Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

The Blow-out continues...

by Frank Schnittger Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM EST

In The blow-out begins? on 1st. October I chronicled the growing evidence that Obama was not only likely to win, but that he might very well do so by a wide margin. Now, two weeks later, those trends have been confirmed. Despite the concerns of geezer in Paris and others about the the Bradley effect, all the evidence available indicates that Obama is on course for a blow-out victory in November.

That is not to say, of course that the Democratic nightmare of an October Surprise will not happen.  Theories abound, from another Obama Bin Laden video-tape (which is reputed to have swung the election in Bush's way in 2004) to a Cheney inspired nuclear attack on Iran.  However there is almost no historical precedent for an 8% lead in the national polls to be overturned at this late stage in the campaign, and all the evidence indicates that McCain now has a mountain to climb.


So let us consider the evidence.  Firstly, all the recent trends in the opinion polls in the key battleground states are aggregated into this table from Pollster.com



The key takeaways are that:

  1. Obama is currently on track to achieve a 353 to 185 win in terms of electoral votes (EVs) in the electoral college.

  2. On current trends that margin is still increasing with every state on the list bar Indiana trending Obama's way over the past week.

  3. More recent polls have reinforced these trends

  4. Obama can reach the critical 270 EVs by winning every state on the list down to Wisconsin - where he has a margin of 6.8%

  5. These margins are not subject to the usual 3-4% Margin of Error (MoE) because they are an aggregate of the trends shown in hundreds of polls from various pollsters using various methodologies.

There are also a number of more technical factors which may cause the above margins to be an underestimate of Obama's lead.

  1. Obama has an incomparably better "ground game" - see series in fivethirtyeight.com - where they go around the battleground states looking at the campaign organisations on the ground.  This will dramatically increase his vote turnout where he needs it most.

  2. Early voting in many states means that Obama is "banking" much of his support whilst he is at a peak - which also reduces the scope for voting day vote suppression through long voting lines, insufficient voting locations and machine counting.

  3. Opinion polls have a big problem fairly representing mobile phone only voters in their polls and some do not contact them at all.  Research by the Pew Institute indicates this could result in a 1-2% under-estimation of Obama's vote.

  4. Pollster's "likely voter" models - used in most polls - adjust their actual research results to account for predicted actual likelihood of voting, and are based on historic voter turnouts which have tended to be low for young and black voters - but which may totally underestimate Obama's ability to change those historic patterns this time around.  Gallup has just released a new "likely voter" model which takes current voting intentions (rather than historical patterns) into account, and this results in Obama's margin increasing by 2% points.

Finally there is the much discussed Bradley effect which has resulted in some disagreement between geezer in Paris and myself.

The "Bradley effect" is not about racism per se, but about people telling pollsters that they will vote for a Black candidate when they have no intention of doing so. As such, we will not know for certain until after the election whether or not it has occurred. This is the first time the "Bradley effect" hypothesis will be tested in a Presidential election, so we can't be sure, but it is important to remember that the vast majority of racists will vote for McCain and have no difficulty in telling Pollsters that this is their preference.  They may or may not give race as their reason for doing so (few do) but the point is those votes are already counted in McCain's numbers.

There was no evidence for the Bradley effect in the primaries, or indeed in recent elections where black candidates have polled in line with polling predictions and have sometimes even exceeded them.  Indeed some have argued for a "reverse Bradley" effect where people say they will vote McCain to appease friend's/family/neighbours but have no intention of doing so.  Others have argued that there was never a "Bradley Effect" in the first place - and that it was just an excuse concocted by pollsters for bad polling methods.

FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: If The Bradley Effect is Gone, What Happened To It?

It was Tom Bradley's 1982 race for governor of California, in which he lost to George Deukmejian in spite of leading in the public polls, that gave the Bradley Effect its name. But now Lance Tarrance, the pollster for Bradley in that race, has an article up at RCP suggesting that the Bradley Effect was merely a case of bad polling -- and that his campaign's internals had shown a dead heat:

The hype surrounding the Bradley Effect has evolved to where some political pundits believe in 2008 that Obama must win in the national pre-election polls by 6-9 points before he can be assured a victory. That's absurd. There won't be a 6-9 point Bradley Effect -- there can't be, since few national polls show a large enough amount of undecided voters and it's in the undecided column where racism supposedly hides.

