Is McCain forked yet?

[ElvisL1ves]

Apparently he isn't yet, since nobody has thought fit to say so here. So perhaps a rephrasing will help:

When will the forking of McCain happen? What else can McCain do to make sure he loses this election? Does Obama, who clinched the nomination months ago, even have to do anything at all to make sure he wins in November? Or is it enough to simply assume McCain will blow it somehow (and how?), or that the electoral vote will take care of itself ?

Since the nomination is settled and we have been in general-election mode for some months now, certainly some thoughts should have percolated to the surface about what happens next. Can we begin to share some of them, perhaps?


Here it is, then: No, he's not forked, nor will he be until Election Day. He's been in the game too long, and made too many friends in the Beltway Bubble media, to have to pay the price for any major gaffes (just look at the way he's skated on Hagee). He'll have the support of the large number of voters who think the Iraq war was not a bad idea, just badly executed, and can still be salvaged. He'll have the "Dems will raise your taxes" vote. He'll be able to let the doubts about Obama's substance continue to percolate into Conventional Wisdom. He won't have to deal with being reflexively hated by any sizeable chunk of people. He'll have the advantage of facing yet another Dem candidate whose supporters think the nomination is the prize, and lack a focus and strategy for November. He may not be able to win by much, but win he can. He'll have the advantage of his supporters feeling unified by a leader, while smugly watching the self-proclaimed morally-superior Dems engage in the fun of tearing down one of their own strongest leaders.

Who else wants to focus on the real prize now?

[DigitalC]

To be perfectly honest, yeah i think hes pretty damn forked. Hes been coasting basically unopposed so far but the moment Obamas focus shifts to him it won't be pretty. Obama has a huge financial advantage, a LOT of people on the ground ready to go on every single state (which is i guess one thing we can thank Hillary for), and you simply can't discount the anti-republican sentiment going into the elections. Personally i think its going to be a landslide of epic proportions.

[Revtim]

Never underestimate the ability of the Democratic party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[DigitalC]

Never underestimate the ability of the Democratic party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

That usually means nominating the wrong candidate or running a horrible campaign, or both as it happened the last elections. I don't think either of those is a possibility this time.

[ElvisL1ves]

I doubt the anti-Republican sentiment will go further than 6 or 8 Senate seats and 40-50 House seats, tops. Don't forget the deep-rooted American tradition of ticket-splitting - we generally want different parties in control, as yet another layer of checks and balances. The GOP's pending deep and apparently long-term loss of Congress, regardless of its reasons, ISTM works in McCain's favor, as it would for any Republican.

As the saying goes, hope is not a plan.

[Quartz]

They say that a week is a long time in politics, but I really don't see how McCain can compete with Obama unless the latter makes a major gaffe. But I'm looking forward to finding out.

[DSeid]

Happy to engage!

No, this is not a fait accompli. To use your favored electoral vote predictor, (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May25.html) there are currently about the same "strongly Dem" as "strongly GOP" and many of those may be "strong" at this point but very subject to change over the next several months. Polling data is old and the show hasn't even had the warm-up band take the stage.

Obama has previously made it clear that he wants to go for a fifty state strategy (rather than the 50 percent plus one approach). This spread the floor approach comes with greater risk along with greater potential for gain. There are many states that he could win by a nose or lose by a nose when all is said and done. He lose them all and it is all of us who are forked.

My read of that map is that there are quite a few state that are "barely GOP", "weak GOP" and even "strong GOP" that Obama will make real contests of, probably even winning a few of them. I see little of that in the other direction, with the possible exception of PA and OH.

McCain will have more limited resources - both in money and in people power - compared to past GOP Presidential runs and by far compared to Obama. He will need to focus on defending his must wins and aim hard to secure Florida, and pull off Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. He will have to balance between toadying to the rabid right and appealing to the middle; keeping him off-balance and revealing him as a flip-flopper will be one of Team Obama's main tactics.

It is early and Obama has weathered some serious "vetting" yet come out better positioned than Kerry was at this point, even among Appalchians. McCain has had very little negative to deal with yet. The fight with Clinton has indeed honed Obama into a sharper instrument - better at debating and ready for any attempts to Swiftboat. It has created grassroot organizations across the country ready to lock and load.

I won't celebrate until after the general is held and final tallies are in, but I see Obama pulling it out handily when all is said and done.

I've asked this many times before, but, what the Hell, I'll try again: assuming that Team Clinton fails to pull off the miracle that Bill still says is possible with a win in Puerto Rico and Montana, are you in to help Obama beat McCain in November?

[Revtim]

That usually means nominating the wrong candidate or running a horrible campaign, or both as it happened the last elections. I don't think either of those is a possibility this time.There's plenty of time for Obama to fuck up somehow, or some earlier fuck up to come to light.

[ElvisL1ves]

To use your favored electoral vote predictorHave you not grasped it yet? That's the only one I know of, and I've pointed out problems with it in threads I know you've read. Unless you can point to another with more credible data, you have no basis other than snark to call it my "favorite". But if that's all you got ...

And even so, a claim that the data, such as it is, will change polarity in the next few months needs some backing to support it. Precedent is a good kind of backing; claiming that this year is qualitatively different in some vague (but hopeful) way is not.

He will need to focus on defending his must wins and aim hard to secure Florida, and pull off Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.One thing the aforementioned precedent tells us, if only we're listening, is that if he gets FL, he only needs either OH or PA. How're ya feelin' about that?

He will have to balance between toadying to the rabid right and appealing to the middleNope. He's got the rabid right, at least enough of them to win where he needs to. What else are they going to do - indulge in the same sort of navelgazing moral crusade as the Dems who went for Nader?

The fight with Clinton has indeed honed Obama into a sharper instrument - better at debating and ready for any attempts to Swiftboat.Recent primary results and the polls for the remaining ones, the only relevant data, would show exactly the opposite.

I've asked this many times before, but, what the Hell, I'll try again: assuming that Team Clinton fails to pull off the miracle that Bill still says is possible with a win in Puerto Rico and Montana, are you in to help Obama beat McCain in November?I've indulged you by answering that silly question enough times already . So I'll ask you one instead: Under the same assumptions, what could Obama say and do, and what can the vociferous Hillary-haters who support him say and do, to induce Clinton supporters to vote for him anyway? And when would you plan to start?

[Jonathan Chance]

I doubt the anti-Republican sentiment will go further than 6 or 8 Senate seats and 40-50 House seats, tops. Don't forget the deep-rooted American tradition of ticket-splitting - we generally want different parties in control, as yet another layer of checks and balances. The GOP's pending deep and apparently long-term loss of Congress, regardless of its reasons, ISTM works in McCain's favor, as it would for any Republican.

As the saying goes, hope is not a plan.

40-50 House Seats? Color me goggle-eyed amazed. 20-25 is more like it. 30 at the outside. I just don't see enough vulnerable incumbents and opens to make up that sort of slide.

6-8 Senate seats I can see. It looks bad over there for several of them. But it still isn't like to get to cloture 60 this cycle.

[Lightnin']

...just look at the way he's skated on Hagee

I suspect the only reason he skated on Hagee was that the media was too interested in getting ratings by continuing the fight between Obama and Clinton... not through any of his own political imperviousness. He just got lucky. I wouldn't use this as an indicator of his electability.

[ElvisL1ves]

40-50 House Seats? Color me goggle-eyed amazed. I meant in the extreme case. But it's possible, if the bottom drops out, and with another Iraq disaster or deepening recession it certainly could.

The point is that if ticket-splitting voters (which is the bulk of them) expect a solidly-Dem Congress, they'll have an incentive to go with a Rep President. We won't know now solidly Dem that is until the polls close, anyway.


lightnin', that's the point - McCain didn't get lucky. He had the benefit of a press corps that is always looking for a scandal to blow up, and reason to appear to be even-handed in how they do it, but even so they let him skate. That isn't luck, it was predictable as part of a pattern established over years - a pattern that isn't likely to change in the next few months.

"We're his base." - Chris Matthews

[Lightnin']

lightnin', that's the point - McCain didn't get lucky. He had the benefit of a press corps that is always looking for a scandal to blow up, and reason to appear to be even-handed in how they do it, but even so they let him skate. That isn't luck, it was predictable as part of a pattern established over years - a pattern that isn't likely to change in the next few months.

I disagree- I think that, until now, he's benefited from the media-engendered Obama/Clinton feud. The media had no reason to go after him- compared to Obama/Clinton, he was boring. Once Hillary's (finally) out of the picture, he'll be fair game. I suspect he's got a lot more skeletons in his closet than Obama, and when the MSM needs ratings again, he'll be in their sights just as much as Obama is, currently. We've already seen some hints of that these past few weeks- rumblings about his wife's tax records and his health records, for example.

[DSeid]

Elvis so once again you won't answer that simple question prefering instead to claim you've answered it before. Cite please. Please quote me where you've answered it before. Maybe you have and I have missed it. Tis possible.

But of course I'll play. (And not hold my breath.) If Obama was losing by as much as Hillary has been losing then he would have conceded and thrown his support to Hillary long ago. If he hadn't he would have been ridiculed beyond belief. I would be expecting him to say that Clinton won fair and square and be out there working to rally support to her cause. Some Hillary haters would not be swayed but many would come round in the end partly because of Obama's urging. Team Hillary would make a cold-hearted calculation if they felt that his being number two on the ticket would help or hurt their chances and he'd decide if he wanted it if offered. I have no idea if that would occur or not.

Speaking for myself, as someone who has never liked Hillary, I had already come round to voting for her if she won. I didn't start out that way. Donating to her campaign, probably not. She would be the better of the choices that remained.

BTW electoral-vote.com is not alone. SUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/) is in the business too. Their most recent calls it Obama 280 to 258. But of course that data goes back to March. FiveThirtyEight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/todays-polls-518.html) also has Obama winning. The point is that while the consensus is that Obama would win by the most recent predictions I wouldn't put too much stock in it this early in the game, either way. None have any capacity of being too much more credible than reading tea leaves. Or judging the outcome of a world series by how a few of the batters did in warm-ups before a play-off game.

[Phlosphr]

Obama has previously made it clear that he wants to go for a fifty state strategy (rather than the 50 percent plus one approach). This spread the floor approach comes with greater risk along with greater potential for gain. There are many states that he could win by a nose or lose by a nose when all is said and done. He lose them all and it is all of us who are forked.
Obama's pure presence in all fifty states and some territories built up by this primary season will make his nationawide appeal more...nationwide for lack of a better word. He has tried and true on the ground people and field offices already set-up. And with a percentage of Clinton folk coming on board because they loath another republican presidency more than Mr.Obama - I think Obama has the advantage to actually bring this home.

To the OP - I've been waiting to talk with folks on this board who supported Hillary, about Obama against McCain. So thank you for starting this thread. I think in the coming months, discussions will be interesting, as we many of us are on the same team, but had different coaches for awhile, now some of us are all rooting for the same guy.

[DSeid]

Oh, it must also be said that one distinct advantage of Obama's riskier 50 state strategy is that he will do much more to help down ticket than one that doesn't contest many states. If he wins he will win with a much more friendly Congress than Hillary would have as he'll help bring out the votes in Red states to pick up a few seats that might otherwise stay Red.

I am just as confident that Hillary could have won too. She'd do the safe 50 plus one approach and could likely win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She'd not compete in many states that Obama will. And as pointed out Obama would have helped bring his supporters to the table.

[ElvisL1ves]

Elvis so once again you won't answer that simple question prefering instead to claim you've answered it before. Cite please. If it means that much to you, you can use the Search function by your own fucking self. :rolleyes:

But of course I'll play.When do you plan to start? :dubious:

Speaking for myself, as someone who has never liked Hillary, I had already come round to voting for her if she won. I didn't start out that way. Donating to her campaign, probably not. She would be the better of the choices that remained.The question was about what Obama and his supporters would say or do to win over Clinton supporters. Your answer is neither related nor responsive. That raises doubt about your (if not his) ability even to recognize that it would have to be done, however painful it would be for you.

FiveThirtyEight[/URL] also has Obama winningHave you had a look at the assumptions it has to make in order to reach that conclusion (which is its purpose)? IF the youth vote increases by 40% over Kerry's, IF the black vote increases by some other percentage, and so forth, THEN 538 says Obama wins. And with fractional electoral votes at that! :D

The point is that while the consensus is that Obama would win by the most recent predictionsYou have a flawed understanding of the meaning of the word "prediction", in addition to all the other difficulties with topicality you have demonstrated to all of us recently.

Once again, though, if you discard the only data you have, you're free to say anything you like.

[Frostillicus]

If Republicans cannot hold on to house seats in crimson red Mississippi, they are looking at a blowout of epic proportions in November. The same goes for McSame.

[ElvisL1ves]

You don't believe in the ticket-splitting effect either, I take it?

[DSeid]

Ah yes. The old standby of claiming something and then refusing to provide the cite saying search for it yourself. You have made a claim that you have told me what you'll do "enough times already" - unless zero (which is not a plural) qualifies as "enough times" then your claim seems to be specious. Again I may have missed it and my search agility is limited. But I have tried to find you telling me or anyone even once and I cannot find it at all. Surely you can remember one of the times when you said it and find it easily? :rolleyes:

If you do want to play with "the only data we have" then we have Obama winning by electoral-vote.com data and by SUSA's data and by fivethirtyeight's data. You are free to discard them if you wish and say anything you like.

Let me try to answer your questions explicitly one by one so not to exceed you ability to comprehend.

"Under the same assumptions, what could Obama say and do..."

He could and would have conceded and asked his supporters to work for Hillary long ago if he was similarly far behind. It would have been silly for him to not do so.

"... and what can the vociferous Hillary-haters who support him say and do, to induce Clinton supporters to vote for him anyway?"

They can follow Obama's lead here and give Hillary respect even if they feel that she does not deserve it. Let the process play itself out. Those who are true Hillary haters need to shut the fuck up about it and let the Hillary supporters decide if they can support Obama over McCain despite the bad blood that has been spilled by supporters of both Democratic camps. This does not mean that she gets carte blanche to say or do anything with impunity, but the Obama side needs to give space and time for healing to happen. We need to identify our shared interests and goals and hope that Hillary supporters recognize that Hillary is right when she says that the differences between her and Obama are nothing compared to the differences between either of them and McCain. Those Obama supporters who are undeclared supers need to refrain from coming out fast enough to finish it before the primaries are over which would be perceived as pushing her out.

"And when would you plan to start?"

I've been trying.

[Santo Rugger]

If it means that much to you, you can use the Search function by your own fucking self. :rolleyes:

When do you plan to start? :dubious:

The question was about what Obama and his supporters would say or do to win over Clinton supporters. Your answer is neither related nor responsive. That raises doubt about your (if not his) ability even to recognize that it would have to be done, however painful it would be for you.

<snip>

With all this talk of how Obama supporters must start coddling Clinton supporters to gain their support in the general, you're kinda bein' a dick.

Regardless, how do a few people tired of you being so rude and condescending
mean that Obama (your parenthetical) doesn't understand that he needs her supporters. If he didn't, he wouldn't be pulling so many punches with all the crap she's still spouting.

It seems that at some point (which we're well past, IMHO), we're going to have to move past the point of trying to appeal to supporters of a candidate who's no longer in the race, and instead start appealing to voters in general. The process wouldn't be so painful if we didn't feel like we had to get you a pillow in order to secure your support.

[Belowjob2.0]

doesn't understand that he needs her supporters. If he didn't, he wouldn't be pulling so many punches with all the crap she's still spouting.

True.

It's fallen on the Obama campaign to be the grownups here, and they've done so quite well, with Obama setting the tone.

At some point the temper tantrums and whining become too much. Having won, Obama moves on to the race against McCain. Those Hillary supporters susceptible to reason will support him; the others won't.

[tomndebb]

With all this talk of how Obama supporters must start coddling Clinton supporters to gain their support in the general, you're kinda bein' a dick.Even if that were true, you would still be out of line in saying it in Great Debates.

Let's leave the name calling to the Pit.


[ /Moderating ]

[Santo Rugger]

You don't believe in the ticket-splitting effect either, I take it?

I've actually never heard of this. Can you elaborate or point to a cite that explains it? It's hard for me to believe that people would vote for a view that opposes their own just to keep the party that's different from the President than becoming/remaining a majority in congress.

[Santo Rugger]

Even if that were true, you would still be out of line in saying it in Great Debates.

Let's leave the name calling to the Pit.


[ /Moderating ]

My apologizes to both the mods and Elvis. I was under the impression that it was not okay to say somebody was a <name>, but that it was okay to say they were acting like a <name> or being a <name>. Now that it's been cleared up, it won't happen again.

[DSeid]

Meanwhile Barr has gotten the Libertarian nod. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/index.html)

A major impact, I doubt. But 2 - 3% may be enough to make a difference in some states.

Still not forked yet though.

[Hakuna Matata]

The question was about what Obama and his supporters would say or do to win over Clinton supporters.

