Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Can a VP Nominee "Win" a State?

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-10T01:24:27.266-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社...

2009-03-11T05:29:00.001-04:00

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信...

2009-03-11T05:29:00.000-04:00

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,...

2009-02-12T22:47:00.000-05:00

The main thing to remember about Ferraro is that t...

2008-08-03T08:35:00.000-04:00

The main thing to remember about Ferraro is that the Obama campaign never called her a racist. She seized upon that term and attributed it to the campaign and was off and running as a paid FOX commentator. I do not consider her a racist. I consider her a person who had a serious conflict of interest and little respect for the truth.

jbday - Though I agree that Sean's comment was com...

2008-08-02T18:34:00.000-04:00

jbday - Though I agree that Sean's comment was completely inappropriate, you can't say that Ferraro said something that was "factual". It's an opinion, and so is Sean's statement.

Besides which, something can be clearly true, while still being racist -- it's the intent with which it is said. The controversy is about determining what she meant, not whether it was true.

Calling Geraldine Ferraro racist was completely un...

2008-08-02T17:44:00.000-04:00

Calling Geraldine Ferraro racist was completely unnecessary and false. Sean, can you honestly call that a white, first term Senator could have gotten the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton? Ferraro said nothing that was factually incorrect.

According to Rasmussen, both Pormtan and Stricland...

2008-06-22T08:13:00.000-04:00

According to Rasmussen, both Pormtan and Stricland hurt their respective nominees in OH more than the help them. No chance either one is named...

Yes, thanks, St Paul Sage, for saying just about e...

2008-06-18T21:30:00.000-04:00

Yes, thanks, St Paul Sage, for saying just about everything I was formulating in my head as I read the original post.

St. Paul Sage's comments are right on. Ferraro an...

2008-06-18T18:31:00.000-04:00

St. Paul Sage's comments are right on. Ferraro and Kemp were not brought on to win New York. They were 1 of 30-some House representatives in the state, and didn't really have statewide connections to the entire state. I don't think candidate are even trying to make plays for states when they choose House representatives, unless they choose a House representative from a small state, who thus represents the entire state. But when you look at times where VP was for regional balance, it worked, contrary to Sean's post.

But Sean isn't interested in explaining. He is interested in cheap shots inserted into his posts.

“to the extent they have set about deliberately tr...

2008-06-18T14:44:00.000-04:00

“to the extent they have set about deliberately trying to add a state with a VP pick it has almost never worked.”

That’s your thesis, but this study clouds the answer with a ton of needless info. You include a pile of races where parties never made such an attempt. It would be like saying that Manny Ramirez doesn’t hit very well with runners on base and then going into mind-numbing detail about his batting average over the years. The answer doesn't fit the question.

Until 1988, It looks like Presidential candidates chose VPs primarily to unite ideologically and regionally diverse parties and swiping a state was low on the priority list. Uniting the party was urgent because that regional and ideological diversity was well represented on the convention floor where the decision would be announced. Moderate Eisenhower picked conservative western Nixon. Northern liberal Kennedy picked Southern conservative Johnson. Southern conservative Johnson picked Northern liberal Humphrey. Western Conservative Nixon picked Northern moderate Agnew (yes - Agnew had a progressive record in Md). Southern moderate Carter picked northern liberal Mondale. Northern moderate Ford picked conservative Dole. Western conservative Reagan picked moderate Bush. The attitude was “let me win this party nomination now and I’ll worry about winning a general later.”

Also nearly every election before 1960 was a rout so the concept of stealing a “swing state” would have been silly.

Things are different now. The parties are very homogeneous, regionally and ideologically, so uniting them is not as important. And since 1960, there have been only 4 complete routs out of 12 elections so the concept of significant swing states is very applicable.

