He's getting slaughtered -- literally by double digits -- in every Kerry state. One good example: He's losing Michigan by 16 in the last Rasmussen poll (a poll that tends to have a Republican lean). That was supposed to be his big pick-off state, but he had to tuck his tail between his legs and pull out.
He's trying to play in Pennsylvania, but he's losing by 12-15 points.
Trying to hold Virginia, but losing by 8-12 points. Trying to hold North Carolina, but losing by 2-6 points (prior to the Wachovia collapse).
He's losing Georgia by double digits in the early voting, because black folks have come roaring into the polling stations at 38% of the electorate. They're literally lined up for hours in Atlanta. Obama's even making inroads with ATL's notoriously right-wing suburbs (Bob Barr-Newt Gingrich Country).
Losing Colorado by 10 according to yesterday's PPP poll. Now, for the record, I'm reluctant to immediately take that result from them as they don't really have a history of polling in the Mountain West (they're great in the Midwest and the least-bad in the South though). But I have no reason to really doubt it beyond perhaps a slight overstatement of Obama's support (feels like a solid 6- to 8-point lead to me).
Every poll has Obama up in Florida and consistently hitting 50-51%, with margins ranging from small to impressive. That should never have happened. How, in an election breaking on age all year, is McCain losing the oldest state in the Union to a black guy with a name that probably strikes most Americans as being "Islamic"?
West Virginia seems to be steadily closing for Obama, even if we throw out the laughable ARG poll that had him ahead. West Virginia?! The state with the ex-Klansman for a senator?!
Everybody but Rasmussen has Obama up in Ohio. Missouri's now a toss-up, but it's probably lean Obama given the wide gap on the ground games.
A new poll out today from Minnesota State University has Obama taking the lead in North Dakota for what I think is the first time ever. I generally don't trust university polling, and McCain is probably still ahead, but the fact that ND is even close tells you how much trouble McCain is in.
Iowa's gone. New Mexico's probably gone. The Kerry states are probably gone. Virginia's dangerously close to gone. North Carolina will be gone if the trends keep up for another week or two.
It will take a lot for McCain to get out of the hole. He's in deep. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Ed Rollins, GOP strategist, is saying McCain needs "to restart his campaign." For the 4th time. 21 days out from election day. With early voting already underway.
Rollins also said Obama is "a young inexperienced outsider." Which says to me the GOP doesn't understand - at ALL - what is happening to them.
Good.
There is not enough AAs in America to guarantee a BHO win even allowing for B/D adjustment, new voter registration, and 100% voter turnout. Can you READ? +90% AA vote for BHO is already accounted.
If so, please perform an attitude adjustment in your comments to nag every other non-performing minority class and the undecided in the ethnic majority to transcent their racism. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
If you would like I'll zip over there and grab the link.
In The Marketing Literature, explanations of lying revolve around survey design and repondent (dis)incentives, e.g. financial compensation. IIRC, lying's contribution to confidence intervals is neglible, when sampling protocols and design (e.g. questionnaire language, scalar inputs) are defensible.
The ethical dilemma for political scientists so far as I can see in the case of either Bradley, Obama or any other candidate, is how to explain resulting error or anticipated error as compared to actual returns. That is a discrepancy between prediction and reality of vote administration.
The presence of liars in any sample for political scientists is compounded not so much by opinion survey design, I think, as collection errors in the franchise, e.g. technical discards, abject fraud, reporting accuracy, all of which is controlled. One then might reasonably expect that political sciencists organize, agitate, and litigate secretaries of state to guarantee random (or "free") voters' rights. However such organization, if any, is apparently ineffective, for whatever reason(s). I'll not digress.
I don't remember the explanation(s), given by political scientists or legal authorities, of Bradley's "unexpected" defeat at that time. Let's assume I don't remember, because the predictions of political scientists didn't and don't interest me and at that time I was familiar with Jersey democratic practices and history.