Well as a moderate I could care less if you are on my side. I find your extreme left positions as distasteful as the extreme right. I would be more interested in Obama moving more people straddling the line into his camp then those from your camp. How many people like me do you think Obama will pull in? I imagine we are the unknown to be totally honest.

From my viewpoint your position is equal to those on the right in their choices. McCain is NOT the choice of the right, but they either vote for him or don't vote at all. Hillary voters either vote for Obama or they don't vote at all-who are you going to vote for--McCain?

As a moderate in my opinion I win either way--either Obama wins or McCain does. I prefer Obama for many reasons. I actually wasn't that unhappy with Hillary at the start, but she has not handled her campaign in a way to impress me.

[DSeid]

I've actually never heard of this. Can you elaborate or point to a cite that explains it? It's hard for me to believe that people would vote for a view that opposes their own just to keep the party that's different from the President than becoming/remaining a majority in congress.I've not heard of it playing out as ticket-splitting but rather during the next mid-terms. Generally the party which has just taken over the White House loses a dozen or so seats in the next mid-terms. Some cycles have seen this much larger - see the blow-back against Bill Clinton. You can see the pattern here. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php) On average the President's party has lost 22 seats in the House during midterms since Truman, and about 3 seats in the Senate. Eisenhower lost 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats his second term which put him up there with Bill Clinton who lost 52 House seats and 8 in the Senate during his first mid-term.

I have generally heard that interpreted as evidence that the public actually does want gridlock.

I'd also be surprised to see it play out as actual ticket splitting. Maybe someone has the energy to see how often Congressional seats increase or decrease in conjunction with the party of the Presidential victory.

[PBear42]

I don't participate in many of these threads, though I lurk in several. If the question is whether McCain can win, the answer is "yes." Putting aside who one would like to win (I'm for Obama), this is fundamentally a factual question. McCain has at least four strengths. First, in presidential politics, folks tend to favor Republicans because they feel they're less likely to raise taxes. Put aside the policy issue of rising deficits, which never seems to get traction as a politcal issue, folks care about their tax bill next year. Second, folks hate, hate, hate to lose wars. It's a matter of pride, ego and (they say) patriotism. This is McCain's bread-and-butter issue. I'll mind being outvoted on this one, but it's certainly possible. Third, a fair number of folks won't vote for a black man. That sucks, but there it is. Fourth, a lot of Obama's support is concentrated in states he's going to win anyway. What matters in a winner-takes-all-by-state electoral system is what happens on the margins, where the first three issues make McCain a viable contender.

[elucidator]

Not in our hands. Men with names like Maliki, al-Sadr and al-Sistani hold the election in their hands. Now, its the economy, Iraq blows up, all bets are off.

[Santo Rugger]

Generally the party which has just taken over the White House loses a dozen or so seats in the next mid-terms....You can see the pattern here. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php)

Your site and explanation both say "If Y, then X", while Elvis is asserting "If X, then Y":

<snip>The point is that if ticket-splitting voters (which is the bulk of them) expect a solidly-Dem Congress, they'll have an incentive to go with a Rep President. We won't know now solidly Dem that is until the polls close, anyway.


I'd still like a cite that shows ticket-splitting voters are a bulk. It sounds more like people who didn't win a couple years ago are more apt to get out and vote because they want to get something back, not because people are just going out to try and make congress have a different party majority than the pres's office.

[Jophiel]

Election Projection (http://www.electionprojection.com/) (run by a Religious Right conservative) also shows Obama currently winning although his projections (http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2008.html) are as much sheer guesswork as they are poll based. I'm not sure where he got his Ohio & Wisconsin poll info mentioned in his most recent entry -- SUSA just showed Obama with a large lead in Ohio (which averages with other polls on RCP to Obama by +1.2) and there hasn't been a new Wisconsin poll in forever.

[DSeid]

It has been hard enough for me to pin down what happens to Congression balances during Presidential election years, let alone to deduce a causation sequence. What I can find shows that Dem's lost 9 House seats with Clinton's win in '92 and there was no change in the Senate. '96 the Pubbies gained 2 Senate seas and I can't find what happened in the House. In 200 the Dems picked up 2 House seats and 4 Senate seats with Bush's victory but the Pubs picked up 5 each with Bush's win in 2004. So no solid consistent pattern but then I don't know of any years where the word ahead was a one party Congressional blow-out was in the offing. The closest may be in 1980 when the GOP picked up a total of 33 seats in Congress and the country elected Ronald Reagan. A second double digit Congressional pick up hasn't been done since then.

I can find no evidence to support Elvis's claim.

My sense is that people split tickets because they have indepenent assessments of the person running for each office. They like their Republican Senator even while they hate the Republican Presidential candiate or visaversa or same with the Dems.

[elucidator]

My understanding is that people tend to have a low opinion of congressional vermin generally, but tend to regard their own as "pretty good".

[DrDeth]

Does Obama, who clinched the nomination months ago, even have to do anything at all to make sure he wins in November?

HRC is still in the running. Obama only has it 90% clinched.

Unless Obama teams up with HRC and kisses up to Fla, Obama will lose that state. If he loses Fla he loses the election, it's as simple as that. That electoral vote predictor show Clinton has a much better chance vs McCain as she wins Fla. But I think it's too optimistic for Obama, I doubt if he'll win Ohio.

DSeid If Obama was losing by as much as Hillary has been losing then he would have conceded and thrown his support to Hillary long ago.
No, he wouldn't have and I'd be disappointed if he did. Although, yes, he might have accepted Hillary's offer of Veep.

AFter the first groups shakes out and it's down to two- no one should quit until it's decided. It's not over yet. If HRC wins the popular vote (and come PR, she likely will) and Obama can't pull off 2026 delegates, HRC is gonna show that map to a lot of SuperDelegates, and they will flock to her.

[rikc]

I'm pretty sure ElvisL1ves is just intentionally trolling at this point with no intention of contributing anything meaningful.

[ZebraShaSha]

I'm pretty sure ElvisL1ves is just intentionally trolling at this point with no intention of contributing anything meaningful.

Well, I don't know about that exactly. I think it has more to do with reality having an anti-Hillary bias.

[rikc]

Well, I don't know about that exactly. I think it has more to do with reality having an anti-Hillary bias.

I guess it's just hard for me because as someone new to this I usually find these threads very informative, and then EL comes along and insists that somewhere, visible to only him because he's apparently the only person who's bothered to read it, is some source of information that totally proves his points that he refuses to share with anyone because he holds them in that much contempt, even if it's something as simple as his own posts.

[Fern Forest]

'96 the Pubbies gained 2 Senate seas and I can't find what happened in the House.

From the Office of the Clerk (http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html) in the House of the Representatives.

Sometimes the roll calls don't quite add up. I guess there's a steady stream of change with 435 reps. Like Jo Ann Emerson who was briefly an independent.

[MEBuckner]

I'm pretty sure ElvisL1ves is just intentionally trolling at this point with no intention of contributing anything meaningful.
Moderator's Warning: Rikc, please don't make public accusations of trolling outside of the Pit (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7696935).

[ElvisL1ves]

I've actually never heard of this. Can you elaborate or point to a cite that explains it?Wikipedia can be your friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-ticket_voting) You can also just have a look at the brevity of the periods in recent history in which the same party has controlled both ends of the street - split control is the tradition, not the exception. Don't you think that the Dems were given back control of Congress in 2006 largely in the expectation that they'd keep Bush under control, for instance?

It's hard for me to believe that people would vote for a view that opposes their own just to keep the party that's different from the President than becoming/remaining a majority in congress.Coupla things - there are more independents than adherents of either party, especially now, and that's who decides elections. An independent has an interest in not allowing either party to gain too much power. For another thing, the level of partisanship we've had since Gingrich's rise is not the historical pattern - it has been customary for the 2 major parties to be able to compromise, and split control forces them to do so (or else get nothing done, which is usually far from the worst possible outcome anyway).

[BobLibDem]

McCain has not begun to be tested yet. His nomination was won by sheer luck. His New Hampshire win was triggered by independents bypassing a Democratic race that they assumed was in the bag for Obama. In South Carolina, he benefited by having Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee dividing up the fundamentalist vote. Then Guiliani helpfully didn't start his campaign till Florida and Huckabee was kind enough to prevent Romney from monopolizing the fundamentalists. To use a sports analogy, Obama won his nomination with a 99 yard drive against a tough defense. McCain had a fumble roll right to him in the end zone.

The guy has a tough job. He's trying to sell an unpopular war and the sorry state of the economy. He even admits he knows little about the economy. On the issues, he's clearly toast. He has his biography to fall back on, but when he gets the scrutiny of the fall campaign he's going to look like a mean little man hopelessly out of touch with the country.

[ElvisL1ves]

Ah yes. The old standby of claiming something and then refusing to provide the cite saying search for it yourself.Dude, if you had bothered to fucking pay attention any of the previous times, you wouldn't have any excuse to blame anybody else for your failure to do so. Now cut the shit, okay? :rolleyes: If you can, that is.

If you do want to play with "the only data we have" then we have Obama winning by electoral-vote.com dataBut if you're still having trouble understanding that "having less than half the vote" is not synonymous with "winning", there's plenty more basic work to do first.

He could and would have conceded and asked his supporters to work for Hillary long ago if he was similarly far behind. Either answer the question asked or admit what is otherwise obvious, that you just can't make yourself do so.

They can follow Obama's lead here and give Hillary respect even if they feel that she does not deserve it. Let the process play itself out. Those who are true Hillary haters need to shut the fuck up about it and let the Hillary supporters decide if they can support Obama over McCain despite the bad blood that has been spilled by supporters of both Democratic camps.The irony! How it burns!

"And when would you plan to start?"

I've been trying.Got a cite for that? :dubious:

[ElvisL1ves]

McCain has not begun to be tested yet. His nomination was won by sheer luck.Oddly, I thought it was due to his winning the most delegates by attracting the most GOP voters. Give the man a little credit.

On the issues, he's clearly toast. Careful there. We've thought the same about GOP nominees quite routinely in recent decades. How's that worked out for the country?

when he gets the scrutiny of the fall campaign"When"? If it didn't happen in the spring, why is it going to happen in the fall?

[Phlosphr]

HRC is still in the running. Obama only has it 90% clinched.

Unless Obama teams up with HRC and kisses up to Fla, Obama will lose that state. If he loses Fla he loses the election, it's as simple as that. That electoral vote predictor show Clinton has a much better chance vs McCain as she wins Fla. But I think it's too optimistic for Obama, I doubt if he'll win Ohio.

DSeid If Obama was losing by as much as Hillary has been losing then he would have conceded and thrown his support to Hillary long ago.
No, he wouldn't have and I'd be disappointed if he did. Although, yes, he might have accepted Hillary's offer of Veep.

AFter the first groups shakes out and it's down to two- no one should quit until it's decided. It's not over yet. If HRC wins the popular vote (and come PR, she likely will) and Obama can't pull off 2026 delegates, HRC is gonna show that map to a lot of SuperDelegates, and they will flock to her.

Said like a red blooded Clinton Supporter. Unless Obama takes your candidate as his Vice Presidential candidate thereis no way he can win.

I think not. I'm finally tired of the BS, seriously, this is shit. Clinton's campaign LOST months ago, when they were mildly playing by the rules, when Obama began winning, and winning big all the goal posts changed, all the rules suddenly had caveats and the end game was becoming more and more opaque to these people.

Good God, WTF!

Political threads are always veiled in "the best interests of your candidate" but they have morphed into something else - they have morphed into a "He said, she said grudge match". Listening to the pundits, NPR, CNN, and other news agencies in the Main Stream Media it appears clear to me that Obama is going to be the Nominee. He will NOT choose Clinton as his running mate, and will go on to run a 50 state campaign - AGAIN. This is not McCain's election to lose.

Ok, I'm off to enjoy the Long Holiday weekend.

[Santo Rugger]

Wikipedia can be your friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-ticket_voting) You can also just have a look at the brevity of the periods in recent history in which the same party has controlled both ends of the street - split control is the tradition, not the exception. Don't you think that the Dems were given back control of Congress in 2006 largely in the expectation that they'd keep Bush under control, for instance?

Coupla things - there are more independents than adherents of either party, especially now, and that's who decides elections. An independent has an interest in not allowing either party to gain too much power. For another thing, the level of partisanship we've had since Gingrich's rise is not the historical pattern - it has been customary for the 2 major parties to be able to compromise, and split control forces them to do so (or else get nothing done, which is usually far from the worst possible outcome anyway).

Glad you cleared that up for me, since what you're saying and the wikipedia article are saying are two different things. The wikipedia article says that split ticket voting means people vote for who they think is the best candidate, regardless of their party, as opposed to straight ticket voting.

You're saying that it means people will go out of their way to try and maintain one party as a majority in congress and one party controlling the white house... which isn't what split ticket voting means at all.

[ElvisL1ves]

The wikipedia article says that split ticket voting means people vote for who they think is the best candidate, regardless of their party,WTF? That is nowhere in there. Split-ticket voting can be used as a form of tactical voting in countries (such as the United States) dominated by two parties where a voter is not a wholehearted supporter of either party...This is often beneficial to the democratic system because it encourages elected officials to be good to their word.

This is middle-school Civics class stuff.

[BobLibDem]

"When"? If it didn't happen in the spring, why is it going to happen in the fall?

Having an opponent for starters. The media will at some point quit fawning over his POW record and decide that perhaps the last 40 years have some relevance.

[ElvisL1ves]

Unless Obama takes your candidate as his Vice Presidential candidate thereis no way he can win. No strawmen, please. If you can show how else Obama wins FL, which is what DD was talking about, please do so.

This is not McCain's election to lose. We're discussing the facts leading to the conclusion. Mere handwaving assertions don't do the job.

[ElvisL1ves]

Having an opponent for starters. The media will at some point quit fawning over his POW record and decide that perhaps the last 40 years have some relevance.
You have more faith in the sense of community responsibility of the Beltway Bubble Media than seems to be borne out by their performance since their corporatization in the Reagan years, then.

FWIW, I've seen almost no references this year to his POW record, only to his image of leadership and ethicality and straight-talking and maverickness.

[BobLibDem]

You have more faith in the sense of community responsibility of the Beltway Bubble Media than seems to be borne out by their performance since their corporatization in the Reagan years, then.

FWIW, I've seen almost no references this year to his POW record, only to his image of leadership and ethicality and straight-talking and maverickness.

Come on. I suppose you never heard Rudy invoke 9/11 either? He gave up the maverick schtick a long time ago. How do his policies substantially differ from Bush's?

[Phlosphr]

Obama's got six months to campaign in FL. I find it hard to believe that Hillary Clinton is his only salvation for winning that state. No I have no cites. However, his choice of VP will certainly take winning FL into account. I don't think Obama got to where he is by being dunce - and I've got no ill will towards Hillary or her constituents [I've got some gripes about how she ran her campaign] but as a human being I actually like the woman. I think Obama and his choice of VP will be carefully thought out and FL will be taken into account. I think there are some who underestimate how many Obama/Clinton democrats there are out there who do not want another 4 years of a republican in office.

[ElvisL1ves]

He gave up the maverick schtick a long time ago. How do his policies substantially differ from Bush's?They don't. I was talking about his media image, which like it or not is what matters in a campaign. Weren't you?

Phl, you do know Obama's put his VP choice in the hands of the same guy who did it for Kerry and Mondale, right? We can hope he's learned something since, at least.

[John Mace]

It's too early to tell. Go back 6 months and all the polling said Hillary would be the Dem candidate.

[Phlosphr]

Phl, you do know Obama's put his VP choice in the hands of the same guy who did it for Kerry and Mondale, right? We can hope he's learned something since, at least.
I know. Hopefully he's learned a thing or two. He damn well better have! :D

[ElvisL1ves]

Go back 3 months and she was already "forked".

[BobLibDem]

They don't. I was talking about his media image, which like it or not is what matters in a campaign. Weren't you?

Phl, you do know Obama's put his VP choice in the hands of the same guy who did it for Kerry and Mondale, right? We can hope he's learned something since, at least.

The media image will change as soon as they pan the cameras away from Obama and Hillary and focus on John W. McCain.

Fritz Mondale could have run with Jesus Christ as his running mate and still have gotten trounced by Reagan. Sometimes the American people are determined not to do the right thing. In fairness to Kerry/Edwards, the only reason they aren't running for reelection is the crookedness of the 2004 Ohio election.

[ElvisL1ves]

Yes, ultimately the vote for Reagan was the responsibility of the electorate, not the media, as any election is. But don't you think that was very heavily influenced by the coverage provided by a coterie of club-member reporters who simply liked Reagan personally more than they liked Mondale? Wasn't the same factor present for Dubya vs. Kerry, and certainly vs. Gore? Was either campaign dominated by issues, or was coverage dominated by inventing the Internet and Swiftboating?

Now compare that to the fawning treatment McCain has received so far, and tell us where you get your belief that somehow this time will be different.

