McCain not as forked as the McCain Forked thread, but still forked

[DSeid]

Well, funny enough today Blumenthal gives us his current thoughts about LV screens! (Albeit nothing about how Rasmussen modifies their screen as election day gets closer.)

The best use of these highly restrictive “likely voter models,” in my view, is to determine when the level of turnout has the potential to affect the outcome of an election. Put another way, the likely voter models typically produce results that differ only slightly from the larger pool of registered voers. However, in relatively rare elections – and 2008 appears to be such an example – the marginal voters tilt heavily to one candidate. Surveys have been showing for months that Barack Obama stands to benefit if his campaign can help increase turnout among the kinds of registered voters that typically do not vote.

The fact that the likely voter models are producing inconsistent results, provides additional confirmation of that finding. As Nate Silver points out, some likely voter models (presumably the ones putting more emphasis on past voting) are showing closer results than other models that appear to be less restrictive. The problem is that determining which model is the most appropriate is not a matter of separating science from non-science, and the differences between them are sometimes subtle. Many of the presumably less restrictive models used by national pollsters (ABC/Washington Post and CBS/New York Times, for example) likely include at least some measures of past voting. The true margin that currently separates Obama and McCain probably falls somewhere in between these various “likely voter” snapshots.

[DSeid]

Okay I am obsessed. I know I’m obsessed. But humor me. An amazing break-out or Texas early voting results. Note in particular that almost 15% of RVs in Bexar county, 13% of Dallas, and almost 11% of Harris has already voted as of Thursday. Why do I care about those populous counties? Well not just because they are populous.

Bexar, Dallas and Harris counties continue to have some of the highest Hispanic populations in the country

(Tarrant, another big voter turn-out is only 20% Hispanic, but Travis, 4th on the list, and with almost 18% of all RVs having voted already by Thursday, is over 31% Hispanic.) So big turn-out already in heavily Hispanic areas of Texas. (Athough heavily Hispanic El Paso and moderately Hispanic Cameron are at “only” 10 and 8% respectively.)

You can compare to percent early voting by day four of early voting in 2004 here. These are significant increases in areas that will likely favor Obama.

[pepperlandgirl]

Arizona poll.

Myers Research (D) & Grove Insight (D). 10/23-24. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)

Likely voters

McCain ® 44
Obama (D) 40

Early voters (34% of the sample)

McCain ® 46
Obama (D) 47

That’s in Ari-fucking-zona.

[Biggirl]

@pepperlandgirl

Arizona poll.

Myers Research (D) & Grove Insight (D). 10/23-24. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)

Likely voters

McCain (R) 44
Obama (D) 40

Early voters (34% of the sample)

McCain (R) 46
Obama (D) 47

That’s in Ari-fucking-zona.

How’d they get results for early polling? I thought you couldn’t do that.
Wait, I understand. It’s a poll of people who said the voted early. An exit poll.

[MsWhatsit]

@Biggirl

How’d they get results for early polling? I thought you couldn’t do that.

I assume that one of the poll questions was “Did you vote early?” and then “If so, for whom did you cast your vote?” Those aren’t official election results or anything.

[pepperlandgirl]

What I’m wondering is, if Obama does take Arizona, is McCain going to call them all a bunch of Commies?

[Fish]

I notice that when those early results are given, they say “44% Republican, 40% Democrat” and not “44% McCain, 40% Obama.”

Curious, no? It is my suspicion that they are not counting the actual vote, but instead counting whether the voter is a registered Republican or Democrat.

[Biggirl]

Abuse of power, improper spending of state money for family and now AP is reporting on their investigation of her rigging the bidding on pipline contracts. I’d link to it but I’m having some major EI problems.

Seriously. I can’t click links, can’t C&P from the address window, keep getting asked about letting some dumb site deposit cookies. . … Got virus scan running now. . …

[tnetennba]

Here’s one link.

Here are more.

[Shayna]

Here you go, Biggirl. . .

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJHCRuz2uN-jIx6RV8tbS1E8xOUQD941KJ0O1

Gov. Sarah Palin’s signature accomplishment — a contract to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48 — emerged from a flawed bidding process that narrowed the field to a company with ties to her administration, an Associated Press investigation shows.