Today I am equally unconcerned by predictions, given by political scientists with respect to Mr Obama's victory or defeat. And I am extremely skeptical of any explanation that depends on and anticipates a (racist) liar distortion of a statistical event which, incidentally, has not occurred. I will vote as I intend to, regardless of political scientists' predictions ... or the final disposition of my ballot for that matter.
Dog, tail, all that.
While I cannot be everywhere at once, I will be an election judge (LOL what a moniker!) to help assure any of my neighbors who want to vote during my watch is able to submit a ballot.
So, no, thank you. I personally am not interested in Nate over at FiveThirtyEight's exegesis on the "Bradley effect". Unless it includes a significant analysis comparing franchise administration, i.e. voting rights. Don't let that stop you though from posting them :) Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
you are the media you consume.
I'm hoping the RCC Archbishop up in Santa Fe keeps his damn mouth shut this time. Convinced he threw NM to Bush in '04 by his pre-election Sunday sermon and the letter he sent to the RCC priests.
Now Chuck's usually a little behind the curve, and -- bless his little heart -- he's trying his damnedest to not put Obama over 270 yet.
But Arkansas? If Todd's right, things have really gone funny, and I'm gonna need to lie down. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Rasmussen had McCain up 9 in their 9/22 poll.
Wonder what he is hearing.
Obama 51 McCain 43
Throw another 11 points on the pile for now. That gets Obama to 364. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
:-)
37% were between the ages of 18 and 25. 30% were black (compared with ~20% of the state population per the Census Bureau).
Massive movements. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
He needs about 35-37% of the white vote in NC to win it in that scenario. Right now he's running at about 37-39% in pre-Wachovia Collapse polling, and I suspect the number will rise a bit. At 40%, it's over. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Hi-larious. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I think we're going to get Minnesota. Three of the last four polls have Franken in the lead, and the mo is with him.
That makes nine. Need either Mississippi or Kentucky to get to the Lieberman-proof, 60-seat Congress. Running the table on MS, GA, and KY gets us 61+Holy Joe.
For the first time, I'm starting to think we may just get those 60 seats.
Two races to watch now: Maine and Texas. The DSCC's pouring cash into Maine. Seem to be on the verge of falling into single digits. Texas is back in single digits too. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
If Georgia goes I wonder about Mississippi? Very similar demographics and dynamics working there.
McConnell is in real trouble in Kentucky. He's down to pure mud and slime and every so slowly Lunsford seems to be catching up.
I think I said I don't understand why Snowe is doing so well in Maine. Still don't. :-)
I've read the RNC was sitting on a chunk of change they could throw into Senate/House races at the last minute. They've got to decide if they are going to cut McCain loose and try to support on-the-edge candidates in the House and Senate. That's a bit of a problem as cutting McCain loose will get lots of media attention which will hurt GOP down-ticket candidates by lowering turn-out. If they keep propping-up McCain's advertising they won't have any money to try and play defense later. So damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Or something.
Seriously, I don't see the logic in putting the money on McCain. Unless things shift strongly, it's like going down to the track to bet on a three-legged dachshund against the greyhound.
Losing the Senate seats and the White House would be devastating to them. The Senate races are closer. Bet on the Senate races. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I agree. The best move is to throw the money into the Senate races.
somewhere in there is the word I want.
Rasmussen poll shows it tighter - but he's still ahead.
I'm trying not to get greedy but I can't remember the last time we had an election in Missouri that wasn't close.
I suspect it'll be slightly tighter than SUSA in MO and maybe a 5-point lead for Obama in NC (the 6-pointer from a week or two ago struck be as too generous, but I suspect a 4- or 5-point lead is not out of the realm of possibility given Virginia). Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Columbia (U of M) should also go hot for Obama in an otherwise Red Sea.
From afar it looks like the McCaskill coalition plus.
Just FYI. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Can you come back in 2010 when we want to defeat Kit Bond?