In the instances where candidates tried to win states with a VP, they were QUITE SUCCESSFUL. Successful examples are Johnson’s TX in 60, Muskie’s ME in 68, Mondale’s MN in 76 and 80 (if there was ever an argument for VPs winning states, it's the map from 1980 where Carter/Mondale won 5 states, the biggest being Georgia and MN), Gore’s TN in 92 & 96 and Lieberman’s FL in 00. Bentsen’s TX in 1988 was a failure. Gore didn't carry his own state in 2000 because Monica played very poorly in the bible belt and Gore was seen by this time as a Northern liberal, even by his own state. But in 2000, Gore chose a moderate jew - making a very direct play - not for CT but for Florida - which he actually won were it not for a few butterfly ballots for Buchanan.

That’s a record of 7-1 in swing states. And I’m not cherry-picking stats. I defy you to show one other example of a candidate trying to steal a swing state since 1960. Cabot-Lodge in 60, Humphrey and Miller in 64, Agnew in 68, Shriver in 72, Bush in 80 & 84, Ferraro in 84, Quayle in 88 & 92, Kemp in 96, Cheney in 00 & 04, and Edwards in 04 (arguably) all had no chance to affect winning or losing in their home states and that was not why they were chosen.

New Mexico is the swingiest of states and it seems certain that Obama could put it away with the choice of its Governor - Bill Richardson - provided no scandals were uncovered. And if there is a “presidential” VP candidate who reinforces Obama’s strengths and bolsters his weaknesses from Ohio, Virginia, Colorado Michigan or Florida, then the Obama campaign would be foolish to not heavily consider him or her.

I don’t know if Stabenow (MI), Brown (OH), or Salazar (CO) look presidential or have strengths that complement Obama, but choosing one of them in a close election could be the difference between winning and losing.

Here's why saying "the racist Ferraro" is ridiculo...

2008-06-18T11:47:00.000-04:00

Here's why saying "the racist Ferraro" is ridiculous to this column, and makes this web site not worth reading if you are a woman. I look at your list of names in your VP discussion. ALOT of those presidential and VP candidates you mention from the past are a lot more racist than Geraldine Ferraro was, has been, or ever will be. Why did you not choose to say "the racist Woodrow Wilson." He admitted himself that he was. Does this adjective not need to be applied to the men listed?

For such a quantitative site, I have to say this p...

2008-06-18T08:05:00.000-04:00

For such a quantitative site, I have to say this post is disappointingly quantitative! Surely with your analytical ability you could model what the popular vote should have been in the Vice President nominee's home state and compare that with what it actually was. Would it surprise anybody if having a home-state VP generally added 1-3% to the popular vote in that state? In that case, picking, say Sebelius, would not put Obama over the top in Kansas. But picking Strickland might get some extra people voting Democratic in Ohio, which could mean the difference in the state.

So VPs don't change people's minds, but may increa...

2008-06-18T07:38:00.000-04:00

So VPs don't change people's minds, but may increase turnout in a state among those who'd vote for u anyway?
If that's the case, then maybe a popular CA candidate makes the most sense. Obama, if it be he, needs as large a popular vote "mandate" as possible to govern as the first non-white male prez.
McCain may end up in a "control-the-damage" position of trying not to lose in a blowout for the good of his party. (Also, if he can convince the O campaign to spend extra money on defending CA, this is where it could cost the O campaign the most to play insurance defense.)

In truth, single state dynamics are a pretty low priority for both these guys.
Obama needs to prove his judgement with the pick, as in, "Yes, I will pick solid, experienced guys for my cabinet too. Not radical, know-nothings, as I'm falsely accused of being."
McCain needs to pick someone who swing voters see as a credible replacement. He's 72. The last president who was nearly as old when elected did announce his alzheimers not terribly long after leaving office. (Is it not fair to mention that?)

Back to the topic of the post!Sean, I'd say you ha...

2008-06-18T04:45:00.000-04:00

Back to the topic of the post!

Sean, I'd say you have pretty well exploded the theory that a VP can bring his home state on board for the ticket just because it is his home state.

