Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Briefings, Branding, and Bravado

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、...

2009-09-09T23:53:40.643-04:00

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...

2009-03-11T04:56:00.001-04:00

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

2009-03-11T04:56:00.000-04:00

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,...

2009-02-11T23:10:00.000-05:00

I agree that the numbers in the legend don't add u...

2008-06-10T13:57:00.000-04:00

I agree that the numbers in the legend don't add up right. Go here for your own EV calculator. http://www.270towin.com/

Speaking of money. I thought it was interesting in...

2008-06-10T07:25:00.000-04:00

Speaking of money. I thought it was interesting in the presentation that they combined RNC + McCain April fund raising & the DNC + Obama April fund raising but totally ignored the Clinton fundraising. Are they assuming that all of the Democrats who gave to Hillary are simply going to vanish into thin air?

LOL. Add in Hillary's total for April & the picture completely changes. The DNC is down in fundraising due in a large part to the extended primary. Hopefully that will get corrected shortly.

But their whole spin just made me laugh.

My favorite part of this: that McCain apparently c...

2008-06-09T12:02:00.000-04:00

My favorite part of this: that McCain apparently considers Joe Lieberman an asset in CT (where, if memory serves, a bit more than half of the voters are now saying that they'd rather have Lamont).

JGabriel: "Earlier you suggested that NH, WI, and...

2008-06-09T07:45:00.000-04:00

JGabriel: "Earlier you suggested that NH, WI, and MI are the only states Obama needs to campaign in. I'm afraid he needs to throw a much wider net"

I agree that he needs to cast a wide net in order to win. Obama will most likely have more money than McCain to spend, so he has a huge advantage in that respect.

Your wide net seems to be very accurate with the exception of Texas. I have lived in Texas before for several years and I just don't see any way as this time for TX to turn blue. It would take a huge wave of Latino, African-American, and big city votes to swing the state to Obama. If Obama does win TX, then the map for the Dems will look a lot like the map did for Reagan in 1984 with an overall EV count of 450+ for Obama.

However, there can be a danger of casting too wide of a net for the 50 state strategy. There needs to be a balance of shoring up the lean Dem states and trying to pick off red states with the resources available. If Dems don't allocate properly, then they run the risk of McCain picking off the larger states of MI, OH, and VA even though the Dems may win a lot of the smaller states.

Searching for Pericles: "The only light blue I see...

2008-06-09T04:54:00.000-04:00

Searching for Pericles: "The only light blue I see is NJ."

It's not clear from the map, but, if you listen to the audio, Davis is also including Delaware in the light blue count.

So that add 3 EV's to the McCain/Davis "Leans Dem" total, for what it's worth.

.

Oliver: "Actually, JGabriel, Jon said that NH, WI ...

2008-06-09T04:41:00.000-04:00

Oliver: "Actually, JGabriel, Jon said that NH, WI and MI are the only *Kerry* states that Obama needs to campaign in.

You're right, Oliver. Somehow I missed/forgot that he made that distinction. Thanks for the correction.

.

Is that an actual total from McCain's website?If s...

2008-06-09T03:52:00.000-04:00

Is that an actual total from McCain's website?

If so, what a joke. It's inaccurate on two levels. Pathetic, actually.

1. There are 538 electoral votes, not 537.

53 + 102 = 255 (safe/lean GOP)
255 + 74 (toss ups) = 329
329 + 66 (lean Dem) = 395
395 + 142 (solid Dem) = 537.

That's right folks, McCain can't add. Remind me, what's the name of this site and why?

But wait, its worse.

2. McCain can add his own base states.

Again, taking that picture as the truth, we have the following states in each category.

A. Solid GOP. McCain math = 153 (via McLame) 18 states.

We'll go East to West, with the total in parenthesis for each new state.

VA-13 + NC-15(28) + SC-8(36) + GA-15(51) + AL-9(60) + MS-6(66) + IN-11(77) + TX-34(111) + OK-7(118) + KS-6(124) + NE-5(129) + SD-3(132) + ND-3(135) + MT-3(138) + WY-3(141) + ID-4(145) + UT-5(150) + AK-3(153).

So far, so good. But wait.

B. Lean GOP. McCain can't add these.

McCain math = 102 EV's. 6 States.
Map Reality = 49 EV's. 6 States.
Difference = +53 EV's.