The other reason I reject the Bradley Effect in 2008 is because there was not a Bradley Effect in the 1982 California Governor's race, either. Even though Tom Bradley had been slightly ahead in the polls in 1982, due to sampling error, it was statistically too close to call.
Tarrance's article is a fascinating read into the way that polls are spun and campaign narratives are spread. It is well worth your time to read the entire piece.

An academic study of the Bradley effect found that: National Journal Online - Will Winds Of Change Blow Pollsters Away?

Over the last 10 years, according to a paper [PDF] by Harvard post-doctoral fellow Daniel Hopkins that studied 133 statewide races between 1989 and 2006, the apparent polling bias in such races largely disappeared.

There have been a huge number of discussions of the Bradley effect on fivethirtyeignt.com, Pollster.com, DKos and elsewhere.  Indeed it has become something of an obsession on progressive blogs.  I will leave this discussion to the experts.  All I will say is that the empirical evidence I have seen to date is at best inconclusive, and we really won't know the answer until after he Presidential election itself.

The other nightmare for Progressive commentators is a repeat of the vote suppression if not downright fraud which characterised the 2000 election.  Again it is very difficult to get empirical evidence to quantify those potential effects.  Suffice to note here that Democrats now control many of the state houses in key marginal states.

Whatever the impact of these factors on the accuracy of opinion polls and the actual vote counting process itself, the currently available empirical evidence points to an overwhelming victory for Obama even if the race tightens somewhat in the next couple of weeks - as many expect.  Tomorrow's final debate represents the last set piece opportunity for McCain to influence the dynamics of the campaign, and he is really relying on a major Obama mistake to let him back into the race at this stage.

We should also not forget about the elephant in the room - the near implosion of the world financial system and its increasingly severe impact on the real economy.  So long as the economy remains centre stage McCain is going to be rowing upstream in this campaign. Can you imagine the uproar if the current financial melt-down had happened in 6 months time - under Obama's watch?  A coup d'etat would have been likely.  Impeachment attempts de rigeur.  Riots in the street commonplace.

Obama has truly been blessed with the timing of this election.  It could not have gone better for him.  If ever there was a time to believe that the conventional wisdoms of US politics are going to be overturned, this is it.  The stage has been set where people are desperate for "Change they can believe in".  The real question is whether Obama is going to be able to dispel the extraordinary fears his candidacy has inspired in some and deliver on the extraordinary hopes his candidacy has inspired in so many.

That challenge is going to make his election look easy by comparison.

Display:
... bias ... looking for explanations when black candidates underperform polls, but not looking for explanations when black candidate outperform polls.

Also, the choice matters. Raising qualms, even repressed qualms, about your opponent on the basis of race or or tribalisms only rebounds to your advantage if in the process you do not raise more qualms about yourself.

This is, after all, why the Republicans since Nixon have focused so hard on developing "dog whistle" attacks, which are perceived in their racial dimensions by those inclined to think in those terms, but are easily rationalized as about some other issue by those who would feel uneasy making a decision on the basis of race.

The problem is, the dog whistle does not work when you get too many blatant racists at your rallies mixed with too many people eager to believe the most absurd lies to rationalize away their racism. The whistle shifts down several registers to where too many people can hear it.

I think of the kind of Congregational church in Columbus, Ohio, that my mom grew up in ... they would almost certainly have been mostly Republican voters in the 1950's, in part because of an affinity to social and fiscal conservatism, and in part because of the filthy racist Dixiecrats that offended their communion's tradition of racial tolerance, from supporting the underground railroad before the Civil War, to admitting black churches into the communion in th 19th century, to performing inter-racial marriages when "anti-miscegenation" laws were still on the books in Southern states.

McCain will have lost many socially conservative, good hearted church folk unless he repudiates the nutcases and can find his way back to the successfully hypocritical pretense of previous Republican campaigns that they are not being racist, they are just saying that this Democratic candidate supports the interests of big city welfare cheats and ex-felons.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 12:42:07 PM EST
I think by now most people know Obama is going to win, even McCain seems to understand that. Whether What Palin is thinking is anybody's guess.

Now the focus must go to  the Senate races to see if the Dems can pick up 60 seats, that'll be the clincher.

