finish.

One article from Schaller and we suddenly dismiss ...

2008-07-02T00:28:40.841-04:00

One article from Schaller and we suddenly dismiss the influence of black turnout? Come on guys! Obama has said black turnout could increase by 30%, 50%, even 200% in some states (by busing Chicago voters into Iowa I'm guessing). I'm not ready to give up Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Haiti! Remember, Politico told us the Dems have those special programs in Florida and elsewhere to register ex-felons. Don't let Schaller throw you off. Blacks make up 130% of the population in many states and we just need to increase their vote share to match and we win!

I agree that in the future nc, and ga, will be mor...

2008-07-01T21:37:44.135-04:00

I agree that in the future nc, and ga, will be more in play, but i dont think it'll be as close as 2012 more like 2020 for nc, and farther down the road for ga. being from nc i know alought of people that wont vote obama, alot dont trust him, true raleigh,durham area are growing rappidly, but the outer areas are also growing and increasingly turning republican and stronger every day, so i see no real way for obama to win nc, or ga no matter how much everyone say's they are in play sure the aa vote can grow but the whites would come out agenst obama, so i'd give mccain a 80-85% chance of winning and probly higher as the election get's closer.

As a response to Alex, I believe Southern Media & ...

2008-07-01T20:37:57.650-04:00

As a response to Alex, I believe Southern Media & Opinion Research should be an Enterprize, and be renamed S'MORE.

Although I doubt Nate reads this far down into the comments, this is another request to have the large spike scenerios listed.

And as for campaigning in Georgia, here is one thing that was only touched on briefly in one other comment. Being a black man campaigning for president in Atlanta, New Orleans, or Birmingham you would be treated like a rock star. Candidates rarely get to campaign in their home state where their roots are. Although his roots are not in the South, Obama has made a concerted effort to inherit the modern black history. There are only so many stops you can make in PA, OH, or IN, and it might be refreshing to see such support. Additionally, the GOTV efforts will be much more fruitful if Obama makes it clear he is campaigning everywhere.

Finally, I do realize that running for president is and should be a difficult task, but it could also be enjoyable. Make that trip to Alaska. Go fishing. Go hiking in Colorado. Watch an Atlanta Hawks game with Shirley Franklin (first black female mayor in the South, and rising Dem star). Sometimes during the primary Barack looked tired. Tired people don't get those extra undecided votes, and changing some of the campaign stops to out of the ordinary places may have a larger than expected to effect.

Nate you have some real problems reading polls, yo...

2008-07-01T19:28:08.835-04:00

Nate you have some real problems reading polls, you focus on the top lines but do not dig down deep and look at the cross tabs. Case in point NC. You keep saying Obama has consistently been 2 to 5 pts behind McCain. Here's the rub McCain has consistently been at 45% in NC. Why is that important Nate? Becuase if you look at the cross tabs McCain does not have much room for growth in the state other than the numbers he now has. Most of the undecideds in PPPs poll were either Dems (9%) or Indies (14%). Obama is winning both groups in PPPs poll, so it stands to reason that he will gain most of these undecided voters come election day. Next Nate look at PPPs cross tabs for AAs. PPP has them as only 21% of the electorate but most observers see AAs as closer to 25% of the electorate. Even more important PPP has McCain/Bar winning 23% of AAs; that does not jive with Quin's polls (with much larger subsample sizes of AAs and hence lower MOE) showing Obama winning close to 90% of AAs. Flip those numbers and what do you have Nate? A consistent OBAMA LEAD in NC! Please stop reading just the top lines Nates and look more closely at the interior numbers they speak volumes.

Some thoughts on the "War in Iran" scenario:Firstl...

2008-07-01T18:24:08.239-04:00

Some thoughts on the "War in Iran" scenario:

Firstly, I don't see any international backup for a US war on Iran. Of those allies that have (at least initially) supported the Iraq war, I am pretty sure that Spain, Australia and Poland, with new governments elected in the meantime, will not join a war against Iran. I also think that the UK government, whith elections coming up in 2009, and the Iraq war being highly unpopular, will try all it can to talk the US out of such an adventure, and/or try to stay itself away from it. Berlusconi may become tempted to sideline with the USA, but he knows that this would drive millions of Italians to the streets, so he will probably as well keep low profile. Turkey has enough security problems with Kurdish North-Iraq, and is definitely not interested in more trouble along its southern border. China and Russia will clearly not be happy, and the Saudis are probably also not interested in having their domestic Islamists fuelled up further. That leaves Bush with the likes of Denmark and Bulgaria as possible allies, if at all.