[Evil Captor]

Here is what Obama will have to do to get all the Hillary votes on his side: Nothing. Nada. Zip. His opponent is a fucking REPUBLICAN. Almost all Dems have had enough of Republican rule over the last eight years. They not only will not vote for a Republican candidate they will go out and vote FOR a Dem candidate they despise because the alternative is worse. Don't let the immediacies of the current campaign blind you to the effect that being a Republican punching bag for eight years has had on Dems.

Here is what Obama will have to do to defeat John McCain: play good defense. The Dems are not the ones responsible for the Iraq war, and most of all, they are not responsible (in the public's mind) for the fact that gas is up to over four dollars a fucking gallon right now. The Republicans OWN those. All Obama has to do is respond immediately to any Swiftboating or similar sneaky shit from Karl Rove and his minions, and he's got the election in the bag.

The only uncertainty I have is this: of course, McCain has the "I'll never vote for a nigger" vote sewn up. But how effective, how widespread is the "It's not that he's black, but ..." phenomenon among the independents who'll decide the election? And how strong will it be in relation to: "want four more years of runaway gas prices, a horrible war, and economic incompetence from the Republicans?"

Those are the key questions as far as I'm concerned.

[DSeid]

No strawmen, please. If you can show how else Obama wins FL, which is what DD was talking about, please do so.
He wins Florida's electoral votes by getting more popular votes there ... at least in most years.

You really don't understand how this works, do you? :)


Now DrDeth is asserting that he cannot do that without Hillary on the ticket. That is an opinion which (s)he is entitled to. He offers in support currently available polling data which shows that as of a period time before he has significantly campaigned in Florida, during which the Clinton forces are portraying Obama as conspiring with the Republicans to disenfranchise them. That data means very little as more is likely to change in Florida during the next period time than in many other states. Delegates will get seated and Obama will campaign there in particular. Amazingly his support grows where he shows up. So yes, he shows up there, he campaigns there, he wins votes. That's how he does it. Florida may be a tough sell for Obama but I disagree that it is out of play without Clinton on the ticket or even that she'd help much there. Obviously none of us really know ... well except for Elvis who knows all and for whom his post can be his cite.

Dr.D also makes the assertion that there is no electoral map that wins for Obama without winning Florida. I guess for Hillary supporters there are many states that you can't win the White House unless you win ... I've lost count, but generally they seem to be any state that Hillary does better in! No, that claim is certainly specious. There are many combinations that win without Florida and Florida has scarcely been the bellweather state.

[ElvisL1ves]

He wins Florida's electoral votes by getting more popular votes there ... at least in most years.

You really don't understand how this works, do you? :)Can you try participating here on an adult level? :rolleyes: Gawdamm ...

[DSeid]

:)

Pot meet kettle ...

Well I can go now, the giggle that Elvis just gave me will sustain me for hours!

[ElvisL1ves]

When come back, bring argument.

If you know how.

[DrDeth]

Said like a red blooded Clinton Supporter. Unless Obama takes your candidate as his Vice Presidential candidate thereis no way he can win.
d.

Except I am not a Clinton Supporter. :rolleyes:

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I wonder just how many people out there in America right now in 2008 will not vote for Obama simply because of race.

[DrDeth]

I wonder just how many people out there in America right now in 2008 will not vote for Obama simply because of race.

About as many as who would not vote for Hillary because of her sex.

But in both cases, they are the sort of dudes who wouldn't vote for a Dem in any case.

[Spoke]

About as many as who would not vote for Hillary because of her sex.

But in both cases, they are the sort of dudes who wouldn't vote for a Dem in any case.
Often said, but wrong. There are plenty of racists and sexists in the Democratic ranks.

[John Mace]

Go back 3 months and she was already "forked".
Well, that's nice 20/20 hindsight, but the election is 6 months away. A lot can happen in 6 months.

[Phlosphr]

Except I am not a Clinton Supporter. :rolleyes:
Oh?? I apologize then. I thought you were.

Dr.D - Why do you think Obama needs Clinton to win Florida?


And general question: How has McCain proven he is going to be a rock hard solid candidate against Obama. I would think McCain's camp is trying to figure out how the hell they are going to beat Obama.

[DrDeth]

Oh?? I apologize then. I thought you were.

Dr.D - Why do you think Obama needs Clinton to win Florida?


And general question: How has McCain proven he is going to be a rock hard solid candidate against Obama. I would think McCain's camp is trying to figure out how the hell they are going to beat Obama.

Obama is seen as the guy who blocked Fla delegation from being seated. Clnton did far better there and consitently polls far better there. He doesn't nessesarily need HRC on his ticket, but he does need her and Bill to campiagn there for him. And he has to do something about seating their delegates. The fact he hasn't done anything about it is proof the nomination is not over yet- when it's over, who-ever is the winner will make some gesture to seat some % of the Fla delegates.

McCain isn't "rock solid". But as things stand now, he will likely win (by a small margin) vs Obama and lose badly vs HRC.

Of cours, things will change, no doubt. But if one assumes that that "thing will change" favourably towards your candidate, then your thinking is clouded. Things could just as well get worse.

Fla is key. Look, in the Electoral college, the states are "winner take all" (a couple of small states do thing slightly different, they don't really matter). Obama's "small state strategy won't work there. So, the Big Prize is CA, and that will go Dem. TX will go GOP. NY will go Dem. Those are pretty solid. So the next two are Fla- and that's very very borderline. Then there's Ohio, again, a very precarious state. And finally MI, another state that blames Obama for it's delegates not being seated. In all 3 states, HRC is very strong and Obama is very weak. Obama can win Ohio, :dubious: but I can't see him winning Fl or MI without Clinton help.


Compare this
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May25.html
to this
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May25.html

[elucidator]

There's a big ol' pot of shit bubbling quietly on the back burner. Iraq. McCain is married to Iraq, if it blows up, he's fucked. Even if it just keeps simmering lightly, he's got a tough row to ho.

Iran might save his bacon for him. An Iran brokered peace agreement in Iraq, that permits a troop drawdown that McCain can claim credit for (you know, don't you, that its all because of the surge, and the surge was McCain's idea...) Perhaps the Bushiviks might hesitate to claim credit for this victory in a spasm of conscience. For about a nanosecond.

Wouldn't that be a choice bit of ghastly irony? The Iranian mullahs elect John McCain.

[Phlosphr]

Obama is seen as the guy who blocked Fla delegation from being seated. Clnton did far better there and consitently polls far better there. He doesn't nessesarily need HRC on his ticket, but he does need her and Bill to campiagn there for him. And he has to do something about seating their delegates. The fact he hasn't done anything about it is proof the nomination is not over yet- when it's over, who-ever is the winner will make some gesture to seat some % of the Fla delegates.

McCain isn't "rock solid". But as things stand now, he will likely win (by a small margin) vs Obama and lose badly vs HRC.

Fla is key. Look, in the Electoral college, the states are "winner take all" (a couple of small states do thing slightly different, they don't really matter). Obama's "small state strategy won't work there. So, the Big Prize is CA, and that will go Dem. TX will go GOP. NY will go Dem. Those are pretty solid. So the next two are Fla- and that's very very borderline. Then there's Ohio, again, a very precarious state. And finally MI, another state that blames Obama for it's delegates not being seated. In all 3 states, HRC is very strong and Obama is very weak. Obama can win Ohio, :dubious: but I can't see him winning Fl or MI without Clinton help.

This is a tough road to walk down right now because Clinton is still campaigning like she may win the nomination. The entire race will change when Clinton is standing up for her fellow democrat and presidential nominee Obama. Those maps on electoral vote dot com will change drastically when Hill and Bill are standing up and campaigning for Obama. They will inevitably change. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hill and Bill campaigning for Obama quite heavily in FL and MI.

And the truth about FL and MI is that Obama is not preventing anything from happening - whether or not folks like us on the SDMB are dissecting every poll or every pundits point of view, this decision was made long ago and Obama was not the cause of the entire mess. No matter how anyone wants to twist it. I'm not saying you are twisting it at all Dr.D - I'm saying what you wrote in the quoted above is going to change, and change a lot over the next 3 months. I bet we will see a lot of fluctuations happening while the nomination process drags on, but once there is a clear winner the maps will change.

[Phlosphr]

Ouch - this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24823868) doesn't sound very good for Clinton.

[ElvisL1ves]

Mere woolgathering, and unrelated to the status of the election anyway.

Is this anything more than the anti-Clinton cheerleading we've seen so much of here these last few months?

[Phlosphr]

Mere woolgathering, and unrelated to the status of the election anyway.

Is this anything more than the anti-Clinton cheerleading we've seen so much of here these last few months?
I'm not anti-clinton cheerleading - I'm trying to look past the primary. That article talks about after the primary. I'll mention it again; I don't hate Mrs.Clinton.

[ElvisL1ves]

Then what was that doing in a McCain-forking thread?

[Phlosphr]

Creating a 3-D View? :D

My New England humor is sometimes not very humorous.

[BarnOwl]

McCain, back in 2000, about his plans for 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0YnnsguziE

:D :D :D

[ElvisL1ves]

But 9/11 changed everything! Didn't you hear?

[DSeid]

Phl part of what we need to do to help the healing is to not take the bait. I have no idea what motivates various people (and would only make such accusations in the appropriate forum anyway) but the worst thing right now is for those who want a Democratic victory in November to engage in combat with those allegedly still supporting Clinton and get baited into conflicts that can only worsen divisions. I personally am going to practice my controlled breathing exercises when I read various posts ... at least the ones that aren't so out there that I laugh out loud!

In short, you are right. It is past the point. This thread allegedly is about McCain v Obama. The consensus to the op is apparently no, McCain is not yet forked. Some believe he is well positioned for a victory (DD). Some believe that Obama will end up winning closely. Some believe that Obama will have a blow-out but agree that it is too early to have much confidence about it.

[ElvisL1ves]

So when do you plan to start, DS?

[DSeid]

As my wife learned back in Lamaze, years ago: "Ah-hee ... Ah-hee ... Ah-hee" There. I'm better now.

:)

[Jophiel]

I'm not sure where he got his Ohio & Wisconsin poll info mentioned in his most recent entry -- SUSA just showed Obama with a large lead in Ohio (which averages with other polls on RCP to Obama by +1.2) and there hasn't been a new Wisconsin poll in forever.FWIW, Election Projection (http://www.electionprojection.com/) just revised to give Obama a large electoral vote lead (293-245) in light of recent polling. The webmaster says he'll explain his methodology in the coming week or so.

[DrDeth]

The consensus to the op is apparently no, McCain is not yet forked. Some believe he is well positioned for a victory (DD). Some believe that Obama will end up winning closely. Some believe that Obama will have a blow-out but agree that it is too early to have much confidence about it.

No, I think it will be a very close race, and it's not too late for Obama to win over Fla & MI. One easy way is to get the Clintons on his team. But there may be other ways. And, thinsg do change. But it is bad to think they will only change your way. Rove and co have yet to launch their Swiftboat attack vs Obama.

It is just that-as things stand now- Obama is in for another very tough fight. Mc Cain is by no means "forked".

And- HRC is very much the longshot now, but the horses are still running. (I'll admit she is very close to being forked)

[ElvisL1ves]

The webmaster says he'll explain his methodology in the coming week or so.The guy has done some damned weird things in the past, so this ought to be good. His favorite trick is to draw a line connecting the most recent 2 points, extend it to Election Day, and call that a projection.

[Steve MB]

I've indulged you by answering that silly question enough times already.
Linky no worky.

[Jophiel]

The guy has done some damned weird things in the past, so this ought to be good. His favorite trick is to draw a line connecting the most recent 2 points, extend it to Election Day, and call that a projection.*Shrug* You stated, in regards to electoral vote predictions, that Electoral-Vote.com was "the only one I know of" and so we should work off of it for lack of anything better despite its obvious and glaring flaws in currently predicting the general election*. So people are offering other sources. You're welcome to dismiss those (and really, I doubt any predictions right now) but you shouldn't act so petulant when people don't want to take Electoral-Vote.com as gospel.

*Personally, I like Electoral-Vote.com but the mere fact that the webmaster isn't using the same methodology right now for the general as he'll be using in September should speak volumes that the current predictions are to be taken with a large heap of salt.

[Steve MB]

They don't. I was talking about his media image
McCain has no significant media image; they're too focused on Hillary's cries of "I'm not dead yet!" and "I'll bite your kneecaps off!"

[DSeid]

In terms of how Obama wins without (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/28/expertinent-the-southwest-passage.aspx) Ohio and Florida - STUMPER: This week, Obama is stumping in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. How important is the Southwest to his general-election strategy? Does he need to win there? Can he win there?
SCHALLER: The three states you hit on are obviously the most important and the most likely states. They're among the three fastest growing states in the union: Arizona's first and Colorado and Nevada are right behind it. So long-term, they're important states for the Democratic coalition. Short-term, if you can put together the three non-Arizona Southwestern states--Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico--that's 19 electoral votes. Add them to Kerry's 252 electoral votes and you're over 270 [the amount required to win]. That's Obama right there.

There are five ways that Obama can get from Kerry's 252 over the top, and that's one of them. Florida is obviously one. Ohio is one. Then there are what I call the "36th Parallel" strategies: Virginia and West Virginia, or Missouri and Kentucky, both of which are unlikely. I think of all five, Ohio is the most probable--but the Southwest troika is Obama's second most likely path to the White House.
OTOH McCain can pull it off (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/how_mccain_can_win.html) buthe will have to run one of the best campaigns in modern history. How can he do it? In the immortal words of former California governor Jerry Brown, by running "left and right at the same time."

[ElvisL1ves]

*Shrug* You stated, in regards to electoral vote predictions, that Electoral-Vote.com was "the only one I know of" and so we should work off of it for lack of anything better despite its obvious and glaring flaws in currently predicting the general election*.Absolutely wrong. It's the best data we have even *knowing* its weaknesses, or rather, the weaknesses of its source data. Come on now. :dubious:

The absurdity of the electionprojection guy's methods of projection, as opposed to his source data, makes them noncredible in any context.


McCain has no significant media imageUm, okay :D

[Phlosphr]

Absolutely wrong. It's the best data we have even *knowing* its weaknesses, or rather, the weaknesses of its source data. Come on now. :dubious:

The absurdity of the electionprojection guy's methods of projection, as opposed to his source data, makes them noncredible in any context.


Um, okay :D
Electoral-vote.com has Obama beating McCain today quite handily - May 31 Electoral Votes: Obama 276 McCain 238

[ElvisL1ves]

"Slightly over 50 percent for the first time" is an optimistic definition of "handily", but if you insist ...

[Phlosphr]

"Slightly over 50 percent for the first time" is an optimistic definition of "handily", but if you insist ...
True, I am more black and white than that, I don't know what got into me putting 'handily' in there...that's waaaay too grey area for me! That's so Rhode Island of me - damn it I live in Connecticut!

I'm thinking once this nom is locked up we'll see Obama's numbers increase, and then level off.

[Measure for Measure]

Charlie Cook believes that the Republicans, "...appear to have a 50-50 shot at holding on to the presidency," although they will do poorly in both state and national legislative contests.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20080607_9487.php

As John Mace notes, the race is still young. But C. Cook has a better idea of how to interpret early polling results than I do: I take his views seriously.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Will McCain be able to get funding?

For the first time in US History, can a Repub can get money?

[wolfman]

Electoral-vote.com has Obama beating McCain today quite handily - May 31 Electoral Votes: Obama 276 McCain 238

That's with a 1% edge in Ohio and Missouri, and ties in Indiana and Virginia. One tiny shift in the wind and it's McCain 282. And two campaigns can put out a lot of wind in 5 months ;).

[Liberal]

McCain just wasted millions of dollars, launching a nationwide TV campaign that focuses on his war on a day when a variety of economic indicators tanked. He couldn't be more out of touch.

[RTFirefly]

That's with a 1% edge in Ohio and Missouri, and ties in Indiana and Virginia. One tiny shift in the wind and it's McCain 282. And two campaigns can put out a lot of wind in 5 months ;).When the situation was reversed, with McCain having a similarly fragile polling advantage over Obama, Elvis was declaiming on that basis that Obama wasn't electable. Elvis was also saying that, regardless of its weaknesses, electoral-vote.com was the best evidence available of electability.

Aside from that bit of prologue, I expect Phlosphr would be treating electoral-vote.com as an interesting but unreliable piece of horserace fluff.

[Jophiel]

When the situation was reversed, with McCain having a similarly fragile polling advantage over Obama, Elvis was declaiming on that basis that Obama wasn't electable. Exactly. We were all told then that the 1% margins and ties just meant that Obama had to pray for a number of upsets to even be viable. Now the 1% margins in the other direction mean that McCain is still as good as beating Obama. Go figure.

I'll restate my previous postition, that until E-V.com restarts its older methodology of averaging polls, its general election maps aren't all that accurate an indicator. But I do find it amusing that what was a telling blow for McCain is a worthless tie for Obama.