But I believe you're right to ask the question of Obama. He will have his landslide but what's he going to do with his historic opportunity to really effect change ? I've made no secret of my belief that he will squander his opportunity to an even greater extent than Blair suggests he wasted the 97 opportunity.

Both had whopping majorities and a public desperate for grand sweeping change, but what was offered was pretty much a slight re-jigging of what was there before, but with a nice smiley face on the cover.

Not just a timidity to act, but a lack of a grand sweeping vision substantially different from the calculated trimming of purpose necessary to win primaries and the election. It's not that Obama won't make the changes necessary, he doesn't actually think great change is necessary.

Change was always just a campaign slogan, wonderfully vague and vacuous. You could paint on it whatever you wated, which was why Hillary and McCain both tried it on for size. It wasn't what you meant by it that mattered, it was the hundred million and one interpretations they allow their supporters to think it meant that got them out to vote.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 12:53:53 PM EST
Yes, the real fear has to be that Obama will end up triangulating and tacking to the centre like Clinton did even when he doesn't have to.  (Clinton had the excuse of not having a congressional majority).  Some suggest that he may not want to big a majority to reduce that excuse.

Nate gives the Dems a 30% chance of gaining a 60 seat Senate blocking majority.  It will be interesting to see if Obama re-engages his campaign in Georgia where he himself has only a small chance of winning but where Martin has a real chance of ousting Chambliss.

Obama has at least challenged the deregulation meme in the dominant discourse - but has yet to challenge the neo-con "New American Century" dream in national security - except to advocate negotiations with enemies.  Let's hope he is just biding his time.  

If nothing else, the changed global economy will force his hand.  The implosion of Wall street could become as significant a milestone in world history as the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Vote McCain for war without gain

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 01:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nate's being too conservative on his Senate projections in my opinion.  No way to really pick it up yet, but I sense things are moving fast for us in the key races, especially when you look at how guys like Martin and Lunsford have come back to dead-even so quickly.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:32:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmmm, I think 60 seats is way too optimistic.

No matter how badly the nation is going, people stick with incumbents. Never underestimate the ground game of the in-state politicos. Grabbing a red senate seat in a red state is doubly difficult when all the levels of power, Governor's mansion to voting booth, are controlled by one party.

I'd put 60 seats at a 10% chance.

Not to mention that most races tighten in the last few weeks.

by Upstate NY on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd call it optimistic.  "Way too opstimistic"?  No.  Unlikely, but not too optimistic.

No matter how badly the nation is going, people stick with incumbents.

In a closely fought election with the wind blowing in no obvious direction, this is generally true.  In an election resulting in a big win for one side or the other with the wind blowing clearly in one direction, not so much, especially not when the incumbents are polling in the mid-40s and are not beloved by their constituents.

In a landslide -- if one develops here -- all bets are off.

And the congressional and senatorial climate looks even more favorable this year than it did in 2006.  I submit that a win in the Georgia and Kentucky Senate races is a lot more likely than people would've suggested a Webb win in Virginia was in 2006, especially when you take Obama's ground game and impressive polling in Georgia into account.  Saxby Shameless and Senator Box Turtle are not the darlings of the ideological right that Allen was here.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:06:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... early stages of the primary season (though then the race boiled down to two different versions of the same story, so I stood on the sideline waiting until one of the two versions was selected).

And I think large numbers of progressives are aware that for the most part, any substantial victories will be won in spite of a President Obama, not because of him.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 01:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suspect that an Obama Administration might end up enacting fundamental and beneficial change because all of the alternatives will fail to work.  His final and saving graces may turn out to be his possession of "a first rate intellect and a first rate temperament."  Given the abyss that will be yawning in front of a nation that has a Democratic President and Congress and is yet too timid to truly confront the problems, he should have the intellect to understand and the temperament and oratorical skills to promote effective, and hence fundamental, change.  He might, like Bush, squeak by in four years without having done much very fundamental, but in eight years it will be the end of our country as any of us have ever hoped it might become.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 02:53:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... policy of expanding the size of the military, almost all his other policies fail in scope rather than in direction. His New Energy policy is in the right general direction, even if inadequate ... his health care reform is in the right general direction, even if falling 1/3 short of Universal (which is why I call it a Versal Health Care plan) ... and half steps in the right direction are less likely to have to be undone later.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 03:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed.  Furthermore, proposing comprehensive, effective solutions to the problems you discuss would be political suicide in the current climate.  He will not only have to be driven to fundamental change, he will have to be seen to have been driven to such solutions by the force of events.  If he can accomplish a few effective changes, his charisma will enable him to do more.