Now, if you have a look at the current UN secdurity council (http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp), you can be sure that Lybia and Viet Nam will try to outpace each other to bring any attack on Iran there, and my guess is for something like a 11 - 1 (3 abstaining) resulution condemning such an attack (Italy, Panama and the UK abstaining, the US vetoing). This would make a pretty good press for any Democrats going against the war.

Next, you get a little logistic problem: While Germany opposed the war on Iraq, it nevertheless allowed (and is still allowing) the USAF to use their air bases in Germany for the war, which is logitically crucial. Now, we have elections coming up in Germany in 2009, and the CDU is still remembering pretty well that the main reason they lost the 2002 election was Schroeder's strong opposition against the war in Iraq, while the CDU created the impression they might join the USA there. So you can be pretty sure that the German government will tacitly but nevertheless clearly be asking the USA to make sure they don't use German bases for any kind of intervention in Iran. Spain, Turkey, Usbekistan and Saudi Arabia will probably do the same, which leaves the USA with Italy, Israel, Iraq and (arguably) Pakistan as logistic hubs. This will probably not be sufficient for managing larger attacks, in particular since bases in Iraq will be under constant threat of terrorist attacks and tie up substantial US forces. If Iraq has already been a military failure, imagine what an attack on Iran, under these conditions, would be!

The next question mark is, how major actors on the financial markets will react. The USA are running huge budget and trade deficits, which are primarily financed by China, and oil exporting countries (Gulf states, Russia). If those countries decide they don't like an attack on Iran at all - which is not unlikely - they may just shift their foreign currency reserves into the Euro (or, in the case of China, just release the Yüan's pegging to the USD and have it become a major world currency in itself). This will mean some financial loss for these countries (in the case of China also a loss in international competitiveness), but the loss for the USA would be much larger. You would probably within a few weeks have the USD going down to 40 Euro-cents, the price of oil more than doubling on a USD-base (while remaining relatively stable on a Euro base), and interest rates in the USA sky-rocketing to above 10%, as the budget deficit needs to be financed domestically, instead of by the Chinese and Gulf countries. Not a scenario that looks like an election-winner for the Republicans.

In short: An unjustified attack on Iran, which is only carried out for domestic / electional reasons, would be political and economic suicide for the Republicans, and for the USA as a whole. Let's hope that there is some brain left with the Bush government to realise this, if they ever seriously thought about winning the elections by starting war with Iran.

... there's also the Obama-does-really-well-but-no...

2008-07-01T18:13:20.729-04:00

... there's also the Obama-does-really-well-but-not-quite-a-landslide game where the goal is to get 375 EV's. In that game IN, VA, NV, FL, NC & MO are the states to fight over. That game is a lot more winnable than the 'landslide' game.

Reasons for competing in NC and GA besides winning...

2008-07-01T18:04:31.689-04:00

Reasons for competing in NC and GA besides winning:

1)The "force McCain to spend money in previously safe states" argument someone mentioned above , to which I would add that Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, and Greensboro/Winston-Salem are not exactly the
cheapest media markets in the country (all four are top 35 or so markets size wise, so McCain will have to spend a decent sum there).

2) The long-term party success factor - if Dems want to turn NC and GA into the next VA by 2012 or 2016, spending time and money there now is a great first step. Even if Obama lost NC by 7, it
Would be less than half the margin in the 2004 Presidential election in NC , and a 3 or 4 point loss would really get people's attention. Perceptions of a state based on that state's electoral competitiveness have far-reaching implications - ask any of us who have to defend our "red" home states constantly to friends and coworkers.

3) Minimizing popular vote losses in large states like NC and GA could help in the event of another Florida 2000 crisis or a 269-269 nightmare scenario, in both of which you want to have the popular vote on your side, and any additional margin you can claim helps your argument (e.g. - even if a court or other body rules in your favor, having a popular vote margin helps legitimize your win . Writing off big states like NC and GA would give McCain two more places to make up for Obama's popular vote landslides in NY, CA, etc. with
Landslides of his own.

4) This is less of a realpolitik argument, but Obama recognizes his unique place in history as the first black nominee. I think he and his campaign would feel like they were ignoring that place in history, to some extent, if they didn't try to compete in the Southeast's more purple states. Not only do NC and GA have large black populations now, but they make up a huge part of the black American experience - in both the obvious negative ways, and in many positive ways (think of the tradition-rich historically black colleges and universities, the institution of the Southern black church that created leaders like MLK, and the roots of almost all American music, etc.) Obama has a deep appreciation for that history, and he also understands how big of a change it represents just for him to be out there campaigning as a black candidate for President in former confederate states. I don't think Obama would have it any other way, even if McCain's lead builds in late summer NC and GA polls.