[Knorf]

McCain just wasted millions of dollars, launching a nationwide TV campaign that focuses on his war on a day when a variety of economic indicators tanked. He couldn't be more out of touch.
He could be touting welfare reform.

You know, back before 2000, when all I knew about McCain was what I read here and there, I thought I liked him: independent attitude, forthrightness of speech, etc. Then, post-9/11 he became a total sellout, in my opinion.

Now, he's getting a lot of media coverage, and I've watched some of his speeches, and I'm thinking: that's the guy I used to think I liked? WTF?

[ElvisL1ves]

Exactly. We were all told then that the 1% margins and ties just meant that Obama had to pray for a number of upsets to even be viable. Now the 1% margins in the other direction mean that McCain is still as good as beating Obama. Go figure.No, dammit, that is NOT what you were told. Please. But at least you're not misrepresenting quite as totally as RTF.

I'll restate my previous postition, that until E-V.com restarts its older methodology of averaging polls, its general election maps aren't all that accurate an indicator.Yet the polls are the only data there is. As you've been told before, and not only by me, if you discard your only data, you can say whatever you like.

But I do find it amusing that what was a telling blow for McCain is a worthless tie for Obama.You do? I find it mystifying - that you could think anybody has said that.

The data has been there for you all along, and still is. If you don't like E-V's approach to compilation, and as you ought to know by know I don't either, at least the raw data is posted there too. Would you like to discuss it, to repeat the only data there is, or stick with your previous nonsense?

[RTFirefly]

No, dammit, that is NOT what you were told. Please. But at least you're not misrepresenting quite as totally as RTF. Good to see you're not terminally depressed. I'd say "welcome back to the land of the living," except.

Yet the polls are the only data there is. As Nate Silver has demonstrated for months over at Five Thirty Eight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) (which has been repeatedly pointed out to you), no they're not. I hate to burst your little balloon here.

And even if we assume arguendo that they are, national as well as state polls are relevant data, and it goes without saying that polls besides the most recent poll in each state are also relevant data. Hell, the most recent one is far from guaranteed to even be the best single datum, but you seem perfectly content to use as your blunt instrument a tool that only takes into account that single datum from each state.

Claiming an evidence-based argument while deliberately ignoring piles of evidence is not my idea of a sound approach.

[ElvisL1ves]

Projections are not data. Handwaving is not evidence. Denial is not rebuttal.

538, for instance, is a study in how much different reality would have for Obama to win. The fact that it uses numbers does not make that process objective. It is not "data".

Such basic failure to understand the concept does help explain your basic misrepresentations of explanations to the contrary, though.

[RTFirefly]

Projections are not data. Monte Carlo simulations are, in fact, data.

Demographic data are, in fact, data.

If you want to insist that they're not, you're on your own. (YOYO.)

Handwaving is not evidence. Denial is not rebuttal. You should abandon those debate techniques, then.

The fact that it uses numbers does not make that process objective. It is not "data". Electoral-vote.com's site is vulnerable to a similar problem. It's 'objective,' but that doesn't make it meaningful.

I can sit here and flip a coin to decide which way each state is going to vote. It's perfectly objective, but it would still be a crock of shit. Electoral-vote.com's really not much better.

[Kozmik]

Yes, he is:


John McCain's YouTube Problem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c)

[Mosier]

I've read the whole thread, and I don't think anyone has pointed out that polling at this point is exactly as useless as "nothing" if we're trying to use something as a data point to predict the election. Polling has not proven to be a more accurate way to predict elections than flipping a coin when the margins are this close.

I don't think McCain is forked. I don't know whether he is or not, and neither can anyone else. We have to wait a bit and see whether Obama gains momentum after the fallout from Hillary supporters settles down, and nobody can realistically predict what's going to happen. McCain is not by any means a weak candidate, and would do well in an election against ANY democrat. I think to be convinced otherwise is foolish.

[Squink]

Yes, he is:


John McCain's YouTube Problem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c)
Pull that fork out. McCain's sounding very presidential these days:
the McCain campaign "will not comment on the details … of ongoing investigations and legal charges not yet proved in court." (http://www.newsweek.com/id/139443)

[Kozmik]

You mean like President Bush?

[Squink]

That's our president!

[DoctorJ]

If Tuesday night's speeches were any indication, McCain might just be forked.

It was just bad. Stilted, uninspired, and at times just really creepy. He used that weird green backdrop even though he was in New Orleans, a city with plenty of nice visuals despite it all. Of course, NO scenery would have brought up questions McCain doesn't want to deal with right now, so he was pretty much screwed either way. Perhaps he should have considered another locale for such a high-profile speech.

When the usual ball-washers at Fox News can't even bring themselves to say anything good, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4&eurl=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) it had to be pretty damn bad.

Meanwhile, you had Obama: cool, confident, and inspiring, addressing a huge and enthusiastic throng, hitting all the right notes. This was the first night when the race was officially down to Obama and McCain, and the contrast couldn't have been more stark.

Maybe it was an off night for McCain, but it's not like it was an unusually "on" night for Obama. Maybe McCain's "A" game compares more favorably to Obama, but can he bring it every time? The only smart thing for McCain to do would have been to stay home that night, and the fact that he didn't doesn't speak well for his campaign judgement.

It's hard for the junkies among us to grasp that a lot of the American public just hasn't seen much of McCain yet. If this is an indication of what they're going to see, then yeah, he's forked.

[ElvisL1ves]

I've read the whole thread, and I don't think anyone has pointed out that polling at this point is exactly as useless as "nothing" if we're trying to use something as a data point to predict the election. For the purposes of assessing the situation as it is, to find out what the candidates' strengths and weaknesses are so that the strategies they can use can be defined, there's nothing else available, though. The data do show that McCain has electoral support on the order of Obama's. Up to Clinton's withdrawal, they showed her in a much stronger position. From that snapshot, it is hardly unreasonable to "predict" that Obama has a tough job ahead of him, tougher by far than Clinton would have had.

Which is what I've been saying for some time, without getting through to a few folks.

McCain is not by any means a weak candidate, and would do well in an election against ANY democrat. I think to be convinced otherwise is foolish.Yep. That would be true even without data to show it.


RTF, when you go find out what a Monte Carlo simulation is, let us know. The short version is that it is indeed a projection, NOT "data". Data is what goes into it. The longer version is that it also depends on the inputted assumptions about how the data will behave. Those assumptions, also, are NOT "data". They can, however, be adjusted to provide a desired answer, which is what the 538 guy is doing - he's seeing what assumptions have to be made in order to "predict" an Obama win.

I realize how important it is to you to hold onto a bit of numerology that purports to give you the result you desire, but come on, enough of this shit is enough.

[RTFirefly]

RTF, when you go find out what a Monte Carlo simulation is, let us know. The short version is that it is indeed a projection, NOT "data". Data is what goes into it. Since you don't even know what 'data' is, I guess we can end this conversation.
1 : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation <the data is plentiful and easily available — H. A. Gleason, Jr.> <comprehensive data on economic growth have been published — N. H. Jacoby> 2 : information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful 3 : information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed

Those assumptions, also, are NOT "data". They can, however, be adjusted to provide a desired answer, which is what the 538 guy is doing - he's seeing what assumptions have to be made in order to "predict" an Obama win. Cite, please.

[Mosier]

For the purposes of assessing the situation as it is, to find out what the candidates' strengths and weaknesses are so that the strategies they can use can be defined, there's nothing else available, though. The data do show that McCain has electoral support on the order of Obama's. Up to Clinton's withdrawal, they showed her in a much stronger position. From that snapshot, it is hardly unreasonable to "predict" that Obama has a tough job ahead of him, tougher by far than Clinton would have had.


The data didn't necessarily show that. That's one interpretation of the data. Another interpretation is that Clinton had a harder time holding on to traditional Democrat states, and that Obama was more likely to challenge some traditionally Republican states. The data was never clear as to who was in a stronger position vs. McCain, because different people define strength differently. Clinton was extremely vulnerable in states that Obama won solidly, and more Red states became "purple" when comparing McCain to Obama than when comparing McCain to Hillary.

[Jophiel]

No, dammit, that is NOT what you were told. Please. But at least you're not misrepresenting quite as totally as RTF.Your response (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=466727) to the previously polled close race with McCain leading by slim margins in a few states was:Obama just has no room for error, and that doesn't even get into the Bradley/Wilder/Gantt effect (in racially-mixed states, take 5% or so off the black candidate's poll total if he's facing a white).
[...]
To pull it off, he'd have to depend on McCain self-destructing, which of course is quite possible but, given his media coverage, not to be expected....and...You cannot assume that Obama will hold his lead where he barely has one, and will take away McCain's bare-lead states - just the opposite is just as likely. Look at who's more solid in the states that are still available, as in where the lead is small whoever has it.

What I just read in this thread in regards to Obama holding a few slim leads was:That's with a 1% edge in Ohio and Missouri, and ties in Indiana and Virginia. One tiny shift in the wind and it's McCain 282. And two campaigns can put out a lot of wind in 5 months ;)Now, granted, you're two different people and so I did not directly reference you in my original comment. I did notice that the same people saying "He'd have to depend on McCain self-destructing" aren't responding to the latest polls with "McCain would have to depend on Obama self-destructing" to win.Would you like to discuss it, to repeat the only data there is, or stick with your previous nonsense?RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5) also shows Obama leading based on polling data without additional manipulation. they're much more tie-happy than other sites I've seen but whether you eliminate toss-ups or not, Obama is in the lead.

[Mighty_Girl]

It was just bad. Stilted, uninspired, and at times just really creepy. It was like after every period there was a "Smile, senator" in his teleprompter notes. That smile was so fake it was painful to watch.

Actually it was really funny, best comedy I've seen in a while.

[Measure for Measure]

Yet the polls are the only data there is. As you've been told before, and not only by me, if you discard your only data, you can say whatever you like.Not quite.

We have Ray Fair's election model (http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2008/index2.htm). We have Charlie Cook's current electoral outlook (http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/presidential/default.php) analysis. Admittedly those were as of late April. But they still are decent benchmarks.

Polling this early needs to be interpreted with care, preferably by a professional political scientist.

[ElvisL1ves]

Since you don't even know what 'data' is, I guess we can end this conversation.Moi? :D
If you're that resistant to the notion that what goes into a mathematical procedure is not the same thing as the procedure itself, then yes, there's no point trying to explain it to you.

Cite, please.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics



Measure, same thing I told him - a projection based on raw data is not the data itself. The assumptions that underlie the projection method have to be considered and understood, and even then the results are projections, not data.


The data was never clear as to who was in a stronger position vs. McCainSure it was. Add the electoral votes, the only thing that ultimately matters, in the states each was leading and that's what you had - Clinton ahead nearly 2/1 and Obama neck and neck. Speculate on what might happen to change the situation in the futre and you're no longer "clear", sure - but, again, speculation is not data.

[ElvisL1ves]

A clearer summary of Poblano's statistical projection methods (http://www.alternet.org/election08/85549/?page=entire), for those readers who do know the basics. Just look at all the "ifs" that go into his Monte Carlos. IF the black vote goes up 10 percent more, IF the youth vote goes up 20 percent, IF the Latino vote goes up 40 percent, IF those groups go with Obama by some other IF percentage ...

That ain't "data". :(

[DSeid]

Just a minor chime in on the difference between "data" and "projections"

The "data" such as it is are polls collected at various past dates and various demographic statistics. Data includes behavior in past elections and what the candidates state are their plans for competing.

Electoral-vote.com, fivethityeight.com, and various others, each make projections based on some of that data. The model could be a simple one such as just using the latest poll as your sole predictor, or one more complex based on past identified behaviors of various demographics, but both are projections.

Either both of those are "data" or neither are.

Both are however likely to be as reliable as me predicting the weather on November 4th based on today's temperature. Or who will win the World Series this year based on today's records, maybe. (Go Cubs! Subway series maybe?)

[RTFirefly]

A clearer summary of Poblano's statistical projection methods (http://www.alternet.org/election08/85549/?page=entire), for those readers who do know the basics. Sorry, I wasn't talking about that.

I was talking about use of demographic data like this (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/north-carolina-prediction-obama-by.html).

The idea that, in the aggregate, people vote like other people who are like them, is hardly an earthshaking idea. But if that's too much for you to handle, that's not my problem.

[Pleonast]

McCain is forked. Evidence: George Will on ABC's This Week said "The next chance Hillary Clinton will have at the Democratic nomination is 2016." Tacitly assuming that Obama will automatically get the nomination in 2012, because he's president.

Will is conservative, but not a Republican loyalist. The fact that he's already accepted an Obama presidency as inevitable bodes ill for McCain.

[Kozmik]

McCain 2024 :D

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

McCain 2024 :D

The Bionic Geezer.

[DSeid]

A nice ongoing synthesis of the various electoral vote predicters. (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/general-election-tracker_08.html)

[Shayna]

Hey, did you guys know that The leader of Gemany is President Putin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfealLrWLIY)?

Yeah, he may not be forked just yet, but there's no doubt in my mind that he will be.

[MilTan]

A clearer summary of Poblano's statistical projection methods (http://www.alternet.org/election08/85549/?page=entire), for those readers who do know the basics. Just look at all the "ifs" that go into his Monte Carlos. IF the black vote goes up 10 percent more, IF the youth vote goes up 20 percent, IF the Latino vote goes up 40 percent, IF those groups go with Obama by some other IF percentage ...

That ain't "data". :(

RT made much the same point, but I wanted to make something clear. What you're pointing to is a projection Silver did to show how differences in turnout could drive an Obama landslide. The projections at fivethirtyeight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com) do not use those increased turnout projections* -- they use much more conservative estimates. Which, you'll note, is why the prediction there shows Obama winning, but barely.

*From here (http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhn8hrb6_4c43866dz) (bolding mine):
What if any assumptions do you make about turnout? I don't make any assumptions about turnout. The pollsters make various sorts of assumptions about turnout, and I rely on the pollsters. The only exception is in calculating the popular vote percentage shares for each candidate; for this purpose, I assume that turnout will be proportionate to what it was in 2004.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly

You should abandon those debate techniques, then..[/QUOTE]

The Irony, it burns! :p

(Dey googles, dey do nuttink)

Pleonast McCain is forked. Evidence: George Will on ABC's This Week said "The next chance Hillary Clinton will have at the Democratic nomination is 2016." Tacitly assuming that Obama will automatically get the nomination in 2012, because he's president. No, that's assuming McCain will win and be Prez for 2 terms. :rolleyes:

[Measure for Measure]

Measure, same thing I told him - a projection based on raw data is not the data itself. The assumptions that underlie the projection method have to be considered and understood, and even then the results are projections, not data. There is certainly a distinction between data and technique.

But Ray Fair's model doesn't use any polling data. Instead, it measures the historical relationship between various measures of the economy and share of the popular vote. Apparently, the fit of the model is surprisingly good.

Similarly, Charlie Cook et al tend to ignore polling data in the Spring in favor of a mix of demographic data and past electoral returns.

But what I was getting at is that May-June polling data has to be treated with care if one is to predict behavior in November. So I prefer to have it filtered by a specialist operation such as CQ, Charlie Cook, Sabato or whomever. The raw figures are likely to be misapplied by nonprofessionals such as myself. (It's not that the problem is intractable: one simply has to compare the predictive power of previous June polls with other datasets available at that time of year.)

[RTFirefly]

McCain is forked. Evidence: George Will on ABC's This Week said "The next chance Hillary Clinton will have at the Democratic nomination is 2016." Tacitly assuming that Obama will automatically get the nomination in 2012, because he's president. No, that's assuming McCain will win and be Prez for 2 terms. :rolleyes:That's the direct equivalent of saying that nobody had a chance to win the 2004 Dem nomination because GWB turned out to be a 2-term President.

How's that burning? :)

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Sadly, there will be no forking for Senator McCain. Sure, he'll have his forkable moments during the campaign--even to the point where a mass forking frenzy will break out here on the Dope; Obama will go up by more then 10 points in the polls, and everyone (including me) will get very excited.

Then election ensues. John McCain is elected the next president.

I'll be proudly voting for Obama and I would LOVE to eat my words on the day after the election.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

They say that a week is a long time in politics, but I really don't see how McCain can compete with Obama unless the latter makes a major gaffe. But I'm looking forward to finding out.Obama made his major gaffe by being born black. That's all it takes in the backward-looking, knuckle-dragging portions of our nation (which is most of it).

[MovieMogul]

I thought this letter (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/whos-the-known.html#more) to Andrew Sullivan really encapsulated McCain's problem well:Joyner says McCain is the more known commodity and Obama the lesser known, echoing a common theme among political insiders. Even the McCain campaign believes it to be true. To anyone outside the Washington bubble, though, this idea is total nonsense.