WTF? Not even close. Again, going by the map.
AZ-10 (home state not solid?) + LA-9(19) + AR-6(25) + TN-11(36) + KY-8(44) + WV-5(49).

That's it. NO more red on the map.

If one adds the numbers (153 + 102) one draws the conclusion that McLame is almost to the magic number of 270, being just 15 EV's short. Win FL and its over. Or MI. Or MO + NH. Lots of ways to get to 270.

But in reality, he's 53 votes short. It's 153 + 49 = 202. He's still 68 short, and that's counting VA and NC as in the bag. Even with FL and MO (27 + 11 = 38), he's still 30 short. Even with OH + NV + NH he's at 269 (assuming ME and NE go all for one). Not quite so rosy.

So where did McAdd go wrong?

C. Toss Up states.

McCain Math = 74 EVs, 16 States.
Map Reality = 175 EVs, 16 States.
Difference = -101 EVs.
Net Differnce = -48 EV's.

FL-27 + ME-4(31) + NH-4(35) + CT-7(42) + PA-21(63) + OH-20(83) + MI-17(100) + WI-10(110) + MN-10(120) + IA-7(127) + MO-(138) + CO-9(147) + NM-5(152) + NV-5(157) + WA-11(168) + OR-7(175).

In reality, FL, MO, NV, and maybe NH lean McCain, for 47 more. McCain needs 20 for a tie and 21 for a win (OH or PA).

But you'll notice, the math still doesn't add up, as the Lean GOP was off by 53 and the Toss up was off by 101. So there's more McCain math to go.

D. Lean Dem.

McCain Math = 66 EVs.
Map Math = 15 EVs. 1 state.
Difference = +51 EV's.
Net Diference = + 3 EV's.

The only light blue I see is NJ.

NJ has 15 EV's. McCain's map has there being 66. Off by 51. But the Net still doesn't total, (+3 EVs).

If one throws DE-3 in here or in Toss-up, it balances out. Truthfully, I cannot tell from the map.

E. Solid Dem.

McCain Math = 142 EV's. 8 States + DC.
Map Math = 143 EVs. 8 + DC

There are on the money here i terms of Net, but still off by one in adding the states up. I don't know which one the messed up. Here's the breakdown.

CA-55 + HI-4(59) + IL-21(80) + IL-21(80) + NY-31(111) + VT-3(114) + MA-12(126) + RI-4(130) + MD-10(140) + DC-3(143).

They are off by one.

Note: The actual presentation gets the EVs correct if you watch it all the way.

It says:
8 States + DC Solid Dem = 143 EVs.
17 States Solid GOP = 153 EVs.
24 States Battleground = 242 EVs.

143 + 153 + 242 = 538.

So the presentation is better, props to Mr. Rick Davis who put it together.

Only one problem Ricky, 8 + 17 + 24 = 49 States.

Yes the same party that once calculated terror stats based on an 10 month year, now gives you our 49 state union and more bad math.

(For the record, there are 18 solid GOP states depicted on the presentation, but they only state 17).

Pathetic.

Actually, JGabriel, Jon said that NH, WI and MI ar...

2008-06-09T03:43:00.000-04:00

Actually, JGabriel, Jon said that NH, WI and MI are the only *Kerry* states that Obama needs to campaign in. Judging by your list you largely agree with him, adding only PA. The point was that not needing to shore up the blue states will enable Obama to devote resources to all those other states you mention that went red last time.

Jon: "Right now Obama is a little too reliant on t...

2008-06-09T02:31:00.000-04:00

Jon: "Right now Obama is a little too reliant on the upper midwest and southwest in my view.

I agree, with the caveat that that's not Obama's fault.

That's just the way the swing states swing this year.

Earlier you suggested that NH, WI, and MI are the only states Obama needs to campaign in. I'm afraid he needs to throw a much wider net:

SouthWest: NV, CO, NM

Northeast: NH, PA

North Central: OH, MI, WI, IA, MO.

South: VA

And to provide a margin of error: IN, ND, MT, NC, FL, and TX.

Florida is probably not in the cards; its state leadership is, I suspect, too corrupt and too likely to rig the results. That said, it's too big to ignore. As is Texas.