Perhaps the best solution to the health care mess would be to establish an optional government run system as an expansion of Medicare and then enact rules for the behavior of insurance companies, such as taking all comers, disallowing increased premiums based on existing conditions, etc.  With vigorous enforcement of such rules insurance companies would cease to be parasites on the system and most would exit the field.  The noxious blabberers would likely be highly disappointed by a competitive market run according to rules favorable to the public and the consumer.

Solutions to energy and transportation could be rolled together as The National Security Power and Electric Railway Program, like Ike's 50s interstate highway program.  Arguments by neo-cons for redeployment of US overseas forces could be adapted to arguments for their being brought home.  The effect of a large military on the overall economy is far less when it is at home.  Then it could be scaled down.  Both steps could be correctly sold as necessary steps to preserve the economic strength on which US military might rests.  

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 04:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
who said (and I paraphrase), when the shitstorm hits, people go to the ideas which are laying around.

Too bad there's nothing like a Progressive Think Tank Site with a whole bunch of Progressive Ideas lying around, from economics to science to etc., that a lazy Obama administrator could turn to in a pinch.

Too bad, too bad.

The good news ... it's only a life sentence. You eventually leave this planet of idiots.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 04:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know who said it, but yes. And it is too bad.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:46:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dems generally don't use think tanks like Reps.  Obama will, I hope, stay the hell away from the think tanks.  We need to get the faux-academia out of government.

As Maher put it, "New Rule: You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid."

All the good academics are liberals.  Who needs think tanks?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
God damn, I never thought I'd say this being such a numbers junkie, but could the news orgs please chill out on the polls today?  There have been, like, three hundred national polls since this morning.  Two polls in the last five minutes from McClatchy/Ipsos and LAT/Bloomberg, both with Obama up nine.  And now CBS is teasing a new one to come out at 6.30 that will show 90% or more of the country believes we're on the "Wrong Track".

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 05:15:27 PM EST
And a 14-point lead in the CBS/NYT poll -- O53-39M.  Almost undoubtedly off the mark, but very pretty and certainly lends credibility, along with other polls out today, to the idea that Obama is headed for a double-digit lead.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 06:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At some point Obama has to peak, and then the MSM narrative will become "McCain makes a comeback!" However the longer we can put off that evil day, the less credibility that narrative will have.

I'm waiting to see if (after a successful last debate) Obama starts re-engaging in Georgia, N. Dakota and places like Oregon where he can help a Dem senate candidate.  That will be the clearest indication that the campaign is no longer about achieving a tight victory in swing states, and has become a campaign to achieve a national mandate and infrastructure for the years to come.

Vote McCain for war without gain

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 06:54:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The RNC is making noises that they are going to stop wasting money on the presidential campaign and go to a full court defense to keep a blocking minority in the Senate.

It is their best plan.  It has a major hole.  In a presidential year more people vote.  The GOP risks suppressing their own vote should their loosely-attached start saying, "Screw it.  I'm not voting."  Should that happen they also risk losing more seats in the House (for complicated reasons I won't go into.)

Should they do this it is another Hail Mary from the GOP.  (I note the McCain campaign hasn't had a lot of success with that tactic.)

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 07:13:54 PM EST
ATinNM:
(for complicated reasons I won't go into.)

I would guess that many vote a straight ticket and if not motivated by the presidentail election, they will not vote at all. But that does not look complicated at all...

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:36:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well.

No.  ;-)

After the 2000 and 2002 elections the GOP controlled most of the state legislatures and had control of establishing the Congressional districts boundaries.  The leaders of the GOP under the direction of Karl Rove - a GOP political operative & a real slime ball - got involved in the process and had those boundaries drawn, based on past election results, to maximize the GOP representative: gerrymandering  is what it is called in the US.  One thing that the GOP had to do was to dilute their own vote across several districts, taking a 9% lead to a 3% lead, say.