But putting Richardson on the ticket would operate similarly to Gore's putting Lie-berman on the ticket in 2000: to reinforce the President in states he thought he needed to win. Lie-berman was selected to appeal to the Jewish vote in South Florida - but for the "butterfly ballot," which led to thousands of votes being counted for Pat Buchanan when the voters almost certainly intended to vote for Lie-berman, Joe's being on the ticket probably would have made it impossible for Bush to steal Florida.

Gore as VP on the Clinton ticket had a similar purpose: to reinforce Clinton with white Southerners, particularly in the border states. Gore probably helped in that regard, though perhaps not as much as Lie-berman helped Gore in Florida.

This year, Richardson would reinforce Obama's appeal with Latino voters in three battleground states with 19 EV (New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada). That purpose seems a little less urgent today, with two of the last three Ohio polls so encouraging. But if Michigan starts slipping into the McCain column, the Southwestern states could provide the margin of victory in the EV. And I do think that Richardson on the ticket would probably push Latino support from two-thirds up to three quarters, which could turn out to be just enough to make the difference between winning just one state (say, Colorado) and winning all three.

Putting Edwards or Jim Webb on the ticket as VP might function to add a few percentage points to the ticket's performance in border states (OH, IN, MO - 42 EV) including possibly WV. I think this observation is probably more speculative than the idea that Richardson could bring a few key per cent of the Latino vote in the Southwest.

Nice job on demonstrating the fallacy of pushing Strickland or Rendell or Vilsack or Sibelius to strengthen the Obama ticket. The limited polling that has been done has shown that neither Rendell nor Strickland would add much, if anything, to Obama's support in the home state of the VP. That result is solid preliminary current data supporting your conclusion from historical examples that there is no point this year in picking a candidate to bring in his home state for the ticket.

Again, good work!

John said... I'm confused - I would think that ...

2008-06-18T01:51:00.000-04:00

John said...

I'm confused - I would think that Nate and Sean would get to decide what is appropriate material for their blog, not an anonymous commenter who calls him or herself "The Obama Project."

And on this note, I bow out. Apologies for offering offense. For clarification's sake, I wasn't the original poster complaining of the remarks - and it was (and is) my opinion - that the complaint was being misread. I took it upon myself to champion the actual complaint, and not the side discussion of if or if not Ferraro is a racist or deserves to be called such.

If such is the level of discourse Nate and Sean want, as what this thread has become, I'll accept it and move on. There are other blogs for arguing and such... I thought, perhaps wrongly, that here was a refuge from such.

I'm confused - I would think that Nate and Sean wo...

2008-06-18T01:14:00.000-04:00

I'm confused - I would think that Nate and Sean would get to decide what is appropriate material for their blog, not an anonymous commenter who calls him or herself "The Obama Project."

This is deeply tiresome. If Sean thinks Ferraro is a racist, he has every right to say so on his own fucking blog. You can criticize his statement on the merits if you want to, but it's ridiculous to criticize him because it's somehow against the mission of his blog.

I agree that the phrase "the racist Geraldine Ferr...

2008-06-18T00:55:00.001-04:00

I agree that the phrase "the racist Geraldine Ferraro" is completely inappropriate. It's one of those catch phrases that when you read it, it clues you in that you better not believe anything you read on this website. I've been coming to this site for months now and it's absolutely a treasure. Please refrain from such superfluous vulgarities, lest this site get lost among the masses of talking heads.

Is anyone listening? Ferraro ISN'T the issue. Br...

2008-06-18T00:55:00.000-04:00

Is anyone listening?

Ferraro ISN'T the issue. Bringing her into the discourse IS the issue.

The proof is - we're still talking about her as if she matters! This site isn't about Ferraro, unless...

unless... Sean or Nate want to take on the statistics of her claim. That might be fun to do... ;) but otherwise, she's completely irrelevant, and making statements about her mental disposition one way or the other is a distraction from the purpose of this site.