Over the past year, while McCain and the Republicans have sat on their hands and helplessly watched, Barack Obama has become an absolute pop culture and media sensation. America is literally obsessed with him. He's a celebrity candidate who became a celebrity by running for president; he's been discussed, debated, and argued over on television, in newspapers, in political magazines, in gossip magazines, on the internet, among every age group, every demographic, every race, and in every subset of American life. It's easy to forget this when you're refreshing Drudge and Halperin every two minutes as us junkies are wont to do, but when it comes to the non-political media, Barack Obama is a superstar, while McCain is a nonentity. He is barely even mentioned.

McCain had his chance to seize the narrative with both hands during the waning months of the Democratic primary. He failed. Thanks to HIllary's campaign, Obama is as defined as he can be in the public consciousness, almost as much as Hillary and Bill Clinton at this point. Most primary campaigns fly under the radar, but this primary campaign was rated by Entertainment Weekly as the surprise TV hit of the season. What's more, Hillary and Barack campaigned aggressively in all 50 states. McCain campaigned in about 10.

On top of all this, Obama has the lopsided money advantage, the lopsided enthusiasm advantage, the lopsided technology advantage, the lopsided earned media advantage, the lopsided paid media advantage, the lopsided volunteer and voter registration advantage, the lopsided issue advantage, the lopsided party advantage, and the lopsided ground army advantage. It's too late for John McCain to "define" Barack Obama. That ship has sailed. In fact, it's Obama who is very quickly defining McCain. Political insiders who have "known" John McCain since 2000 forget that the vast majority of voters have a very hazy memory of that primary election, if they have any at all. In fact, I'd guess that most voters have two impressions of John McCain: that he is old, and that he is a full-throated supporter of the Iraq war. And nothing he has done so far in the campaign has remotely challenged those impressions.

[Bosstone]

That letter seems pretty spot on. I've said it before, if Obama were white, the election would be the biggest landslide in history. The only thing McCain has going for him at this point is he's a white male. That's enough to make it a close race.

[John Mace]

That letter seems pretty spot on. I've said it before, if Obama were white, the election would be the biggest landslide in history.
That's a laugh. If Obama was White, he'd be just be another freshman Senator who can give a good speech. He stands out because of his race, not despite it. There was almost no difference in his proposed policies vs those of Clinton or Edwards.

The only thing McCain has going for him at this point is he's a white male. That's enough to make it a close race.
So, the 40-odd % of the electorate who support him are racists? Got it. :rolleyes:

[Measure for Measure]

If Obama was White, he'd be just be another freshman Senator who can give a good speech. I disagree. Obama is the best orator of the past couple of generations. I expect imitators. He has also shown the ability to pull a fair amount of support from those who think that they disagree with him on certain points, but believe he nonetheless deserves trust. This flows from his oratorical style, which takes pains to engage with best aspects of the listener's ideas, but then suggests that there are other ways of looking at the issue at hand.

Where Bill Clinton's centrist instincts took the form of triangulation, Obama prefers to look for ways of actually engaging with a segment of the opposition, at times winning them over. Or at least that was his Modus operandi in the Illinois legislature.

The man is political gold. His biography is only part of his appeal.

[Liberal]

If Obama was White, he'd be just be another freshman Senator who can give a good speech. He stands out because of his race, not despite it. There was almost no difference in his proposed policies vs those of Clinton or Edwards.Despite what McCain might say, the war in Iraq actually is a pretty big deal. It costs a lot of money, kills a lot of people, and hasn't done anything good for anyone other than a few wealthy fatcats.

[Hail Ants]

Obama's support and image and whole "pop-culture phenom" status is way over-blown because the media are so self-enamored just by the idea of a black president (and deluded by their flaming Bush hatred) that him being elected is almost a foregone conclusion to them. They've created this reality-distortion bubble of reporting which they're happily living inside of.

Well, the Obama bubble is going to burst on election night.

No one wins the US presidency without the South and Obama will not win there. Not just because he's black, but because he's a black, Northern, liberal Democrat. He will not win any of the deep South, nor will he win Florida, certainly not Texas, nor the Mid-West.

He'll win New York (because of NYC), Mass, Illinois, New Jersey, a couple others and maybe, MAYBE California. That's it. He will be resoundly defeated in the Electoral College.

[Liberal]

Obama's support and image and whole "pop-culture phenom" status is way over-blown because the media are so self-enamored just by the idea of a black president (and deluded by their flaming Bush hatred) that him being elected is almost a foregone conclusion to them. They've created this reality-distortion bubble of reporting which they're happily living inside of.

Well, the Obama bubble is going to burst on election night.

No one wins the US presidency without the South and Obama will not win there. Not just because he's black, but because he's a black, Northern, liberal Democrat. He will not win any of the deep South, nor will he win Florida, certainly not Texas, nor the Mid-West.

He'll win New York (because of NYC), Mass, Illinois, New Jersey, a couple others and maybe, MAYBE California. That's it. He will be resoundly defeated in the Electoral College.The wife and I are heading to Vegas this summer. How will we fare?

[John Mace]

Despite what McCain might say, the war in Iraq actually is a pretty big deal. It costs a lot of money, kills a lot of people, and hasn't done anything good for anyone other than a few wealthy fatcats.
I honestly have no idea what that had to do with my post, which you were responding to.

[Liberal]

I honestly have no idea what that had to do with my post, which you were responding to.You wrote: "There was almost no difference in his proposed policies vs those of Clinton or Edwards". He differed with them (especially Clinton, although Edwards eventually changed his mind) about the war. I felt that the war in Iraq was not so insignificant an issue as to dismiss it under the heading of almost no difference. Thus, my response. Is it clearer now?

[John Mace]

You wrote: "There was almost no difference in his proposed policies vs those of Clinton or Edwards". He differed with them (especially Clinton, although Edwards eventually changed his mind) about the war. I felt that the war in Iraq was not so insignificant an issue as to dismiss it under the heading of almost no difference. Thus, my response. Is it clearer now?
OK. But that's why I wrote "proposed". What they were proposing to do as president was pretty much the same thing-- get out fast.

[Liberal]

Well, McCain's getting closer. It's a four-year plan now.

[John Mace]

I'll be dumbfounded if president Obama can fulfill his campaign pledge on the Iraq war. But he (and Clinton) left enough wiggle room in the fine print to technically say he has even if we're still fighting over there when his first term is up.

[MovieMogul]

Obama's support and image and whole "pop-culture phenom" status is way over-blown because the media are so self-enamored just by the idea of a black president (and deluded by their flaming Bush hatred) that him being elected is almost a foregone conclusion to them. They've created this reality-distortion bubble of reporting which they're happily living inside of.

Well, the Obama bubble is going to burst on election night.

No one wins the US presidency without the South and Obama will not win there. Not just because he's black, but because he's a black, Northern, liberal Democrat. He will not win any of the deep South, nor will he win Florida, certainly not Texas, nor the Mid-West.

He'll win New York (because of NYC), Mass, Illinois, New Jersey, a couple others and maybe, MAYBE California. That's it. He will be resoundly defeated in the Electoral College.I would very gladly love to put a wager on that...

[DSeid]

Surely this apparent Ron Paul endorsement of Barr (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/12/paul-people-will-have-a-chance-with-barr/#more-7827) isn't going to help McCain. And Paul will get some media coverage during the GOP convention with his planned seperate show.

Maybe it is time for just a cocktail fork?

[RTFirefly]

He'll win New York (because of NYC), Mass, Illinois, New Jersey, a couple others and maybe, MAYBE California. That's it. I, too, would be interested in getting a piece of this action.

The states you've listed by name have 31, 12, 21, 15, and 55 EVs, respectively. The largest states where the polls show Obama up by 10+ at electoral-vote.com are Washington and Minnesota, with 11 and 10 EVs, so let's suppose these are your 'couple others.' (He's not going to win PA and OH while losing those two.) And of course I'm sure you agree Obama will win D.C.'s 3 EVs, which are easy to overlook.

Add those up, and we get 158 EVs. That's your ceiling for Obama in the EC.

How about this for an even bet: if Obama wins at least 200 EVs in November, I win; if he wins 199 or fewer, you win. Interested?

[Hail Ants]

How about this for an even bet: if Obama wins at least 200 EVs in November, I win; if he wins 199 or fewer, you win. Interested?Sounds about right to me. If I lose I'll refrain from posting in GD for at least 3 months. If I win I'll gloat mercilessly for at least that long!

(There's an Alien vs Predator "Regardless of who wins We lose" joke in here somewhere...) :D

[Merkwurdigliebe]

No way Obama does that poorly barring any kind of tragic screw-up. Look at electoral-vote.com and he's over 300 now. He doesn't need the South to win because he's got a lot of support in the West for some reason. Iowans also like him too. There are simply too many reasons why any Republican would lose this election. The House and Senate has been going left and that is expected to continue. I realize you're going by your gut here, but it won't happen. And remember, he could possibly win in VA. I'm not saying it's a guaranteed win, but he certainly won't do any worse than Kerry. Do you think that Kerry was in any way more appealing? Kerry would win this election too, btw.

[Hail Ants]

Unlike liberal think-tank Janenne Garafalo I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong.

Polls are one thing (internet ones especially), actually winning votes is another. Remember in '04 when exit polling all but proved Kerry had won, turned out to be wrong. And yes, I do think Kerry was more appealing. Or at least less of an unknown or risk.

I don't think Obama is the anti-christ or anything, but I do think he's way too much of a liberal to win the election. But the newsmedia (and media in general) want an Obama presidency. Badly. Both thru a combination of liberal guilt and Bush hatred. And its causing tremendous spin and slanted reporting. Not a vast left-wing conspiracy, just like-minded people, um, deluding themselves more and more.

Consequently I have to go with my gut!

[Merkwurdigliebe]

You make a good point, but I'd also like to point out that the media will often get what it wants. The media made Al Gore seem pedantic and simply ripped into him for various different reasons. They made him into some kind of strange pompous liar. They completely ruined his chances.

[Darryl Lict]

I think that McCain is making a serious error in condemning the Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo detainees (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080614/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_detainees). This poll (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/SupremeCourt/story?id=2123053) shows that 70% of Americans oppose imprisoning suspects there indefinitely without charges. He may feel pretty strongly that the Guantanamo Bay infinite detention is making America safer, but when you go against both the Supreme Court and the American public's opinion, this cannot be a good political move. I think the writ of habeus corpus is an extremely important right to Americans and most of us would not want to be in the situation of the prisoners incarcerated in Gitmo. If I was him, I would have shut up about this particular issue. It sort of strikes me as the classic example of McCain's alleged temper outbreaks.

[RTFirefly]

Polls are one thing (internet ones especially), actually winning votes is another. Remember in '04 when exit polling all but proved Kerry had won, turned out to be wrong. Conventional polling is actually pretty good, especially when taken in aggregate. RCP's final 2004 poll average (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html) had Bush up by 1.5%; actual was 2.5%.

Exit polling is a whole 'nother thing entirely, and isn't meant to predict actual outcomes, but rather to show who did how well among which subgroups of the electorate - once normalized to the actual election results.

Anyhow, my half of the bet: if I lose our bet, I'll send $25 to a charity of your choice. If I win, and Obama gets between 200-268 EVs, I won't feel like gloating, so I'm not sure what I 'win' under that circumstance. But I'll gloat if he wins the election, which I think he will. I think that'll suffice. Does that sound good to you? If so, we've got a bet. :)

[Measure for Measure]

Inttrade currently gives Obama a 61% chance of winning the general election - sounds like a buy to me. McCain gets 34.4%.
https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=37985&eventSelect=37985&updateList=true&showExpired=false#

Props to my ideological counterpart Hail Ants and also RTFirefly for making the bet (or at least entering discussions -- I don't want to claim that matters are sealed and finalized).

I encourage them to keep their word and note that doing so would earn some small and restrained bragging rights. Forecasting errors come with the territory, but putting one's money et al on the line and keeping one's word reflects strong character.

----
Er RTF: Yeah, the final polls may be pretty good, but this graph (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html) suggests to me that June polling is pretty noisy.

[RTFirefly]

Props to my ideological counterpart Hail Ants and also RTFirefly for making the bet (or at least entering discussions -- I don't want to claim that matters are sealed and finalized). Thanks. Whether or not the proposal on the table is the bet Hail Ants and I make (I'm open to alternatives), he seems genuinely willing to back his convictions.

Er RTF: Yeah, the final polls may be pretty good, but this graph (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html) suggests to me that June polling is pretty noisy. [/quote]Oh, I agree. My point had been that, on Election Day, the proper measure of the accuracy of polls is the final polling average (which is really quite good), and not the early exit polls on the day of the voting (which were way off in 2004, and also repeatedly so during the recently-concluded primary season).

But June polls? Lots of noise. Many people just haven't gotten very far along in thinking about the candidates, and there's still a lot of room to sway them. I still remember when Carter was up by 40(!) over Ford just after the 1976 Dem convention, but only won the election by the skin of his teeth.

[RTFirefly]

Speaking of noise, the www.electoral-vote.com graph that Elvis puts so much weight on, will read 317-221 for Obama, as soon as they update Virginia from 'tied' to 'barely Obama' due to the most recent Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/virginia/election_2008_virginia_presidential_election) of that state.

I think the only significant thing it shows is that there's no reason to believe that Obama will lose this election in the EC if he wins the popular vote by a few points. (Not saying it can't happen, but there's no reason to believe he's particularly vulnerable to that possibility.) Other than that - well, it's June, and November's still a long, long way away.

But Elvis regards this as evidence, so I thought I'd get this into the thread for that reason.

[E-Sabbath]

Elvis has been quiet recently. You okay, man?


We also have Senate polls, but they are less surprising. Former Virginia governor Mark Warner (D) is so far ahead of former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore (R) that is is essentially all over but the shoutin' It is even possible that Warner has coattails that could help Obama in the state. If Obama can win the states Kerry won plys Virginia, he will have 265 electoral votes. All he would need then is one more state, probably from the list of New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa. Thus the loss of Virginia would mean that McCain has to win all the new swing states unless he can pick off a Kerry state. Thus winning Virginia would mean Obama could probably be elected President while losing Florida and Ohio.


Someone was saying this just the other day, here. Good eye, that person.

[DSeid]

Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465) is giving Obama a 15 point lead in national polling. Whoa. Now it must be noted that Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108223/Gallup-Daily-Obama-46-McCain-44.aspx) is keeping it consistently between only 2 to 4 Obama depending on the day, and Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history) is also running in those closer parts. So this may be a what's-up-with-Newsweek post, but still ... whoa.

Mind you Obama is getting some of his hits now as he fully sets up for the general competition - he will get some dings for the appearance of a reversal on public financing (see those threads) and for his tacking a bit more to the middle on a variety of issues and McCain will use free media to paint Obama in a negative flip-flopping light as much as he can. It will tighten and surge and tighten again a few times over I'm guessing.

But still ... 15 points? Whoa.

[elucidator]

Oh, definitely. McCain should hit him on his flop-flops, fer sure, fer sure. Can't have a president given to sudden reversals depending on whose knob he has to slobber. No question about that, need a straight talker who doesn't bend to the political winds like a lost balloon.

For sure, that's McBomb's strong suit. Consistency! Yeppers. Hugh Bethca.

[Liberal]

But still ... 15 points? Whoa.I think your article explains it pretty well. Obama is enjoying multiple bumps in multiple categories. That makes polling difficult unless you're making sure you have a sampling that is across all the demographics and issues.

[RTFirefly]

Fifteen points? Outlier. Way outlier.

My too-good-to-be-true-ometer is buzzing like mad, and whenever I hit the reset button, it just starts buzzing again.

[ElvisL1ves]

Elvis has been quiet recently. You okay, man?.No, busy.

Good to see that some of you have learned about outlying data points, though.

[ElvisL1ves]

But Ray Fair's model doesn't use any polling data. Instead, it measures the historical relationship between various measures of the economy and share of the popular vote.That's using actual votes, which is the best "polling data" of all. Except when it's historical, and the premise of the argument denigrating the use of polling data is that this year is somehow different.

Apparently, the fit of the model is surprisingly good. You haven't checked yourself? :dubious: What p values does it have for which scenarios?

But what I was getting at is that May-June polling data has to be treated with care if one is to predict behavior in November.Sure. But one has to be far, far more careful about proclaiming that the reality is going to be the opposite of what that polling data says. Far more careful than certain posters here have been, to be sure.

So I prefer to have it filtered by a specialist operation such as CQ, Charlie Cook, Sabato or whomever. I prefer not to have anybody with an agenda, even one they themselves might not be aware of, do any filtering of my information at all. You never get to find out what their underlying assumptions are, much less question them, if you refuse to ask.

[ElvisL1ves]

McCain is forked. Evidence: George Will on ABC's This Week
The same George Will who's responsible for the crap about China drilling for oil off the Cuban coast? Time for the Old Fools Home for him. He can have Pierre Salinger's room.

Listen politely to his incoherent ramblings on Visiting Day if you must, but don't take him seriously.

[E-Sabbath]

Good to see that some of you have learned about outlying data points, though.
Elvis, honey, sweetie, we knew. You just weren't listening.