Manipulating the vote by careful map making is fine when the voters turnout by historic patterns, a disaster when it doesn't.  Either an exceptional turnout by the Dems or/and a fall in GOP vote (or both,) relative to historic pattern.  If this happens, the GOP is facing a loss of multiple Congressional seats in a cascade affect.  

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep - gerrymandering can backfire big time and exacerbate losses (especially if done to extremes). If the boundaries were drawn to maximise seats by building in (say) 5% majorities (based on historic trends) - this will result in a lot of seats flipping if the vote swings more than an average of 5%.  It also reduces the number of "safe" seats dramatically as their historic majorities are distributed to neighbouring marginal seats.

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hail Marys, as you know, generally don't work.  In football, they're more likely to be intercepted than completed in the endzone.  Certainly you're unlikely to win if your entire strategy for the second half of the game is to simply throw Hail Marys.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:42:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So "Hail Mary" is something from american footbool?

I thought it had to do with the religious-political discourse of the US.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope, nothing to do with religious-political discourse.  A Hail Mary is a kind of play in American football.  It's a play you run when you have "only a prayer" of winning.  You send all of your receivers down the field, into the endzone, and have the quarterback simply throw it as far as he can towards them, hoping that someone catches it for a touchdown.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:16:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For a description of the Obama ground-game see Sean's article in On the Road: Toledo, Ohio.  (Can't link directly for some reason.)

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot
by ATinNM on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 07:18:09 PM EST
They've been running that series for weeks and it is very impressive - particularly the contrast with an almost non-existent McCain effort. This is also building up a party infrastructure for the long haul...

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the first indepth look at the organization and how it operates.  That I've seen.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot
by ATinNM on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 07:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's writing the textbook on how to build a volunteer campaigning organisation.  Some of the principles could even, beneficially be applied with ET!

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 08:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The election continues to be over.

CNN ran the Palin/AIP story today, McCain hired Saddam's former lobbyist, Bush said that the banking system had to be bought by the government to preserve the free markets.

My friends [bobble, nod, earnest pause] - clearly the American people have had enough of stand-up politics and are looking to vote for someone who can actually find their own arse without professional help.

Well - it's a start.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 at 08:02:32 PM EST
Saw a great quote about Bush and the banking crisis yesterday: "He came in as a social conservative, he leaves as a conservative socialist."

Nobody could have predicted....

But no!  CNN can't run the AIP/Secessionist Sarah story.  We're trying to win the South for once!

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:18:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah yes - but the way to spin this story is that the secessions are trying to take Alaska's oil away from the USA!

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The election continues to be over.

Generalisimo Franco is still dead?

President: now available in black

Priceless.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right

So far, SurveyUSA has conducted polling in five states where some form of early voting was underway. In each one, Barack Obama is doing profoundly better among early voters than among the state's electorate as a whole:

... Poll % Voted Non-Early
State Date Early Early Voters Likely Voters
==================
NM 10/13 10% Obama +23% Obama +6%
OH 10/13 12% Obama +18% Obama +4%
GA 10/12 18% Obama +6% McCain +11%
IA 10/9 14% Obama +34% Obama +10%
NC 10/6 5% Obama +34% McCain +5%
We should caveat that these are not hard-and-fast numbers. Estimates of early voting results are subject to the same statistical vagaries as any other sort of subgroup analysis, such as response bias and small sample sizes.

Nevertheless, Obama is leading by an average of 23 points among early voters in these five states, states which went to George W. Bush by an average of 6.5 points in 2004.


Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 07:47:14 AM EST
That's roughly my math for Georgia.  I reckon Obama's taking about 97% of black folks and about 29% of non-black folks.  That gets him to about 53/54.

The interesting thing is, early voting tends to be dominated by conservatives.  Bush consistently took over 60% on early voting.  But Obama's blowing McCain away.  A few anecdotes, like the early voting figures, point to perhaps an even larger lead than the polls are suggesting in key states.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:37:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: Ann Selzer on Youth & Minority Turnout
Selzer thinks that a lot of pollsters may be undercounting the youth vote, and potentially also the black vote. Young voters are becoming harder and harder to reach. They are in the habit of screening their phone calls. More problematically still, a great number of them (roughly 50 percent of voters under 30) rely principally or exclusively on cellphones, which most pollsters (including Selzer) will not call.