Outside of that, I don't really think Obama has much of a chance in the South or Appalachia, but there's a huge symbolic importance to campaigning in those regions anyway. The Appalachian region, because it's an opportunity to ameliorate some of the persistent racial antipathy in that region, and in the deep south because it's symbolically important for the first viable African-American candidate to visit and campaign in the region with the highest African-American populations.

Finally, add in his family roots in Kansas, and it makes sense to campaign in the Plains states too.

Add it all together, and you're not far shy of a 50 State Strategy. It's kind of interesting, and fortuitous, how Obama's candidacy plays into a strategy that Dean was already building at the DNC, or vice versa.

Quite the historical confluence...

.

JGabriel: "PA on the other hand is almost a gimme ...

2008-06-09T01:51:00.000-04:00

JGabriel: "PA on the other hand is almost a gimme for the Dems. Dem governor, Dem Senators..."

Ouf, I'm a doofus. How could I forget Spector? That should be 'Senator' not 'Senators'.

Anyway, it doesn't really change my opinion on PA being highly likely to go Dem, but I just wanted to correct the error before someone else pointed it out.

.

JGabriel: "What I'm seeing in those maps is that ...

2008-06-09T01:41:00.000-04:00

JGabriel: "What I'm seeing in those maps is that if Obama wins Ohio or VA, then he has a pretty easy victory, otherwise, it becomes uncomfortably reliant on NH, IA, MI, CO, NV and NM."

Your analysis is spot on here. I have done the same analysis with various combinations on 270towin.com.

If McCain can pull off a victory in MI somehow, then Obama is probably toast. The only hope at that point would be a miracle in VA where the demographics are less favorable than MI or a combination of CO and NH which is very dicey in a close election.

I really hope that Obama can put Florida in play over the next few months. Having a realistic chance at a win there with 27 EV really opens up a lot of possibilities. Right now Obama is a little too reliant on the upper midwest and southwest in my view.

Jon,I largely agree with your analysis. However, t...

2008-06-09T01:27:00.000-04:00

Jon,

I largely agree with your analysis. However, that's not showing up in Nate's analyses yet.

Anyway, I've been gaming out a lot of close race scenarios using the interactive electoral map at 270to win.com.

What I'm seeing in those maps is that if Obama wins Ohio or VA, then he has a pretty easy victory, otherwise, it becomes uncomfortably reliant on NH, IA, MI, CO, NV and NM.

Likewise, if Obama loses MI, or especially PA (the latter of which I consider unlikely), then he'll have a difficult path to winning; i.e, he'd pretty much need MT, ND, and VA.

Nate's analyses are showing a similiar pattern, but with greater emphasis on PA than VA. No doubt he's right, but - and here my biases are showing - I think PA is much less likely to flip R than VA is to flip D. Thus I'm seeing VA as the more important swing state to analyze, even though it represents fewer EV's than PA.

No doubt a Republican would feel just as confident about VA as I do about Pennsylvania, but given that Dems now control the governor's office and a Senate seat in VA - and look set to pick up the other Senate seat and several House seats there this autumn - the R's would be foolish to count on a McCain win in VA come November.

.

JGabriel: "Obama can easily lose if he gets MI an...

2008-06-09T00:51:00.000-04:00

JGabriel: "Obama can easily lose if he gets MI and PA, but loses OH"

Obama could lose if he ended up with an electoral map that is basically just like Kerry's was in 2004. However, I think it is fairly unlikely. Kerry had to work his tail off to keep WA, OR, MN, WI, MI, PA, and NH in the Dem column. He barely lost OH, IA, and NM, but only OH would have given him the victory anyway.

Obama has a much broader map to work with than Kerry did. NH, WI, and MI are the only Kerry states that Obama has to really campaign in at all.

Custos: "Republicans 87-8, Independents even, Demo...

2008-06-09T00:22:00.000-04:00

Custos: "Republicans 87-8, Independents even, Democrats 80-13. Since there are more Democrats than Republicans, I'm pretty sure they're admitting that McCain is getting creamed in their internal polling here."

Shh. They're trying to obscure that.

.

Don: "Their map has 175 in tossup states, even tho...

2008-06-09T00:16:00.000-04:00

Don: "Their map has 175 in tossup states, even though underneath it says 74."