[RTFirefly]

Elvis, honey, sweetie, we knew. You just weren't listening. We have a winnah! :D

Oh - welcome back, Elvis! I'd say we missed you, except... :p

[ElvisL1ves]

Elvis, honey, sweetie, we knew. You just weren't listening."Listening" to what, all those gleeful Hillary's-forked-now! posts every time a new outlying poll came out with Obama way ahead? Or are you saying you knew you were full of shit even then?

Maybe we can see if RTF understands the difference between data and process yet. How's that coming, sport?

[RTFirefly]

Maybe we can see if RTF understands the difference between data and process yet. How's that coming, sport?Oh, are you bringing up that post of mine where you completely misunderstood what I was referring to, then never responded after I cleared up your confusion?

That's how it's coming, sport. :D

[ElvisL1ves]

You showed you had no fucking idea about the very basic concepts, and that there was no point in trying to explain it further. There still isn't, obviously and disappointingly.

You do NOT want to hold that up for examination by anyone, trust me.

[RTFirefly]

You showed you had no fucking idea about the very basic concepts, and that there was no point in trying to explain it further. There still isn't, obviously and disappointingly.

You do NOT want to hold that up for examination by anyone, trust me.You know, it's much easier to say, "I could beat your silly argument every which way if I wanted to," than to actually do so.

But congratulations on being able to string the sentence together where you say you could do that. I'm proud of you, boy. :D:D:D:D:D

[ElvisL1ves]

As I just said ... :rolleyes:

There are many fine introductory statistics texts available in your local library. When you've bothered to open one, and become minimally qualified to discuss the meaning of polls or even data, do let us all know. If you'd rather just post more ignorance-based taunts instead, this is not the right forum.

[RTFirefly]

As I just said ... :rolleyes:More "you're wrong, but the proof won't fit into this space" nonsense. Keep it coming. :)



Oh yeah: feel free to Pit me, if you think this dialogue belongs there. :)

[ElvisL1ves]

It's not that "the proof won't fit in this space", in fact it already exists in the thread you're astoundingly holding up as a positive example of your "contributions" here. Rather, it's that you lack the basic vocabulary to receive the explanations that I, and others, already provided you, even simplified and elementary as they were. There's really no excuse, you know - the basics of statistics, and even many advanced concepts, can be picked up in a few hours by someone with the motivation and aptitude.

If you wish to remain proud of that flourish of ignorance nonetheless, you certainly have that right. It's still not advisable, though.


(Time for another "Yeah, well, you just suck!" reply in RTF's typical style ...)

[RTFirefly]

It's not that "the proof won't fit in this space", in fact it already exists in the thread you're astoundingly holding up as a positive example of your "contributions" here. "We rebutted that point before your post, but I'm not even going to point to where."

That's another familiar dodge.

Like I said, keep 'em coming. :D

[DSeid]

Fifteen points? Outlier. Way outlier.

My too-good-to-be-true-ometer is buzzing like mad, and whenever I hit the reset button, it just starts buzzing again.
When it's two in a row (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) does your buzzer ring louder or start to ring true?According to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, Obama holds a 12 point lead over McCain in a head-to-head match up, 49 percent to 37 percent. But when third party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added to the list, Obama's lead over McCain extends to 15 points, 48 percent to 33 percent.

The survey is the second in a matter of days to indicate McCain may face a sizable deficit as the general election campaign kicks off. A Newsweek poll released four days ago showed the Illinois senator with a 15 point lead.

[TequilaSunrise]

When it's two in a row (http://[politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) does your buzzer ring louder or start to ring true?

From the linked article

“Historically speaking, when June polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through November. But when June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead has often melted," Holland said.

"Bill Clinton was leading Bob Dole by up to 19 points in June, 1996; Clinton won by eight. Michael Dukakis had a 14-point lead over George Bush the elder in June, 1988; Bush won by seven. Jimmy Carter was up nearly 20 points in June, 1976 but in November eked out a two-point win. And Richard Nixon managed an even smaller victory in 1968 even though he had a 16-point margin that June," Holland noted.

I'm not sure these numbers predict anything much yet.

[RTFirefly]

I'm not sure these numbers predict anything much yet.Maybe not, but DSeid was rebutting my 'outlier' remarks. And you've got to admit, he's got a point. (OK, I have to admit that. :))

I don't know what to make of the polls, quite honestly. Through the period of the Newsweek and L.A. Times polls, the Rasmussen tracker has had Obama up by 3-7%, and Obama's been up in the Gallup tracker by 2-3%. Fox and USA Today/Gallup, overlapping with Newsweek, had Obama up by 4 and 6 points, respectively.

It's as if we have two alternate universes overlaid on one another, with two polls in one universe, and the others in the other universe.

I'm sure it'll all shake out eventually, but it's weird right now.

[TequilaSunrise]

Two outliers maybe be better than one, but that doesn't mean they're a trend yet :)

I think the only thing the two polls mean is that liberal political junkies have some more things to talk about. If you want to know anything of value about how a campaign or candidate is doing you have to look at a lot more statistics than poll numbers, and read into how the local population is being county by county by state by state.

(I've been quoted by RTFirefly! I feel honored)

[DigitalC]

“Historically speaking, when June polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through November. But when June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead has often melted," Holland said.




In other words June polls are utterly worthless, i don't think McCain has much of a chance but lets not get overconfident over useless polls.

[DSeid]

Yes, TS, I am very aware, and have explicitly stated many times, that the polls will surge and tighten back and forth, and are a poor indicator of results this far away ... but Nate of fivethirtyeight (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/why-obama-isnt-like-dukakis.html) has a very good point. Part of those swings you've referenced was the result of the fact that the GOP was able to change the public's perception of the Dem nominee from a moderate to a liberal and thus drive support away - but Obama already is perceived as a liberal, and is this far ahead anyway. There is unlikely to be a swing away because of that factor anyway. Also McCain's convention bounce will be muted some by Ron Paul and Barr getting some press. Meanwhile Obama's convention will have nothing to distract from a coordinated media blitz. Obama is competitive in many states that he may not win, that he doesn't need to win, but that McCain will now need to defend and stretch thin doing.

Forks are still on their napkins but those of us who hunger for an Obama win are liking the finger food being served for appetizers.

[Bosstone]

Clearly McCain needs the nuclear option.

The Colbert Bump.

[RTFirefly]

Forks are still on their napkins but those of us who hunger for an Obama win are liking the finger food being served for appetizers. Yep, and it's still better to be ahead than behind.

Besides, there's the small chance of a blowout to be considered. It'd be nice to see a win big enough to have coattails, to help marginal House and Senate candidates all across the map. And the route to a blowout starts with a decent lead.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Meanwhile, at least one Republican candidate is trying mightily to latch onto the coattails of....


Obama! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/24/will-obamas-name-help-republican-senator/)

I wonder what sort of temper tantrum ol' John threw when he heard about it?

[Burton]

He's 15 points down and claiming he likes it that way.

[ArizonaTeach]

Gallup puts it even, (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108376/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Tied-45.aspx) with Obama losing his lead from the past weeks.

Which, in all honesty, just tells me that at this point polls can't be relied on (as much as I'd love the fact that Obama lost 15-some points)!

[MovieMogul]

Two outliers maybe be better than one, but that doesn't mean they're a trend yet :)Not even if you say Opal afterward? :p

[John DiFool]

If you add in subtle forms of bias in on top of the purely statistical uncertainty (i.e. no poll will be able to eliminate bias completely-there exists no "pure" population sample), then it'd be no surprise to see the lead in the polls swing from Obama +6, to dead even, to McCain +2, etc. I recall a stat prof. I had in college who simply refused to bring up the issue of bias at all in his lectures, despite several promptings from the gadflies in his class (i.e. me, mainly).

[Squink]

McCain Orders Shake-Up of His Campaign (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/politics/02cnd-manage.html?hp=&pagewanted=print) As part of the shake-up, the McCain campaign is abandoning from what had been a big innovation by Mr. Davis, in which the campaign would largely be directed by 11 regional campaign managers who have been given power over everything from where Mr. McCain would go to what advertisements he would run. Mr. Schmidt has told associates that he feared that system was unworkable and would lead to gridlock in the campaign; instead, he is likely to install a political director in Mr. McCain’s campaign headquarters.

Mr. Schmidt’s elevation is the latest sign of increasing influence of veterans of Mr. Rove’s campaign efforts in the McCain operation. Nicolle Wallace, who was communications director for Mr. Bush in the 2004 campaign and in his White House, has joined the campaign as a senior adviser, and will travel with Mr. McCain every other week. Greg Jenkins, another veteran of Mr. Rove’s operation, has joined the McCain communications operation. The McCain way didn't work, so they'll be trying the Republican way.
I expect much nastiness.

[RTFirefly]

If one goes to electoral-vote.com, one would note that Montana is baby-blue on their map, on account of a Rasmussen poll showing Obama up by 5 in that state.

Time to invest in dental floss and pygmy ponies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-N8uKzC03E). :)

I agree with Nate Silver at 538 that McCain's still the favorite to win Montana, but it is very definitely in play.

My guess is that so is North Dakota, where Obama visited yesterday.

[DSeid]

Looking ahead (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602322.html) McCain has a bit of a rough road if nothing else. Paul's seperate show and the Barr factor are bad enough but even the convention itself is going to be contentious as the BushCo side threatens a platform fight.

And now even Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108637/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Leads-48-42.aspx) is back to running Obama 6 points up.

Again, the has not yetbegun to sling; the road is long. But thems some big potholes ahead for McCain to get past.

[Liberal]

I've been trying to figure out what makes McCain's speeches so bad, apart from the overall banality. And it occured to me as I watched his speech to a group of Latinos today and, more importantly, their facial expressions, that he speaks as though it's a room full of third graders. There's an artificial slowness to the pace and a condescension to the tone that one often hears when idiots speak to foreigners. So I went to YouTube to look at other speeches, and sure enough McCain is not simply an idiot. He is also just a really bad speech maker, using the same prodding style no matter who his audience is.

[stolichnaya]

To be fair, I think his speaking style as we are seeing it now is artificially blunted. He's been advised into this, and that's why he seems so uncomfortable.

It's said that one-on-one he is charming, which makes sense given the admiration that many in the press have for him. The press doesn't really like being condescended to and I think that's what eventually soured them on Bush.

McCain is also a good deal better in the town hall formats, at least when his temper is under control. He's not a good public speaker behind the lectern, but I don't think he's as bad as he looks right now. He's probably been told to smile more and break his sentences into rhetorical chunks for sound-bite purposes. He's clearly uncomfortable with both. Maybe he'll get more comfortable, or maybe another campaign shake-up will lead to the inevitable experiment in "let McCain be McCain" and he'll go back to comfortable monotone rambling.

[DSeid]

At the risk of getting petty and superficial - voters often are. Votes are often decided on whether the trust one feels just looking at a face. In this regard it is significant that McCain's smile is invariably a forced one. (You tell the forced smile - no crow's feet - and surprisingly McCain has little crow's feet even when he smiles broadly. Look at those photos (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/).) He almost looks in pain when he smiles publicly. Obama has a real smile. Petty, yes. Superficial, yes. Potentially able to influence a surprising amount of votes, yes.

[Liberal]

I think it may be time for McCain to change the little placard he puts on his podium. I don't know whether its the font, the contrast, or what. But a friend of mine just saw it and squinted, saying "What's that say? Racism. Pornography. And what, Prunes?"

[Oy!]

and surprisingly McCain has little crow's feet even when he smiles broadly.

I'm 52, and the only time I get crow's feet is when I squint. My eyes narrow somewhat, but not enough to make crow's feet. It's just a matter of how the muscles of your face work relative to the fat and skin, I guess. I doubt he's had "work" done.

But he was a serious hottie back in the day!

[DSeid]

Oy!, that's actually based on some real research (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6DA1731F932A35751C1A961948260). I wouldn't make this up.

Meanwhile this (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108775/Fewer-Americans-See-McCain-Obama-Views-About-Right.aspx) is interesting. It seems that McCain's attempt to solidify his base is not having much good effect there - in fact since February significantly more Republicans see him as too conservative and fewer as "about right", while among independents even more have shifted out from "about right" - down from 42 to 34% - and all into "too conservative" - up from 33 to 41%.

Meanwhile despite the fact that Obama has been eviscerated for his apparent "lurch" to the middle, more independents now see him as "too liberal" and more Democrats as "just right." Go figure. (Of course this conflicts with Rasmussen's (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/voters_perceive_obama_moving_to_the_middle) findings that find Obama to be percieved as less liberal across the board; Rasmussen has not yet reported similar polling for McCain. At least not in their free section that I have access to.)

FWIW.

[Oy!]

Go figure. Apparently I've never smiled for real in my life.

[John Mace]

McCain is running a terrible campaign. He's definitely going to be forked soon if he doesn't get it in gear. I'm not one to call things this early in the game, but he's got a really tough, up-hill battle to fight. And he ain't gettin' any younger...

[Merijeek]

McCain is running a terrible campaign. He's definitely going to be forked soon if he doesn't get it in gear. I'm not one to call things this early in the game, but he's got a really tough, up-hill battle to fight. And he ain't gettin' any younger...

Gosh, I hope he doesn't flop prematurely. Obama may never recover from that.

-Joe

[DSeid]

Oy! really no pictures of your smiling at a party with crow's feet? I guess no rule is absolute.

I just noticed something about my cites. While the Gallup poll was just released today the most recent data is from June 15 - 19 ... before Obama's most recent and controversial moves to the center that have angered so many (especially announcing his FISA position June 20). Meanwhile Rasmssen's was from June 28 - 29. That may be part of it.

[Oy!]

Really, really. Only when I squint. Which, since I almost never go outside in daytime without sunglasses is almost never.

Also, no apparent gray hair. Although since my hair is pretty light ash blonde, that may be simply that it's there but no one can see it.

Terrific. I'm a freak.

[Anomalous Reading]

Missteps of close associates aren't helping him at all.

Gramm's only the most recent.

[John Mace]

Gosh, I hope he doesn't flop prematurely. Obama may never recover from that.

-Joe
He may flip before he flops.

[DSeid]

Meanwhile Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/145556) is back down from their 15 Obama lead to a mere 3 (44 to 41) while Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108772/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Holds-6Point-Lead-Over-McCain.aspx) has his lead growing to 6! Remember that when Newsweek released Obama up by 15 Gallup was calling it tied? Polling does not seem to be an exact science. Still the 3 to 6 seems to the consistent mean of the polls and that is far far from forked. Kerry was up by 3 per Newsweek at this point too.

[Liberal]

Still the 3 to 6 seems to the consistent mean of the polls and that is far far from forked. Not necessarily. As Gallup has said before (and I confirmed via a question in GQ), a consistent difference over a period of time is very significant indeed, and may even effectively nullify the MOE.

Kerry was up by 3 per Newsweek at this point too.But he had the same weak support that McCain has now. Obama's support strength is closer to Bush's at that time.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

It's probably been brought up, but McCain had a week that should have ended his presidential run (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/the-week-that-should-have_b_111983.html).

[Liberal]

Wow. It reads like an idictment.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Wow. It reads like an idictment.


It really does. I can't imagine being a happy and upbeat Republican when it comes to how I feel about my candidate.

[Anomalous Reading]

The Republicans made the mistake this election cycle, that the Democrats made in the last Presidential cycle.

They decided too early and on "their man." He wasn't vetted well. People were voting brand over substance. I'm not sure the Republicans had a more viable candidate. Even so... a longer battle might have helped.

I think Republicans are discontent, discouraged, and looking for someone with a real platform. It will take a while for that to happen.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

The Republicans made the mistake this election cycle, that the Democrats made in the last Presidential cycle.

They decided too early and on "their man." He wasn't vetted well. People were voting brand over substance. I'm not sure the Republicans had a more viable candidate. Even so... a longer battle might have helped.

I think Republicans are discontent, discouraged, and looking for someone with a real platform. It will take a while for that to happen.


Well, they also ran into (what I keep hearing is) the second coming of JFK.


Do the Republicans have a rising star in their folds?

[ArizonaTeach]

The Republicans made the mistake this election cycle, that the Democrats made in the last Presidential cycle.

They decided too early and on "their man." He wasn't vetted well. People were voting brand over substance. I'm not sure the Republicans had a more viable candidate. Even so... a longer battle might have helped.

I think Republicans are discontent, discouraged, and looking for someone with a real platform. It will take a while for that to happen.You are revising history. One year ago, McCain was being written off. As late as January, people were predicting a possible brokered Republican convention (http://davideisenthal.typepad.com/the_eisenthal_report/2008/01/a-brokered-repu.html). Also here (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13477.html) an here. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/15/a_brokered_convention_consider.html) On the other hand, Hillary was supposed to cruise into the Democratic nomination. Cut to a month or so ago, and Democrats were in arms because their candidate hadn't been decided yet! And now, your line is that the Republicans decided too early? And McCain hasn't been vetted?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

You are revising history. One year ago, McCain was being written off. As late as January, people were predicting a possible brokered Republican convention (http://davideisenthal.typepad.com/the_eisenthal_report/2008/01/a-brokered-repu.html). Also here (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13477.html) an here. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/15/a_brokered_convention_consider.html) On the other hand, Hillary was supposed to cruise into the Democratic nomination. Cut to a month or so ago, and Democrats were in arms because their candidate hadn't been decided yet! And now, your line is that the Republicans decided too early? And McCain hasn't been vetted?


That's a very good point. I think his point might have been that the current climate determines what's "too early" or "too late".

[ElvisL1ves]

Missteps of close associates aren't helping him at all.
Where are the choruses about how Gramm wasn't actually a formal campaign official, and anyway McCain dumped him as soon as he said it?

[stolichnaya]

Sorry, I was out late last night.

::clears throat::

Gramm wasn't actually a formal campaign official, and anyway McCain dumped him as soon as it seemed like people didn't like what he said. So this is just as big or small a deal as when a similar thing happened to anyone who is a politician.

To me, Gramm's comments are indicative of what Gramm thinks, and not what McCain thinks, because we all know that McCain really has no thoughts on the economy beyond saying things like "Phil Gramm trusts me on the economy, so you should too".

[Sam Stone]

Wow. It reads like an idictment.

Yes. A very stupid, partisan indictment. Anyone who think that that list of minor issues and non-issues is a candidacy killer has been drinking too much kool-aid.

Let's go down the list:

1. McCain unambiguously called Social Security "an absolute disgrace."

And it is - in the sense that it's not properly funded, that money that is supposed to go into it is spent on general funding, and that it's completely unbalanced in the sense that current retirees will get back many times their investment, while young people would get far more if they invested the same money privately. McCain's been talking about this for more than a decade, and people generally like what he's saying. Al Gore said the same thing. Remember the 'lock box'?

2. McCain's top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of "whiners" for being worried about the slumping economy.

Poor wording, for sure. But he's right in the sense that the amount of bitching and whining about the economy is way out of whack compared against the absolute performance of the economy, which has actually been pretty good for the last six years, and isn't even in recession right now. The middle class saw a huge increase in their net weath due to the real estate run-up (prices are still way above where they were five years ago). Unemployment, inflation, and interest rates are all still very low.

Americans have the highest per-capita incomes of any country other than Luxembourg. They have a very high standard of living, and the U.S. has had one of the best economies in the world over the past ten years. Yet the handwringing and gloom and doom has been going on throughout most of Bush's tenure.

3. Iraqi leaders call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal, McCain gets caught in a bizarre denial and flip flop.
Oh, nonsense. The statement by the Iraqis caught McCain off-guard, and he (correctly) said it's probably just political posturing. At no point was there a formal demand from the Iraqis that the U.S. withdraw, and in fact the Iraqis are already backing off that statement. There's nothing there to indicate that if the Iraqis officially voted on and passed a bill demanding that the U.S. withdraw that McCain wouldn't comply if he was president. This is a manufactured outrage of interest only to readers of the Huffington post and Daily Kos and the SDMB.

4. McCain's economic plan to cut the deficit has no details and is simply not believable.
This one's a killer, because Americans would NEVER elect someone with an unrealistic plan to eliminate the deficit...

By the way, has Obama acknowledged that his plans will cost an additional 200-300 billion dollars per year, which would double the deficit if he doesn't hike taxes to match?

5. McCain's deficit plan includes bringing the troops home represents a major Iraq flip-flop.
No it does not. McCain has always said what Bush has said - he opposes a timetable for withdrawal, and believes that troops should only be withdrawn when conditions on the ground warrant it. But it's sure looking like conditions on the ground are warranting a partial withdrawal, so it's perfectly reasonable to include that savings in a budget. If the conditions change, the withdrawal doesn't happen. But thats' the same as any other budget forecast - you budget for the likely course, and reality sometimes gets in the way.

But McCain has good reason to believe the war is going to wind down in his first term - Even the Bush Administration is now considering accelerating a withdrawal (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/13/america/13military.php).

This was what McCain said all along - that you don't withdrawal in defeat because you're handed some setbacks, as Obama wanted to do. You win the war, then you go home with your head up, leaving a stable country behind. This is a point in his favor not against.

Expect to hear McCain make this argument soon: "No one wants war. But my opponent wanted to recklessly disengage when the going was tough. This would have caused a collapse of the country, and we'd be back in there right now taking heavy casualties trying to restabilize Iraq. I said that we needed to stay and finish the job so that we could go home permanently. And that's exactly what we're doing. My friends, if you're against the war, think this through - had we listened to Senator Obama, we'd be in the middle of a civil war now, and possible a larger middle east conflict. But the surge I advocated worked, and now we are bringing our soldiers home with their heads up, and with the Iraqi people as friends."

6. McCain campaign misled about economists support.
You've got to be kidding me. So 300 economists signed a letter giving support to McCain, who has published his economic plans on his web site long before the letter was signed. So now he says that 300 economists support his plan, and some of them go, "wait a minute - we support McCain, but we don't know all the details on this particular plan yet." This is a candidacy-ending scandal? On what planet?

And BTW, presidents have been using such appeals to authority by collecting lists of supporters since the Presidency existed. Do you think every one who has ever signed a letter of support studied every detail of every plan the candidate offered?

McCain makes a joke about killing Iranians.
Oh, horrors. The guy has a sense of humor, and said something a little over the line. Yes, I remember when the "In five minutes we start bombing the Soviet Union" comment brought down the Reagan Administration. Uttered in public, during the height of the cold war.

Oh, wait - it didn't. In fact, it didn't hurt Reagan at all. People understand jokes.

McCain denies, flatly, that he ever said that he is not an expert in economics.
So in the one clip they offer, McCain denies that he said he wasn't an expert in economics. The clip shown to refute this shows McCain saying that he's not an expert on Wall Street, and defers to the secretary of the Treasury.

"Wall Street" <> "Economics." They are not remotely the same thing. There are plenty of Ph.D. economists who could not tell you the ins and outs of various derivative instruments or tax laws or regulatory management of financial institutions. McCain may have said that someone else, but the clips they have don't make the case they're making.

And by the way, even if they did catch him in direct conflict, so what? This happens all the time. It's already happened a couple of times to Obama. Candidates have to talk for hours a day. They say things sometimes that they forget. It's not a big deal unless you're a partisan trying to score points. This will have exactly zero effect on the election, let alone end McCain's campaign.

McCain distorts his record on veterans benefits in response to a question from Vietnam Veteran, who then proceeds to call McCain out on it.
This is the one thing on the list that could actually hurt McCain, if Obama can find a way to play it without looking like he's attacking McCain's military service. However, McCain is right in saying that he's got the vast majority of support from various veterans and military groups, and Obama has to be really careful if he goes down that road, or he may find himself facing down similar attacks from other veterans groups, and I'm not sure he can win that exchange. McCain is loved by many soldiers and ex-soldiers, and they'll go to bat for him.

McCain demonstrates he knows nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What an idiotic comment. Here's the full transcript of what McCain said - tell me if you think this sounds like something who 'knows nothing' about the region:

McCain: It's interesting you mention that. I met the NATO ambassador from Pakistan to the United States this morning, a very interesting person who also spent time in prison himself for his political stance. The situation in Afghanistan is very, very tough today, and it will remain tough for quite a period of time. And one of the major areas of concern is generated by what goes on in Pakistan. Afghanistan, of course, Karzai is not effective as we want him to be. There's corruption, there's a number of issues concerning Afghanistan. But in Pakistan, as we know, Faustian bargains have been entered into with groups along the Pakistan, Afghan border, Waziristan, etc. And it has now become a safe haven for Taliban and others. So this is going to be a very difficult situation, and I don't have to tell you again, because you have been there most recently, the instance of violence attacks, etc., continue to go up, particularly in those areas. I think there's a whole lot of things that need to be done. We can talk about the NATO command structure, the relationships between the different militaries and we can talk about a number of things, but a lot of it is going to depend on our relationship with Pakistan. And they haven't sorted that out yet, as you know. What's going to happen with Musharraf, the reappointment of the judges... . And as much as I respect the country of Pakistan, a lot of times the parties are identified with individuals rather than anything else. I'm insulting your intelligence by reminding you of all these things. I think it's going to require a lot of diplomacy, it's going to require a lot of hard work, it's going to require a lot of ideological work and it's going to require a lot of economic diplomatic intelligence and others, including human intelligence. So I guess my answer to you is the reports you are getting are correct, and we're going to have to try as well as we can to work as closely as we can (with) the Pakistani government. We have to not only appeal to their better angels of their nature, but we also have to appeal to them to recognize that their national security interests over time are at stake here. If the Taliban succeeds in Afghanistan, sooner or later it's going to have a significant -- a greater influence on the situation in Pakistan as well. I think, you know, sometimes things happen in history that change the whole course of history. I think the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was a tragic event not only from a personal standpoint but it threw everything into a -- a tumultuous situation which they still haven't sorted out, as you well know. And I'm sorry that's a long answer, but I didn't cover nearly all of the challenge we face in the Afghan, Pakistan situation. And I wonder, given the time you spent there, whether you disagree with that assessment, just out of curiosity.

Trib: Some have talked also about setting up, like, coordination between Afghanistan and Pakistan, having direct links between villages, you know things like that, along the border especially between the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan.

McCain: I think so, since the Taliban and others do not respect borders. I think if there is some good news, I think that there is a glimmer of improving relationship between Karzai and the Pakistanis. There was a personal animosity between Musharraf and Karzai, as you know, that also complicated it a bit. It's very, very tough.

As to the specific 'glimmer of improving relationship', I'm not sure what he's talking about, as I've seen no evidence of it. But McCain was just in the region, so maybe he's hearing stuff from commanders on the ground who are seeing something that hasn't made it into the papers yet, or he's putting a positive spin on some very minor detail. In any event, no one cares about this statement, it certainly is not an indication that McCain is ignorant of the facts in the area (the quote above indicates he knows exactly how tough it is and where the problems are), and no one outside the Huffington Post is going to care one little bit about this.

And if McCain and Obama go toe-to-toe debating military matters and strategy and comparing knowledge of what the military is doing, Obama's going to get his clock cleaned. McCain graduated from Annapolis and went to the War College, and actually fought in a war, and is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. His knowledge of military matters makes Obama look silly, and Obama would do well to avoid these kinds of comparisons.

[Liberal]

Where are the choruses about how Gramm wasn't actually a formal campaign official, and anyway McCain dumped him as soon as he said it?Phil Gramm is still Co-Chair of the McCain campaign, a position he has held since March 12, 2007.

[Liberal]

Incidentally, I believe it is significant that Obama has reacted very conservatively to this Gramm fuck up. It is certainly the kind of thing that could be hammered and hammered for a lot of points. But upon reflection, and given the considerable wisdom and mental maturity he has demonstrated throughout this campaign, I can see why it would be better if Obama did not push things to the point that Gramm is released. As much of a good target as he makes right now, he will be the perfect target come the fall, when ads will still be able to tag him as the Co-Chair of McCain's campaign.

[ElvisL1ves]

Is that a sign of "wisdom and mental maturity" or just a recognition of the political reality that it would remind people of his own comparable problem not so very long ago? stoli is aware of the reference; you should be too.

[John Mace]

Gramm is toast, as far as McCain's campaign is concerned. Expect him to be gone this week (if not already).

[samclem]

2. McCain's top economic policy adviser calls Americans a bunch of "whiners" for being worried about the slumping economy.

Poor wording, for sure. But he's right in the sense that the amount of bitching and whining about the economy is way out of whack compared against the absolute performance of the economy, which has actually been pretty good for the last six years, and isn't even in recession right now. The middle class saw a huge increase in their net weath due to the real estate run-up (prices are still way above where they were five years ago). Unemployment, inflation, and interest rates are all still very low.

Americans have the highest per-capita incomes of any country other than Luxembourg. They have a very high standard of living, and the U.S. has had one of the best economies in the world over the past ten years. Yet the handwringing and gloom and doom has been going on throughout most of Bush's tenure.
Sam. You don't live in the US. You've seen your purchasing power advance by about 50% in the last 5-6 years, vis-a-vis the Canadian/US Dollar relationship.

If you live in the US, and are a typical middle/lower class Amercan(making $20-50,000/yr.) then you've seen your standard of living plunge the last few years. The press reports which say the economy isn't in recession are only talking about the classic definition. Come on down and talk to real people who have to drive to work, seeing their fuel component increase double. And, the increases in food/other prices has just started. It'll get worse as the year goes on, as the costs get passed along. Believe me, it's happening.

I don't care a whit about the economy the "last six years." The US is in a recession, headed for a bad one currently. Just keep reading the headlines.

[DSeid]

Let's play it this way - given the current polling, which states does McCain need to pull off to secure a victory?

DemConWatch (http://www.demconwatchblog.com/search/label/Presidential%20Forecast) has a nice interactive of the various pollsters and projectors electoral maps. According to that summary the most generous to McCain is Rasmussen's, (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update) which gives a current prediction of 227 McCain to 293 Obama in their summary. So let's use that one. Going to Rasmussen directly you find that they call it 42 "safe" McCain, 123 "likely", 62 "leans". Assume that McCain wins all of those, including all the "leans" and assume he wins both of those that Rasmussen calls "toss-up" as well, another 18, and we get McCain up to 245. He still needs another 25 out of those currently called "leans Dem". That could be OH plus NM or IA or CO. Or it could be MI plus CO. Or OH plus MI of course. Or winning PA and most anything else. Without winning any of PA, OH, or MI he'd need all 4 of the other "leans Dem" to fall his way (CO, IA, NM, and NH).

Of those PA and MI are pretty unlikely but OH seems possible (I don't even understand why Rasmussen doesn't call it a "toss-up" if they go by their own numbers - their polling places it as about even). So to go with OH he needs IA, NM, or CO. IA seems out of reach at this point (Obama is 10 ahead in Rasmussen polling). So McCain also needs CO and/or NM.

That's quite a run of the table: don't let any leaning your way slip to the other side, win the toss-ups, and pull off OH plus a Hispanic heavy state while current polling puts Hispanic support 2 to 1 against you and Hispanic turnout has been heavy in the Dem primaries.

Yes, lots can change.

[stolichnaya]

It's an incredibly anemic campaign at the moment- and I don't think that this is all my native bias telling me that (though I'll allow for the possibility). Not many are paying attention now, but if I was a McCain fan, I would be hoping that they get their act together by mid-August.

McCain is enjoying a certain lack of scrutiny that I would not want to rely on forever. To an extent, he has earned some benefit of the doubt, but I think he's seriously abusing his favored nation status with the press.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Continuing his respectful, non-attack approach to campaigning, today McCain insinuated that Obama is a socialist: (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/18/mccain-%e2%80%9ci-don%e2%80%99t-know%e2%80%9d-if-obama-is-socialist/)
During his town hall meeting with voters in Kansas City yesterday, McCain said, “Senator Obama has the most extreme record of any member of the United States Senate.”

In an interview after the event, The Kansas City Star asked him to clarify the remark.

“His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont,” McCain answered, according the paper.

Asked if he thought Obama was a socialist, McCain answered: “I don’t know. All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.”
Oh, Johnnie, Johnnie, you really don't want people to start looking at your voting history.

[Frank]

“His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont,” McCain answered, according the paper.
The ADA (http://www.adaction.org/media/votingrecords/2007.pdf), at least for 2007, disagrees: Obama scored 75%, and Sanders 95%.

And I must say, I think that using "socialism" in place of "communism" is not going to work as well as the Republicans might think. The country is overdue for a swing to the left.

Washington swings like a pendulum do . . . Permanent majority, anyone? :D

[Oy!]

[Totally Off Topic]

Dseid, upon further research, it turns out I have in fact finally devoped three crinkles on my right side when I smile very broadly. None on my left. So I am now apparently officially half smiling for real.

[/Totally Off Topic]

[elucidator]

I expect McCain to start slamming Obama over hs failure to visit to the Iraq-Pakiston border, its non-existence notwithstanding.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/21/mccain-warns-of-hard-struggle-on-the-iraq-pakistan-border/

....chortle, snicker, giggle....What a maroon!

[5 time champ]

Well, maybe after he "Bomb, bomb, bombs- Iran" there will be.

[DSeid]

Oy, glad you've found your "real" smile!

Back to sharpening the tines ...