. . .

Despite Palin’s boast of a smart and fair bidding process, the AP found that her team crafted terms that favored only a few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited the winner, TransCanada Corp.

. . .

In interviews and a review of records, the AP found:
_Instead of creating a process that would attract many potential builders, Palin slanted the terms away from an important group — the global energy giants that own the rights to the gas.

_Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders, Palin had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major candidate, including TransCanada.

_The leader of Palin’s pipeline team had been a partner at a lobbying firm where she worked on behalf of a TransCanada subsidiary. Also, that woman’s former business partner at the lobbying firm was TransCanada’s lead private lobbyist on the pipeline deal, interacting with legislators in the weeks before the vote to grant TransCanada the contract. Plus, a former TransCanada executive served as an outside consultant to Palin’s pipeline team.

_Under a different set of rules four years earlier, TransCanada had offered to build the pipeline without a state subsidy; under Palin, the company could receive a maximum $500 million.

. . .

[and so on]

Raise your hand if you’re surprised.

And DSeid, as the potential recipient of a luxurious back rub if Texas does go blue, as I predict, I, for one, sincerely appreciate your obsession.

[waterj2]

@Shayna

And DSeid, as the potential recipient of a luxurious back rub if Texas does go blue, as I predict, I, for one, sincerely appreciate your obsession.

Did you ever figure out what Spiny gets if Texas stays red?

[Shayna]

@waterj2

Did you ever figure out what Spiny gets if Texas stays red?

Nope. He still hasn’t come up with anything (at least anything that he isn’t already the recipient of). I think he’s just resigned to the fact that I’m going to win, so picking something, getting his hopes up, then having them dashed, would be too much to bear.

[Siam_Sam]

@Shayna

And DSeid, as the potential recipient of a luxurious back rub if Texas does go blue, as I predict, I, for one, sincerely appreciate your obsession.

Texas DID go blue as recently as 1992, although there were no red and blue labels at that time. So it’s not completely out of the question.

[Captain_Carrot]

@Siam_Sam

Texas DID go blue as recently as 1992, although there were no red and blue labels at that time. So it’s not completely out of the question.

…que? Texas voted for Bush in '92.

[Siam_Sam]

@Captain_Carrot

…que? Texas voted for Bush in '92.

Oh, damn. You’re right! Why was I thinking Texas voted Clinton in 1992?

When WAS the last time Texas went blue?

[askeptic]

@Siam_Sam

Oh, damn. You’re right! Why was I thinking Texas voted Clinton in 1992?

When WAS the last time Texas went blue?

1976. Go Jimmy Go!

[Captain_Carrot]

@Siam_Sam

When WAS the last time Texas went blue?

I’m betting Johnson. (It’s a safe bet for almost every conservative state.)

Edit: nope, Carter got it with his strong Southern support also.

[Siam_Sam]

@askeptic

1976. Go Jimmy Go!

That’s it, 1976. Okay, so Texas has gone blue as recently as, er, 1976. I knew there was a reason why I didn’t like voting in Texas.

Now I have a distinct memory of my father, who was still alive in the early Clinton years, complaining that Clinton yanked the supercollider project in Texas because it voted for Bush Sr.

Guess I’ll have to stay out of those opium dens, or at least cut down on visits; it’s frazzling my brain!

[Captain_Carrot]

Sam, bear in mind that for 6 out of the last 7 elections, Texas has had a favorite son on the Republican side of the ticket. The only time that wasn’t true, in 1996, Clinton lost by only 5%. In many ways Obama is every bit as strong a campaigner as Bill was; he won’t win all of the same states, but I’m betting he’ll get as many votes in the only metric that matters. Remember, Clinton never won Virginia, North Carolina, or Indiana.

[Siam_Sam]

@Captain_Carrot

Sam, bear in mind that for 6 out of the last 7 elections, Texas has had a favorite son on the Republican side of the ticket.

W. seems to have settled in okay, but I always regarded Bush Sr.'s claim to Texas as a bit of a joke. As I recall, in the 1980s, he listed his main residence in Texas as a Houston hotel room. I remember Doonesbury having a field day with that one. A modern-day carpetbagger!