It's a weird map. As someone else noted above, the allocated votes only add up to 537. And the shortchanged vote is always in the Dem side of the analysis.

I suspect Davis thinks DC only has 2 EV's rather than three.

Whatever. His math skills suck. Either that, or Davis is trying to lower expectations of his competency.

If the latter, he's done a flawless job.

.

Newfapalooza: "The 'lean GOP' states look like the...

2008-06-09T00:07:00.000-04:00

Newfapalooza: "The 'lean GOP' states look like they would be the lean states if Clinton won the nomination."

Unlikely. Davis's map has Arkansas as a Lean R state. That would be a heavy Lean D if Clinton were the nominee.

I think the whole map is representative of 'old' battle strategizing. For instance, it looks like they can't possibly even conceive of a universe where VA and Indiana could be competitive.

It also looks conceived as a 50% + 1 strategy. They don't seem to be taking Obama's and Dean's 50 State Strategy very seriously.

That's good for the Dems.

.

Exhausted Pennsylvanian: "The fact that they expec...

2008-06-08T23:58:00.000-04:00

Exhausted Pennsylvanian: "The fact that they expect Oregon to be a battleground is flabbergasting, but whatever."

First, hail and well-met fellow traveller. I'm in NY now, but grew up in NE PA.

Second, Oregon was very close in 2000 and 2004. So, to the R POV, a win there is not as unlikely as we see it.

Frankly, I find it flabbergasting that they think *Minnesota* will be a battleground state. They've gone D in 9 of the last 10 elections, more than any other state.

Maybe they expect Pawlenty to help with the dirty tricks. Or they plan on giving him the VP slot. Either way, Obama should keep an eye on the voting machines there. The R's may be planning something for MN, possibly a shortage of voting machines in the minority urban areas.

I can't think of any other plausible reason why they would think they have anywhere near a shot in MN.

.

Anonymous: "I don't see a realistic scenario where...

2008-06-08T23:43:00.000-04:00

Anonymous: "I don't see a realistic scenario where Obama can lose if he wins 2 out of 3 between OH, PA, and MI along with winning in CO, NM, and NV."

Obama can easily lose if he gets MI and PA, but loses OH.

Don't count on NM or NV yet, either. NV went red in 2004, and Republican dirty tricks pushed NM red too. Maybe in a month or two the polls there will improve, but until then they should be regarded as iffy.

PA on the other hand is almost a gimme for the Dems. Dem governor, Dem Senators, and Philadelphia.

Given that, I'd like to see Nate do some more analysis on the OH, MI, VA triptych (maybe adding NH). I suspect they are more likely to be the relevant swingstates in the east this election. In the west, it looks like CO, NM, and NV are the most relevant.

Sorry, Dave, I think you're probably right about CO swinging strongly Dem this year, but I can't get optimistic about it yet - not until we see stronger or more consistent numbers there - given the fact that CO went R in nine of the last ten presidential elections.

.

IMHO this map was deliberately constructed for spi...

2008-06-08T19:50:00.000-04:00

IMHO this map was deliberately constructed for spin purposes.

Notice that the solid-Dem states are colored almost the same hue as the black background, which makes them almost invisible when they are positioned along a coastline or the US/Canada borderline (except for the black hole where IL used to be which stands out like a sore thumb).

The visual weight that one gets from using this color scheme provides a very misleading sense of the Dem vs. GOP strength even if the underlying poll data was honest.

Somebody was using an anti-Edward Tufte approach to visual communication in coloring this graph, probably with intent to mislead the audience.

I almost wonder if he accidently got the "leans" a...

2008-06-08T19:15:00.000-04:00

I almost wonder if he accidently got the "leans" and "safe" reversed. And He's delusional if he thinks WA, MN, are "tossups".

Also, Joe won't help you in CT. Sorry McCain.

This pitch may be the natural progression of detac...

2008-06-08T18:25:00.000-04:00

This pitch may be the natural progression of detaching Republican politicians and donors even more from the reality-based community. This mythical analysis does have the same fantastical quality as an energy lobbyist's pitch that the US can end its reliance on MIddle Eastern oil by opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Preserve to drilling for oil.

The best result of McCain's lobbyist-led flight even further from the reality-based community is that - statistically - it might reduce the probability of a Bush III (McBush) term to virtually zero.