Pollsters can attempt to work around this problem by weighting the young voters they are able to reach more heavily; indeed, it is imperative that they make at least some attempt at weighting if they want to produce accurate results. But Selzer says she knows of at least one prominent polling firm -- she would not mention them by name -- which is not weighting by age groups at all.


Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 07:55:08 AM EST
That prominent poll with no age weighting was the George Washington University/Battleground Poll.  They changed the methodology to account for party ID finally, and -- surprise, surprise -- now they've got Obama up 13.

Not a great poll anyway IMO.

That's one of the big difference-makers in polling right now: "Are they getting the youth vote and planning for higher black turnout?"  Selzer's been saying this all year.  She said it before Iowa when she was doing the polling for the Des Moines Register, and nobody listened.  She was right.  She was right about Indiana being close too.  And she was right over the last few weeks about Michigan turning into a blowout before anybody else saw it coming.

She's the best in the business.  I wish Selzer polled other states beyond Iowa, Indiana and Michigan.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
methodology to account for party ID finally

Bah, to account for age, not party ID.  Too used to dealing with pollsters who have stupid party ID models (coughZogbycough).

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:30:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nice:



Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:52:12 AM EST
Very nice.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 08:53:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Really, one big change from Obama is more than enough for me.

Enact a campaign finance law that prevents lobbyists from "owning" congress.

by Upstate NY on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 09:49:38 AM EST
And you would do that -- how?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 09:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Eh, the posters here are talking about "change" agents.

Obama has no big lobbyist backers.

If he has a mandate, the kind of massive one foreseen in this diary, then he could use the bully pulpit.

The message is more than simple. It squares with every stereotype of politicians: they are bought and paid for.

I could give a slogan on this in one sentence.

by Upstate NY on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Slogans aren't laws.  I'm asking what you'd put in a campaign finance law to prevent that?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 01:33:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Make public finding available for election expenses, ban paid for political advertising, and treat all private contributions by corporations or lobbyists tantamount to bribery.  A democracy is a democracy of people, not corporations or special interests.

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 01:47:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Make public finding available for election expenses

We already have that.  It's insufficient to run a national campaign, as John McCain is now discovering.

ban paid for political advertising

Supreme Court would throw it out on free-speech grounds.

treat all private contributions by corporations or lobbyists tantamount to bribery

Can't ban contributions from lobbyists by law, because they're individuals.  Candidates and parties can, as the DNC and the Obama campaign have, only refuse to accept their contributions.

Corporations, strictly speaking, can't donate.  They work through PACs.  A ban on PACs would be fine by me.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 02:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But you can ban doing favours in return for the bribes. Simply establish that if a politician seeks to pass a law that favours a company that has contributed (directly or indirectly) to his or her campaign, it's bribery unless he repays the contribution in full and with mark-to-market interest rates.

Then create an enforcement agency with teeth. It doesn't have to work perfectly - heck, if it'll put just 10 % of all the politicians who are on the take behind bars, the rest would probably fall more or less in line.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Any number of policies put before Congress will impact various entities whose people donate to politicians.  Where do you draw the line in that?  Direct benefit (a subsidy for example), or just something that would impact them in a non-discriminatory way (a cut in corporate tax rates)?  And what qualifies as a contributor?  A company PAC, sure, but what about (say) Warren Buffett donating?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where would I draw the line? As tightly as the constitution could possibly be bent to permit. As far as I'm concerned, any money that doesn't come from fairly distributed government campaign funds or grassroot activity (and no, Warren Buffet giving a couple of millions to an political campaign doesn't count as "grassroot") is automatically suspect, and any politician receiving suspect money is automatically under suspicion.

It won't catch everything, and ultimately the solution to billionaires buying politicians is not to make buying politicians illegal - they'll eventually find ways around any law you can enact; after all, they have enough money to get the best lawyers money can buy. The solution is to make billionaires illegal. But in the meantime, I'll settle for anything that'd put a few crooked politicians behind bars and put a scare in the rest.

- Jake

Austerity can only be implemented in the shadow of a concentration camp.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 05:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shouldn't free speech be..er..free?

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 05:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've had exactly that debate before with a libertarian type who was convinced that if you wanted free speech then doggone you ought to pay for it, yuh betcha.