Let me add a further clarification to John.You cla...

2008-06-18T00:06:00.000-04:00

Let me add a further clarification to John.

You claim that he said that he would increase the turnout of African Americans.

So, at most, assuming you were honest and accurate in your paraphrase and summary, he says that with this one ethnic group he might get an advantage by winning a greater turnout.

Not that this did Alan Keyes much good, but I have my doubts about whether you have thought this out, certainly not very well.

Now, did he claim that he would get that vote simply due to his ethnicity?

No, he didn't. Hence, Keyes is illustrative.

He gets the votes of African Americans because of his policies. If he had the wrong policies, then regardless of his ethnicity, he wouldn't get their votes.

Next, does anyone actually deny that ethnicity hurts Obama more than help him?

Obama didn't deny this. And publicly, he isn't in a position to.

But anyone who thinks that WV and KY voted for reasons other than what they themselves frankly told complete and utter strangers in exit polling is making arguments for reasons other than the facts.

This was completely exploded. right. here. right. now.

To those of you complaining about Sean's "racist" ...

2008-06-18T00:05:00.000-04:00

To those of you complaining about Sean's "racist" comment. Get over it. I don't see it as a big deal. For the things she has said in public she deserves far worse than that.

John, You went from something you claim (no docume...

2008-06-17T23:57:00.000-04:00

John,

You went from something you claim (no documentation) that Obama said to something completely different.

Ferraro said that he was only in the first place position due to his race.

Obama (assuming you were accurate and honest in your paraphrase) said that he would increase the turnout of African Americans.

Those are two completely different things.

And if you think that being an African American is a boon to one's political opportunities in the General Election, I sure wish that you would explain why there hasn't even been a single African American candidate for President who has had any chance at all of winning.

Ferraro is racist. That was a racist comment to make. It was laughable in its assertion. It was similar to her comments 20 years ago.

The outrage doesn't work given her comments. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

All Sean did was post the truth.

Did you find it offensive that Obama said he would...

2008-06-17T23:20:00.000-04:00

Did you find it offensive that Obama said he would cause African-American turnout to go up by 30%? He's basically saying the same thing Ferraro said - his race will help him in the general election.

By saying Ferraro is racist you are making your site no better than partisan hack blogs.

roberttxstate said... What's up with all the Fe...

2008-06-17T23:06:00.000-04:00

roberttxstate said...

What's up with all the Ferraro apologists?

Yeah.... because everyone who doesn't want to have that kind of discourse ***here*** is an apologist.

For the record, I'm an African American woman, and found Ferraro deeply offensive in some instances, and at least highly prejudiced in others.

And I don't particularly want that to be the focus of discussion here. I come here to read about the numbers, to guage how the race is going, and to learn from you all about the validity of the process, and it's output. I don't deserve to be called names for wanting the site to be what it has been.

Sean wrote: "There I go destroying the integrity o...

2008-06-17T23:02:00.000-04:00

Sean wrote: "There I go destroying the integrity of the world again. Oh Noes!!1!1111!!!!!1! What will we do? Where will we go? Can we trust Nate's Virginia regression number now?"

I think all the arguments about if Ferraro is or isn't racist, and if you would or wouldn't tell her to her face your opinion, are utterly irrelevant to the point being made by the readership here, and the argument about whether or not we trust Nate's numbers is largely a strawman.

The readership here appreciates this site because to a large extent, the highly opinionated vitriol isn't here. The numbers are the thing, and people come here for that.

As has already been said - those comments from an "official blogger" here debases the site, makes it far more partisan than is necessary, and is highly off-putting. And, to ask the question - no, it doesn't change the numbers, but it DOES call into question the objectivity of those running them.

I hope, Sean, that you think about that some. Daily Kos gives plenty of room for that kind of discourse, and Nate links to there on the sidebar. That kind of discourse isn't needed here.