Apparently McCain's Michigan tour didn't go so well. (http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080721/OPINION03/807210326) How does it make political sense, then, for McCain to swoop in, do a 180 in the name of "federalism" and punt on the national emissions standard that Detroit (and, truth be told, Toyota and the others) desperately want and that he once said he supported?
It doesn't. Even Sen. Barack Obama, whose sharp, tough-love rhetoric for Detroit has softened and grown more realistic as the campaign lengthens, has the smarts to support state-by-state emissions standards only if a national standard is deemed insufficient. Meaning the Illinois Democrat gets the benefit of mollifying his friends on the coasts while showing a little Midwestern love for the autos.
Is that so hard to understand? Apparently not for Obama, who scored points last week with auto execs because he and his campaign at least look like they're paying as much attention to corporate pressures as to the plights of auto workers.But wait! Rasmussen says it's now a near tie! (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 42% of the vote while John McCain earns 41%. That’s the lowest level of support measured for Obama since he clinched the Democratic Presidential nomination on June 3.Hold on though ... this just in. Gallup says Obama's lead is growing! McCain is slipping away! (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108961/Gallup-Daily-Obama-leads-McCain-Six-Points.aspx) his current six percentage point lead is among the largest he has held over McCain to date. ... The current results also mark the first time in more than three weeks that McCain's share of the trial heat vote has not been in the 42% to 44% range. In fact, it matches a June 7-9 reading as McCain's lowest level of support since Gallup began tracking general election preferences in MarchDang these polls!

I'm so confused.

:)

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

And now the McCain campaign is making noises about how that straight talker himself might could maybe will announce his veep choice this week.

Not that they're trying to divert attention from Obama, no, not at all. I'm sure they wouldn't announce the veep pick right when Obama's giving that speech in Berlin that's expected to draw hundreds of thousands of attendees, nope, couldn't possibly be trying to steal his thunder.

[Leaper]

Sam. You don't live in the US. You've seen your purchasing power advance by about 50% in the last 5-6 years, vis-a-vis the Canadian/US Dollar relationship.

If you live in the US, and are a typical middle/lower class Amercan(making $20-50,000/yr.) then you've seen your standard of living plunge the last few years. The press reports which say the economy isn't in recession are only talking about the classic definition. Come on down and talk to real people who have to drive to work, seeing their fuel component increase double. And, the increases in food/other prices has just started. It'll get worse as the year goes on, as the costs get passed along. Believe me, it's happening.

I don't care a whit about the economy the "last six years." The US is in a recession, headed for a bad one currently. Just keep reading the headlines.

Two things this reminds me of:

1) First to samclem: what you say here (in my eyes) skates dangerously close to an "everyone knows" assertion of reality. If we aren't using the "classic definition," what are we using as the "new" definition? Is it just when "a lot of people feel like it"?

2) Something I've been kind of confused about: I've been seeing a lot of conservative bloggers trying to argue lately that we aren't in a recession - that we could be very soon, but we're not in one NOW (see Instapundit's "Dude, Where's My Recession?" series of posts, pointing out various economic indicators he sees that are all, apparently, chugging along fine, or more than fine). Why is this suddenly so important to argue? To benefit McCain? For some other reason I can't fathom?

[RTFirefly]

Something I've been kind of confused about: I've been seeing a lot of conservative bloggers trying to argue lately that we aren't in a recession - that we could be very soon, but we're not in one NOW (see Instapundit's "Dude, Where's My Recession?" series of posts, pointing out various economic indicators he sees that are all, apparently, chugging along fine, or more than fine). Why is this suddenly so important to argue? To benefit McCain? For some other reason I can't fathom?Best as I can tell, the wingnuts like the Ole Perfesser really do believe they have a better grasp on their fellow citizens' economic situation than those citizens do. And since the wingnuts in question are generally doing fine, they find it implausible that more than a handful of whiners and slackers aren't.

If people feel like their personal economic situations are caving in, or are perilously close to doing so, it must be because the Liberal Media fooled them into thinking so. And a good healthy dose of statistics about The Economy (whose disconnect with the statistics about actual, y'know, people, they are apparently unaware of) should take care of that problem.

[Frank]

Not that they're trying to divert attention from Obama, no, not at all. I'm sure they wouldn't announce the veep pick right when Obama's giving that speech in Berlin that's expected to draw hundreds of thousands of attendees, nope, couldn't possibly be trying to steal his thunder.
I wouldn't worry about it. How many Germans vote for U.S. President?

Besides Arnold.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I wouldn't worry about it. How many Germans vote for U.S. President?

Besides Arnold.
*cough*

Actually, he was born in Austria. (http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/07/30/arnold_schwarzenegger_s_60th_birthday_ce)

*cough*

[Frank]

Actually, he was born in Austria. (http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/07/30/arnold_schwarzenegger_s_60th_birthday_ce)
By only two years. My mistake.

[DSeid]

A cogent argument made that McCain is indeed nearly forked. (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_alan_i_abramowitz/the_myth_of_a_toss_up_election) Trumpeting this race as a toss-up, almost certain to produce another nail-biter finish, distorts the evidence and does a disservice to readers and viewers who rely upon such punditry. Again, maybe conditions will change in McCain's favor, and if they do, they should also be accurately described by the media. But current data do not justify calling this election a toss-up.

Consider the following.

Except for a few days when the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls showed a tie, Barack Obama has led John McCain in every national poll in the past two months. Obama's average margin has consistently been in the 4-6 point range during this time. By contrast, the polls in 2000 and 2004 showed much more variation over time. State polling results have also consistently given Obama the advantage. According to realclearpolitics.com, Obama is currently leading in 26 states and the District of Columbia with a total of 322 electoral votes; McCain is currently leading in 24 states with a total of 216 electoral votes. Obama is leading in every state carried by John Kerry in 2004 along with six states carried by George Bush: Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana, Nevada and Colorado. A seventh Bush state, Virginia, is tied.
Obama is leading in 11 of the 12 swing states that were decided by a margin of five points or less in 2004 including five of the six that were carried by George Bush. And while Obama has a comfortable lead in every state that John Kerry won by a margin of more than five points in 2004, McCain is in a difficult battle in a number of states that Bush carried by a margin of more than five points including such solidly red states as Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, and North Carolina.
And remember these June and July polls may well understate Obama's eventual margin. Ronald Reagan did not capitalize on the huge structural advantage Republicans enjoyed in 1980 until after the party conventions and presidential debate. It took a while and a sufficient level of comfort with the challenger for anti-Carter votes to translate into support for Reagan. If Obama's performance over the last eighteen months is any guide, a similar pattern could unfold in 2008.
Aside from the horserace results, there is evidence of a growing Democratic party advantage in the electorate. A recent analysis by Rhodes Cook of voter registration data in 29 states and the District of Columbia that permit registration by party shows that since November of 2004, Democratic registration has increased by almost 700,000 while Republican registration has declined by almost one million. ...

[DrDeth]

A cogent argument made that McCain is indeed nearly forked. (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_alan_i_abramowitz/the_myth_of_a_toss_up_election)


National polls are meaningless- if they and the Popular vote meant anything Gore would have been our Prez for the last neraly 8 years.

There are certain key swing states- Fla, Mich, Ohio, and a few others. The "solid" states really won't change the outcome either- there's little doubt Obama will win CA and McCain TX.

Look at this RCP Map:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Although Obama has a nice lead, look at how many states are a "toss-up"= 137. Add those to McCain and he wins by a small but significant %.

Nearly every toss-up state went Red in the last two Prez elections, only NH & NM went Blue once each. But even if both those go Obama, McCain stilll wins.

So, yes, Obama is doing well, but it is in no way a "sure thing". No fork is even close to McCain.

[ElvisL1ves]

Now you've gone and done it, DD. Prepare to be denounced for heresy.

[Oy!]

No, DrDeth won't be denounced for heresy. The only thing any of us has is hope. There's never absolute certainty in an election. All we can say at this point is that things are looking pretty good, better than they have in a while.

[Frostillicus]

This electoral map at www.pollster.com shows Obama at 284 EV, which is already ahead of the 270 needed to win. I know things can change and it is only July, but this election reminds of 1980, in which President Carter stayed real close to Reagan until the very end, when the crappiness of the economy caused many to say WTF, it can't get any worse under Reagan. Reagan of course ended up winning in a landslide.

http://www.pollster.com/

[DSeid]

Yup, there is no sure thing here - if McCain can virtually run the table of Michigan, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, etc .... then he can pull it off. It is not impossible. But as Abramowitz, Mann, and Sabato point out, he is currently behind in "11 of the 12 swing states that were decided by a margin of five points or less in 2004 including five of the six that were carried by George Bush." To visualize this go to the RCP map with no toss-ups. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=11) Not written in stone to be sure but it is a tall order. That said there is a lot of battle to come over the next 100 days.

McCain will have to look vibrant and in charge during the debates and Obama will have to make some significant gaffes. The Swiftboats will need to strike the right chords and Obama will have to have no effective prepared response. McCain will have to find his sweet spot where he can appeal to the middle, dull some of Obama's appeal to Hispanics, and at the same time energize the Conservative base to come out for him. It can happen. But McCain will need a run of three-pointers after having not even having the chance to get many shots off so far.


It can happen.

[Cervaise]

Totally subjective argument: Obama is setting the rhetorical agenda; everything McCain says and goes is a direct response or an indirect reaction. The "audacity of hopelessness" sound bite from this past week is what solidified this perception for me. It feels like a pretty sharp reversal, but it has no legs, and isn't going to stick; and more importantly, it's defensive, a riposte rather than an attack. To win, McCain will need to define himself for the public, rather than put on a display of reflecting his opponent. McCain can't let this continue; if he keeps trying to throw punches from back on his heels, Obama's going to push him over, or just let him collapse. But if McCain rediscovers his mojo and begins generating energy of his own that Obama has to respond to, then the landscape will change. But as it is right now, the Big Mo is all Barack's, and he's got a shot at running away with it.

[ElvisL1ves]

The only thing any of us has is hope.Really? You don't have commitment, an ability to work, an ability to persuade? You're helpless before the world, with nothing more than hope to sustain you? Not me, friend. Nor anyone else who actually gets what they want with any consistency.

There's never absolute certainty in an election. Nobody (here) said there was. There are, however, probabilities based on data, if you're prepared to use them to guide your efforts.

Or you can just hope.

[Oy!]

Really? You don't have commitment, an ability to work, an ability to persuade? You're helpless before the world, with nothing more than hope to sustain you? Not me, friend. Nor anyone else who actually gets what they want with any consistency.

Nobody (here) said there was. There are, however, probabilities based on data, if you're prepared to use them to guide your efforts.

Or you can just hope.

Me, personally, Elvis? Actually, myself, very very little. I have vertigo. Haven't worked in two years. Can't go anwhere. Can't do much. Have no money. Can't schedule anything with any accuracy because I never know when I'll have an attack or how long it will last or how severe it will be. Haven't gotten on to SDI yet, because it's pretty difficult to prove something that happens intermittently inside your head - it doesn't show up very readily in the brain unless you have a brain tumor or something, which I don't. I'm selling my house so I'll have something to live on for a year or two. I rarely see anyone.

Hope is pretty much all I have right now. Care to come back with any snappy put downs? If so, I'd rather you not bother. I really don't need a lot of help feeling like crap.

In the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

[RTFirefly]

National polls are meaningless- if they and the Popular vote meant anything Gore would have been our Prez for the last neraly 8 years. Oh Lord, not this again.

Let's just put it in logical terms:

Gore won the national popular vote in 2000 by 0.5%, but lost the electoral vote by 4 votes.
Therefore NO national popular vote lead, no matter how large, has meaning.

Hopefully the absurdity of that proposition is immediately obvious.

Look at this RCP Map:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Although Obama has a nice lead, look at how many states are a "toss-up"= 137. Add those to McCain and he wins by a small but significant %. First, I'd question the RCP methodology, which is to count one poll by each non-excluded pollster, and weight them equally.

Take NH (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_mccain_vs_obama-195.html), for example. RCP counts a three month old Dartmouth poll equally with last week's Rasmussen poll and UNH's poll from mid-month.

And it doesn't count at all Rasmussen's polls from June and May, both of which are more recent than the Dartmouth poll. (Nor does it count ARG's poll taken at almost the same time as the June Rasmussen poll, which arrived at essentially the same result. I can't quarrel with them too hard on this, due to my own skepticism of ARG, but I'll still up the weight of a more reliable pollster's result if ARG confirms it.)

Also, I'd only go back 6 weeks, maybe 8 if the polling is thin.

Do those things, and NH is a bit less of a tossup.

Nearly every toss-up state went Red in the last two Prez elections, only NH & NM went Blue once each. But even if both those go Obama, McCain stilll wins. So what's the lesson here? ISTM that the lesson is that the Dems are in pretty good control of the Kerry states, plus Iowa, which gives them a base of 259 EVs.

Sure, McCain can run the table and win, but that's what he's got to do. If he loses Virginia, it's over. If he loses New Mexico (which Kerry lost by <6000) and Nevada (which Kerry lost by 21,500), it's over. If he loses Colorado, he can still run the table - but he'd better not lose anything else. Not just no other state - he could lose the election by losing Omaha.

And that's not even considering FL or OH.

So, yes, Obama is doing well, but it is in no way a "sure thing". Well, at least this much is true.

The "solid" states really won't change the outcome either- there's little doubt Obama will win CA and McCain TX. No, what the solid states do is limit the range of possibilities.

That states like Wisconsin and Iowa are solid for Obama this time around, means that McCain has to all but run the table of states he can win. OTOH, Obama can contest Virginia and Indiana and Montana and North Dakota, expanding the map.

[DSeid]

So okay, whaddup with this? (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/) :)Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. ...

Among registered voters, McCain still trails Obama, but by less. He is behind by 3 percentage points in the new poll (47%-44%) vs. a 6-point disadvantage (48%-42%) in late June.

Results based on the survey of 791 likely voters have margins of error of +/- 4 percentage points... Meanwhile Gallup's seperate daily tracking poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109126/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-40.aspx) has Obama up by 8 in registered voters with MOE of +/- 2. So less than 2.5% chance that the USA Today/Gallup results actually signify more than 7 points plus Obama registered voters, and less than 2.5% chance that the daily tracking signifies less a 6 points plus Obama. That with Rasmussen's 3 point plus for Obama with a MOE +/- of 2 makes a real number of 5 or 6 plus Obama likely.

That "likely voter" bit is interesting. At this snapshot in time Republicans seem more likely to actually come out by Gallup's estimations.

One complaint: RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html) is using the "likely voter" number of the USA Today/Gallup poll (McCain +4) in calculating its rolling avg even thought he others are all registered voters and the USA/Gallup poll has the same apples to compare with. Seems odd unless they want to make it seem closer than it is.

[Liberal]

The DOF (Doddering Old Fool) said today that Obama's meeting with major US economists was nothing more than a photo op. This as he stood on an oil drilling platform. What a fucking shitmouth.

[RTFirefly]

So okay, whaddup with this? (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/) :)A commenter at pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_usatodaygallup_national_7.php) pointed out that the difference between the 900-RV Gallup poll (47-44, Obama) and its 791-LV subset (49-45, McCain) would mean that, absent any weighting, the 'unlikely' registered voters would have had to favor Obama by an extremely unlikely 61%-7%.

I've checked the arithmetic, and he's right:

For 900 RVs, 47-44 = 423 O, 396 M, 81 U/O.
For 791 LVs, 45-49 = 356 O, 388 M, 47 U/O.

The difference:

For 109 ULVs, 67 O, 8 M, 34 U/O.

That takes a ginormous amount of finite Improbability.

And if we assume weighting, then the weighted totals look like that. Just as unlikely.

[DSeid]

Okay. So at this snapshot in time Republicans seem much more likely to actually come out by Gallup's estimations.

:)

[E-Sabbath]

It's like... there might be a heavy turnout of black voters who normally wouldn't think it was worth their while to get off their asses.

Nooooo.

[Shugahhhh]

It's like... there might be a heavy turnout of black voters who normally wouldn't think it was worth their while to get off their asses.

Nooooo.

By the same token (or generalization, if I may respond in kind), there may be a significant number of uneducated, unevolved and otherwise disenfranchised whites who get off their asses and vote, motivated by nothing more than a desire to ensure against an assumed-Muslim, terrorist-fist-bumping black man leading this country. :rolleyes:

While the discussion of campaign strategy is interesting, its relevance to the outcome of the election is arguable. Do not underestimate the great unwashed: after nearly four years, I'm still awash in a sea of cognitive dissonance in re: Bush's election to a second term.

[DSeid]

Quninnipiac (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1196) polls today are showing that Obama is marginally ahead in FL and OH (both within MOE so officially "close") and solidly ahead in PA. These are narrower leads than the last Quinnipiac polls which were dome at Obama's peak right after he cinched the nomination. That said the OH polls have been all over the place - the last one was Rassmussen's and had McCain up by 10 after PP had Obama up by 8 the day before. FL seems consistently close at this point but it must be noted that Obama is spending big there and so far McCain has not.

Also this (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12179.html) is very interesting.... even the McCain campaign added his home state of Arizona to the list of "battleground" states. Presidential rival Barack Obama, who has no real organization in the state, outraised McCain in Arizona in June, and a recent Zogby poll showed McCain trailing Obama by 3 percentage points there.Arizona a battlegound?!? Oh c'mon. Really?

Boy. If this race really does reach a point where Arizona isn't a McCain sure thing then it is really time to prepare the forks and see if the juice is still pink.