More cash -> more free speech.

It's difficult to make headway against that kind of inanity.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 06:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Freedom isn't free!"

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 06:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not insufficient.

The FCC could get involved, shorten the campaign which is way too long as it is, require broadcast airtime.

Limit contributions to $20.

Most of the money is spent on TV ads. That will be over and done with.

All other money will come from the taxpayer and tiny contributions. I've seen such proposals before. I'm frankly surprised that you don't believe this is possible.

by Upstate NY on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:59:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What's this about McCain appointing a lobbyist who worked for Saddam Hussein as his White House Transition Manager?  Can this be for real?

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:20:27 AM EST
I think he was a lobbyist from the days when Saddam was one of the good guys, fighting Iran for us.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope.  Not even.  It was during the '90s when Saddam was trying to work out a way to sell oil.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
got a link to a good story on this?

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ask and ye shall receive.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:26:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.

Sounds like a good topic for Obama to bring up if McCain mentions Ayres....

Vote McCain for war without gain

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pollster.com: The Evidence on Cell Phone Only Voters
My NationalJournal.com column for the week looks at what we know about whether the rise in cell-phone only households is causing any skew in polling results. The short answer is that polls that cannot reach cell-phone-only voters may be slightly understating support for Obama and overstating support for McCain, although the difference is small (and likely within the margin of error of any individual poll). As the Pew Research Center's Scott Keeter recent told the Arizona Reporter (in a clip received too late to make the column), "For the first time, we're actually seeing a difference between cell-only voters and land line voters when you take into account age."


Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:54:04 AM EST
"For the first time, we're actually seeing a difference between cell-only voters and land line voters when you take into account age."

Did they bother to look for a difference before?

AFAIK, pollsters, up to now, have been proudly proclaiming there wasn't a difference.  They knew there wasn't a difference because they were Super-Pollsters! -- able to leap over demographic/statistical variance in a single bound.

Or something like that.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is that the difference is not statistically significant in each individual poll, but taking them all together, as Nate did, it is.  So pollsters generally don't do it.  Think of it as adding an extra 1 or 1.5 to Obama current total (since a few of the polls do use cells).  Perhaps it's a 9- or 9.5-point lead rather than 8.

The good news is that this would be very relevant to some places Obama and some key Senate candidates are competing in.

Four years ago, the number of cell-only voters just wasn't big enough to justify inclusion.  I still think it's iffy now but probably worth doing.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As you say - a 1- 1.5% bias is not significant within a poll with 3-4% error margins - but is significant in the context of the aggregation of all of those polls - especially if you add in further possible sources of bias due to differential ground games, interviewer bias, changes in "likely" voting patterns, and the growth of differential early voting which turns "likely" into "definite"

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They used age or party ID to adjust land line based polls to account for any under-representation of cell-phone only population.  However what the Pew and other research seems to be saying is that the cell-=phone only population is qualitatively different   even after you adjust for age and part ID variables.  e.g. it is more liberal, more ethnically diverse, or more anti-incumbent.

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
More liberal, more ethnically diverse, and far more urban, I'd guess.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 12:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Gah-damn

From FiveThirtyEight:

This is beginning to look like an old fashioned ass-stomping.

(Now if Obama will DO something with his mandate.)

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:25:00 PM EST
Looks like it for now, but it's not an ass-stomping until the votes are counted.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know I'm an elitist and all, but Sarah Palin powerful stupid.  In New Hampshire today:

Note that she is reading a prepared text too.  Not only is Palin an idiot, her speechwriter is an idiot.

We really must get those maps to US Americans and South Africa and the Iraq and such as....

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
my fellow prisoners...

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 05:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a cunning decoy plan to confuse the Russians and prevent Putin rearing his head over Concord.

Also - moose shooting. It must be easy to get NH confused with AK.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 06:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought McCain won the first 20 minutes, and that Obama won the last 70.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:40:02 PM EST

Toast.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I think Kos hit the nail on the head there.  That was pure "Deer in the Headlights" stuff.

Did they show it on television over there, or did you catch it streaming?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
McCain, loser.