WINNERS AND LOSERSI like to keep track of Nate's s...

2008-07-01T18:03:10.221-04:00

WINNERS AND LOSERS

I like to keep track of Nate's state-by-state Win %. Sometimes you see some interesting trends. For example, lets compare today's numbers to Sunday's:

IN is 14 pts more likely to go Obama (41% to 55%). Counsellor Ben noted the big spike at 304 EV's. Sunday the big spike was at 293 (same states minus IN). Why should IN go up so much when the last new poll came out 6/22?

LA is 19 pts less likely to go Obama (28% to 9%). I suppose the last poll, showing him down 16 pts, devastated his chances.

MO is 10 pts down from the Obama perspective (42% to 32%). The last poll there was om 6/21. Two days ago, MO was more likely to turn blue than IN. Now it's not even close.

GA is six pts redder than it was on Sunday(22% to 16%). The latest polls weren't good for Obama. Why are we even talking about trying to turn GA blue? If Obama carries GA, and all the states where he has a better chance of winning than he has in GA, he'll get 436 EV's.

Is it worth it to try and get 436 EV's when 270 is sufficient? The way I see it, there are two 'games' going on at once. One is the win-the-election game where PA, OR, MI, OH, CO & NM are the focus. The other 'game' is see-if-Obama-can-get-a-landslide. That game focuses on the Dakotas, Alaska, Texas & Montana (as well as Georgia).

I suppose both games matter. It will be awsome if Obama wins the election. It will be more awesome if he gets a landslide. An Obama landslide, coupled with a 60+ vote majority in the Senate will mean that the Democrats can actually implement some of the plans they've been talking about.

Keep your thoughts positive!

Competitiveness in the south is really based on tw...

2008-07-01T18:00:55.946-04:00

Competitiveness in the south is really based on two factors.

1. Getting a very strong black turnout.

2. Narrowing the gap among evangelicals.

#1 is fairly simple. #2 is where the story is. Bush won about 90-10among white evangelicals. Obama needs to get up to around 20-25% to have a chance to pull this off. I don't think it is as difficult as it appears to be.

McCain is not Bush and Obama is not Kerry. In '04, you had the religious Rep vs. the queasy on religion Dem. This year we have the opposite.

I remember looking at 1988 polls that showed Jesse Jackson polling extremely well among Pat Robertson supporters. The opposite was also true.

I think this comes down to a faith issue. Obviously, Obama will never win evangelicals. Still, not all evangelicals are obsessed with abortion and gay marraige. Quite a few feel strongly about Darfur, the environment and Iraq. They also feel very queasy about McCain. Its a tough challenge, but I believe there is enough low hanging fruit to get to 20% among them.

Regardless, I think we should be honest and realize that religion and not race is the key variable for most white southerners.

Admittedly, Schaller can't really abandon his thes...

2008-07-01T17:59:37.203-04:00

Admittedly, Schaller can't really abandon his thesis now. But I'm still interested in the LV models for the south-east, especially NC and GA. (The PPP poll of NC is LV.)

I also think that it's important that the Obama campaign isn't seen to cherry-pick the low-hanging states in a region. The ideal situation when you have a financial advantage is to offer the same message down the I-85 corridor Charlotte, Greenville and Atlanta, even though SC is off the map and Georgia's a stretch.

The other reason I take Schaller with a grain of s...

2008-07-01T17:51:32.056-04:00

The other reason I take Schaller with a grain of salt is that "abandon the South" is his thing, and since he's been pushing it since 2006 at least, so I'm skeptical that it's a conclusion and not a premise. While I don't entirely disagree with that thesis for presidential campaigns, I think it's possible to turn it around and say that a bigger problem for quite a while is that the Democrats have been treating the presidential election as something entirely independent from congressional elections and party building. The Obama campaign seems to be thinking in broader strategic terms, so I'm not sure Schaller's thesis is as applicable.

It's calibrated now by 20 simulations, not 10. But...

2008-07-01T17:35:53.066-04:00

It's calibrated now by 20 simulations, not 10. But the point remains that a few focal combinations seem to reach each the 1% region, whereas in the past .5% was about the maximum for any given combination.

Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Today's Polls, 7/1

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...