Obama, #44.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama wins CNN Ohio focus group 15 to 10, with a few Ties thrown in.  That focus group screwed with my head a bit, because I didn't realize it was in Ohio.  They responded differently to how I would've expected on different issues, knowing how those issues tend to break on the national opinion polls.  But once I figured it out (by reading the tv screen, I'm ashamed to admit), it made sense.

Obama apparently won the Luntz focus group on Faux News too.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 10:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
CBS Undecideds:

Obama 53
McCain 22

epic fail.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My friends, that's not pancakes we can believe in.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:04:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
CNN Poll:

Obama 58
McCain 31

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:05:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
McCain needed to convince voters not attack Obama.  Stupid decision to go on the attack.  His campaign (both of them) are going to be the source for papers, studies, and articles for decades to come -- both of 'em.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot
by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:14:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure the Obama campaign will be solid gold to the academics and journalists for decades to come.  Not sure how much there really will be to write about John McCain's campaign, other than that he and his people were incompetent.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Learn "How Not to Do It?"  :-)

One thing will be, at what point did McCain lose?  The Veep Nominee?  All Attack All the Time?  Palin interview?  The bank bust?  Could McCain have won if the economy hadn't gone sour?

& etc

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Was he ever really winning?  With the obvious exceptions of his convention bounce and a brief period in March/April during Pastorgate, he never held the lead nationally.  It always ranged from Small Obama Win to "John, I'll allow you visitation rights with your testicles if you don't piss me off too much".

Another poll:  MediaCurves again gives it to Obama by a wide margin.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thinking back, didn't McCain had a couple of days lead, within the MOE, directly after the GOP convention?  

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot
by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right, the convention bounce.  Lasted -- what, about a week and a half?  Then he crashed to his biggest deficit ever.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:43:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't think it was that long.  I'm going to check the Gallup dailies and see what I can find.


Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot
by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:48:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wouldn't do Gallup.  Ras is probably better.  Gallup tends to go insane when big things are happening.  Obama went to +9, followed by McCain going to (I think) +6.  It swung pretty wildly.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:51:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Too late.  :-)

I don't 'do' Rasmussen.  The site creeps me out with all their weirdo ads.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 12:04:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You were right:

here is the whole shebang in one graph.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He lost by being McCain - all punk in a suit, no genuine gravitas.

McCain is A Certain Kind of Person, and he's just too close to Bush temperamentally and culturally to be credible today.

Being delusional, inept, patronising and entitled is all part of the young-patrician package, but when people's homes and pensions are evaporating before their eyes, that's just not a credible combination.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
TBG - how did you watch or listen to the debate?  

Interested to see what foreign analysts thought/said.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Streaming.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 05:11:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The insta-polls are the greatest invention since the Interwebz in politics.  After each debate, the talking heads crank up the shilling for McCain.  And each time the insta-polls have shut them up.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't it nice?  

One of these days someone is going to flat out say, "You were wrong here.  You where wrong then.  You were wrong then.  Why don't you STFU and wait for the polling."

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't have a problem with someone arguing against the grain of instapoll results.  Sometimes - on reflection - a win in terms of instantaneous reactions but not in terms of longer term considered reflection.  I do have a problem with pundits who can't present a coherent argument or don't understand their own polls - like that idiot who thought the viewer poll was skewed in favour of democrats when it reflected the actual population of party ID pretty accurately.

Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 11:47:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bob the Builder

pwns Joe the Plumber.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:02:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bob the Builder is in the tank for Obama, AT.  You know what his slogan is, right?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:03:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yup.

Yes We Can.

:-)


Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:08:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I love how the pundits have all changed their mind to "Obama Rulez! and McCain is teh Stoopit!" now that the snap polls have come out.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL

Media Independents:

Obama 60
McCain 30

ouch


Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
CNN among Indies:

Obama 57
McCain 31

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
CBS Poll of Undecideds:

Obama 53
McCain 22

Blowout.  I don't get it.  Thought it was pretty close all night.  Maybe a slight Obama win.  But I'll take it.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Undecideds really go for the emotive stuff.  McCain was an uptight, angry, asshole and Obama sounded calm, knowledgeable, and capable.

Skepticism is the first step on the road to truth. -- Denis Diderot
by ATinNM on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 11:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
States still trending to Obama even if nationals have tightened somewhat


Vote McCain for war without gain
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 12:40:00 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries