Numbers Game: How to Read the Polls Now

posted by John Nichols on 10/27/2008 @ 2:56pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (56)

Subscribe Now

Barack Obama's poll numbers have been looking good for so long that it is easy for his supporters to assume a triumphalism stance as America's longest-ever presidential campaign enters its final week.

But be careful about that. The Democratic nominee for president, while he is currently ahead of Republican John McCain, stands perilously close to a dangerous threshold.

How so?

First, a little recent history: In the Democratic primaries last winter and spring, Obama rarely ran better than his poll numbers. He either hit the figure he was at in pre-election polls (in states such as Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania) or fell a little below it (in states such as New Hampshire and California).

That's worrying because, while the Democrat's poll numbers now look strong by comparison with those produced for a stumbling McCain campaign, they still hover around the 50 percent line nationally and in a number of current and former battleground states.

The McCain camp is betting that primary patterns will hold and that Obama will finish little or no better than his pre-election poll numbers. They see that as their opening, on the theory that McCain will get his base polling figure in any particular state and an overwhelming portion of supposedly "undecided" voters.

To understand how the theory works, let's put the variables introduced by third-party candidates and other factors on hold and simply consider the one-on-one competition in the hotly-contested state of Florida.

As of Monday in Florida, the polling averages had Obama up with 47.7 to 45.8 for McCain. That leaves 6.5 percent undecided. McCain strategists bet their man gets three quarters of the supposedly undecided voters, while Obama takes the remainder. Final result: McCain 50.6 to Obama 49.4.

If the Republicans are right, this could still be a close election -- perhaps even a "Dewey Defeats Truman" upset election.

So, how worried should Obama backers be at this point?

The first answer is: A lot less worried than McCain backers.

The second answer is: There is still some argument for disquiet on the Democratic side.

Let's begin with the numbers we've got.

Various "poll of polls" surveys give Obama a solid national popular vote lead of 7.3. points -- 50.4 for the Democrat to 43.1 for Republican John McCain.

Of course, the United States does not hold national elections. But, on the surface at least, the state-by-state results of races for Electoral College votes are equally encouraging for Democrats.

The latest analysis of polls from all 50 states by Real Clear Politics Obama could win as many as 375 electoral votes, to 163 for Republican John McCain. That's a 212 vote advantage for the Democrat, a certifiable landslide if it happens.

The popular www.fivethirtyeight.com website puts Obama at 351 electoral votes.

So why worry?

McCain currently leads in polling from 19 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. That adds up to 157 electoral votes.

Obama is ahead in 24 states -- California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin -- and the District of Columbia. Total electoral votes: 306.

Obama is, as well, looking strong in a number of the remaining battleground states of Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina and North Dakota, which have 75 electoral votes.

So far, so good.

But... Obama's still polling just above 50 percent nationally and at or below that level in not just battleground states but a number of states -- Ohio (49.9 percent), for instance, and New Mexico (50.7 percent) and New Hampshire (51 percent) -- that have been moved into his column by a number of analysts.

Let's assume that the various third-party and independent candidates, credible and appealing as they may be, do not make much of a dent in this year of celebrity campaigning and hyper-partisanship.

Then let's consider this scenario: As the presidential race closes in this final week, the competition narrows a bit. Obama's numbers tick down a bit and McCain's tick up.

Obama might still have substantial leads in national and state-based surveys -- four, five, six or more points ahead of McCain. But he could fall below the magic 50 percent figure.

That's the point at which to begin worrying.

There has been much discussion this year about the so-called "Bradley effect" -- the phenomenon, most common in the 1980s and early 1990s, of white voters telling pollsters they would back an African-American candidate, such as 1982 California gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley -- and the prospect that it might play against Obama.

But what if the voters who are uncomfortable with Obama, for whatever reason, aren't saying that they will vote for or against him? What if they are crowding the undecided column? And what if they break at historically disproportional numbers for McCain on November 4?

There are plenty of counter-arguments: Polling doesn't capture the universe of cell-phone users, polling doesn't accurately assess likely youth turnout, polling can't offer an accurate take of the impact of Obama's community-organizing model for political mobilization or the extent to which this is an "event" election that will draw dramatically higher numbers of voters to the polls.

This writer's bet is still that Obama prevails. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the polls could "open up" in the next few days -- as has frequently been the case in the past -- and give Obama the expanding lead that frontrunners often accumulate as a "go-with-the-winner" mood takes over at the close of a long campaign.

But we are now a nation of poll watchers. (Any why not? Survey research data is now far more comforting to reflect upon than stock market tickers.) Traffic on poll-aggregating websites is astronomical. And in this final week, when we are awash in data, it is important to read the numbers right.

And the number that matter is not Barack Obama's five-, six- or seven-point lead over John McCain.

If experience is an indicator, the number that matters for Obama is 50.1 percent – or, to be on the safe side, 51- or 52 percent.

Comments (56)

And then again O'Biden could receive over 400 EV's:

http://www.pollster.com/

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 3:25pm
Ignoring the ever-present fantasy world of my bud HSUB...

Mr. Nichols is right. Don't get complacent. Hopeful but not complacent. Turn-out is still important as is Cora Currier and Michael Connery's always elusive "youth vote".

Yes...Obama could still lose this thing, it is not outside the realm of the possible, even METTE must admit that.

But, late evening of a week from tomorrow, there COULD be one telling state...Darin's North Carolina. If Obama wins that...it's over for McCain.

He'll have obviously lost Virginia, and (I ran my own EC map on Real Clear) EVEN IF McCain won Pennsylvania, Ohio, AND Florida...he'd still lose the EC vote tally. The EC numbers just wouldn't be enough. (Plus in all likelihood, if McCain lost NC, he'd lose either PA or OH too)

But don't get cocky, kid (to quote Han Solo)....call, go door-to-door, drive folks to the polling place, work your ass off.

Remember it will be especially sweet if it IS a landslide and the Right is left holding their ACORNs with no excuse on why Maverick and Glacier Gidget lost it.

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 3:52pm
Ever been to an Obama/Biden local camp HQ? One of their rallies?

I don't think there's any place in a conversation describing them that the word 'COMPLACENT' could appear.

Maybe as an antonym?

Cocky?

Nope.

Excited, enthused, energized, hopeful, ...etc.

YUP!

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 4:21pm
I think Nichols is right. Obama will pull it out. I personally would'nt hesitate to tell someone flat out my reason for voting for someone, no matter what it was, so I sometimes dismiss the Bradley effect as liberal sour grapes, a tendency by them to always ascribe black defeat to white racism. But it does count I suppose, so it may be close.

Go B.O.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/27/2008 @ 4:21pm
I think Nichols is right. Obama will pull it out. I personally would'nt hesitate to tell someone flat out my reason for voting for someone, no matter what it was, so I sometimes dismiss the Bradley effect as liberal sour grapes, a tendency by them to always ascribe black defeat to white racism. But it does count I suppose, so it may be close.

Go B.O.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/27/2008 @ 4:23pm
Ted Stevens just found guilty.

VERY soon now, we will learn that Saint Sarah never even met Stevens!

(Or given her Orwellian twists, she'll declare "I'm glad to see Ted Stevens was completely exonerated!"....heheh)

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 4:35pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 4:21pm

HSUB, throwing around "400 electoral vote" fantasies is cocky that can lead to complacency.

You know, sort of like saying "Don't worry, Dems take Congress in '06, they'll impeach Dubya....guarenteed" or "Al Gore will swoop in and save the Democratic Party from all the divisiveness of Obama and Hillary"....

puts you in a bad frame of mind for reality!

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 4:44pm
I never have found polls to be very reliable. They weren't during the primaries. I think it could still be a very close race. I can understand Nichols's apprehension.

And there's the Bradley effect, alluded to above, which I would not discount, plus the proverbial October surprise (Bush announces that bin Laden is in custody in South Carolina, Obama reveals that he is in fact a communist, The Onion runs a puff piece on McCain, Palin turns out to be an experienced practitioner of voodo and casts a spell on the Democrats).

Can't get too complacent.

Posted by jackwells at 10/27/2008 @ 6:11pm
can someone answer this question: what turnout are the various polls projecting? 55% of registered voters? 60%? george bush has taught me to follow the instincts of my gut, & my gut tells me that we're going to see a level of voter participation the likes of which we've never seen. lots and lots of first time voters, and my gut says obama will get at least 60% of these. i live in athens, georgia, where we've had early voting going on since last week. it's typical to see the line snaking outside of city hall as people wait to vote. i voted this morning and waited for 30-40 minutes. not a terribly long wait, but this is day in, day out, starting 2 weeks prior to the election. i simply can't imagine what would happen if we all had to vote on the same day. i have a feeling that there will be chaos at voting places all over america, as many will simply be unprepared to handle the crowds. and these people aren't showing up for john mccain, as impressive as he and his sidekick are in their efforts to rid us of witchcraft & socialism.

mccain & palin are a disaster, and will lose in a landslide. if they are announced the winners (maybe they can bring back george bush's cousin to call florida for them on fox), it's because they didn't count the votes.

but back to my original question: does anyone know what kind of turnout gallup and the rest of them are predicting? i'd like to see a pollster who gave a variety of projections based on different levels of turnout.

Posted by jasonrhodes at 10/27/2008 @ 6:28pm
If the Republicans are right, this could still be a close election --

If we have been wrong about every single thing in the last 8 years, how could we possibly be right about this?

Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/27/2008 @ 4:29pm

A couple of 'if's', that just so happen to be foul balls too.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 6:42pm
We'll see anything can happen. Of course when Obama wins, no matter how much he wins by, good Republicans, like LVL, will claim it's all voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/27/2008 @ 6:43pm
if you think it's a close race then a bet on mccain is a bargain. he's a 6:1 underdog at intertops.com, an online gambling site.

Posted by jasonrhodes at 10/27/2008 @ 6:46pm
HSUB, throwing around "400 electoral vote" fantasies is cocky that can lead to complacency.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 4:44pm

There is your cautious passive pessimism and then there's my exuberant active optimism.

My doc said I had to do some exercise.

You can sit on the sidelines getting fat if you like.

BTW, how's your secret love Frito? Still trying to convince him that hsuB/cHeney really didn't give him the boot? (How your de-party with Ruinsfeild and rOve go?) Talk about denial fanaticies-- you do got your share.

http://climatetoday.org/?p=1238

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 6:58pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/27/2008 @ 6:58pm

""Pessimism...is, in brief, playing the sure game. You cannot lose at it; you may gain. It is the only view of life in which you can never be disappointed. Having reckoned what to do in the worst possible circumstances, when better arise, as they may, life becomes child's play."------ Thomas Hardy

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 7:58pm
I think Obama WILL pull it out. I just voted early here in Hamilton County, Ohio (Cincinnati), the Ground Zero of the Battle of Ohio. Vanloads of early voters were being shuttled to the Board of Elections; it was extremely busy, and there was a festive mood as the Democrats handed out literature. The enthusiasm in the African-American community is off the charts in Cincinnati. I don't think any of these polls captures the groundswell of support, the impressive organizing that Obama has here in Ohio (offices in each of the 88 counties), and the youth vote (the three major universities here in Cincinnati are heavily targeted by the Obama campaign. Some Boards of Elections are predicting 80% turnout of registered voters in Ohio.

Posted by furtail at 10/27/2008 @ 8:48pm
LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE MANDATE MANDATE MANDATE MANDATE LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE MANDATE MANDATE MANDATE MANDATE LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE MANDATE MANDATE MANDATE MANDATE LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE LANDSLIDE MANDATE MANDATE MANDATE MANDATE LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT LEFT

Posted by bleedingheart at 10/27/2008 @ 9:10pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 7:58pm

or, like i say,

"aim low, you won't be disappointed!"

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 9:46pm
LIVE HARD, DIE BOLD!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 9:47pm
i think a more important indicator than voter polls

is

the party affiliation of the secretaries of state in the swinger states.

THAT will be the difference.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 9:48pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 9:46pm

GOT to be some "middle ground" between you and HSUB!

heheh

(BTW, once again...bleeding is a GOP poser...but atleast he's going crazier as his "devilishly clever plan" falls apart...LOL)

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 10:23pm
actually, to be frank AMERICA'S been acting a little batty lately...

7 days 1 hour 39 minutes and 27 seconds

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 11:19pm
84 DAYS 0 Hrs 40 Min 24.4 Sec

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 11:20pm
84 DAYS 0 Hrs 38 Min 32.3 Sec

<i>slowly i turned,

step by step.....

inch by inch.....</i>

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2008 @ 11:23pm
If this is close it will be because of election day hanky panky by the repubs-miscalibrated macines, inaccurate tabulation programs, challenged votes.

Posted by Halt at 10/28/2008 @ 12:12am
But don't get cocky, kid (to quote Han Solo)....call, go door-to-door, drive folks to the polling place, work your ass off.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 3:52pm

Whatever else is written on this thread, the above will be the most important thing!

Posted by jmusolino at 10/28/2008 @ 01:24am
""Pessimism...is, in brief, playing the sure game. You cannot lose at it; you may gain. It is the only view of life in which you can never be disappointed.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/27/2008 @ 7:58pm

Ah, life in the bizarro world of new con repub dic'tatorship whipped pessimistic compliance.

Can one live life so pitifully. Sure, if proof you are.

Aim low and eat grubs for sure more often than not. But up here is where the fruit and meat is-- if one is confident and persistent enough to seek it.

But thanks to all those that sat on their hands for all this safe 'practical' crap we're now in. Continue living submissively in the familiar if you must.

But sometimes, this time, 'confidence' is just that-- confidently recalling life.

"Everyone dies, not everyone truly lives."

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 01:33am
I think the national polls are nearly meaningless. State polls (via 538) show Missouri, Indiana and No.Carolina as toss-ups. If any of these three goes for Obama, it's icing on the cake.

Using 538's analysis I think the real key to an Obama victory is Virginia. Assuming Penn. and Colorado are solid, it doesn't matter if Obama loses Ohio, Florida and the three toss-ups mentioned above.

Notwithstanding the Bradley effect, I wish more analysis was available for impact of cell phone only voters and the early voting impact in various states.

Carpe diem!

Posted by unionpete at 10/28/2008 @ 08:50am
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 01:33am

HSUB, there are two things that scare me that Obama might now win...

1. His supporters becoming complacent.

2. YOU making a PREDICTION that he's going to win easily!

heheh

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 09:55am
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 09:55am

Correction..."scare me that Obama might NOT win..."

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 09:56am
Anyone have any information about the numbers of early voters nationally?

It would seem that the proliferation of early voting adds an interesting dynamic heading into the last week. Is there an estimate on how many voters nationally will vote early?

Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 10:00am
there are two things that scare me that Obama might now win...

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 09:55am

Freudian slip?

Either way, I know for a fact that a fighter stepping into a boxing ring without 'confidence' loses the most often, is defensive-- scared to act, too weak, compliant, then pummeled,... believing there's no recourse.

What do new con repubs fear?

Everything-- but mostly its in a possible confident middle class in action. A force they continually try beating down. A force that is making them shrill 'socialism' of 'we the people', squeal entitlements and religious fanaticies, and now turning on each other with long knives-- fearing each other and themselves next.

Sorry, don't feel like being beaten down any longer. I'm standing up on a higher road; not crawling on the low.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 10:24am
Zogby poll released on Tuesday. O leads M by 49 percent to 45 percent among likely voters...

i think the poll numbers are meaningless because i seriously doubt that the pollsters have a scientific way of predicting the size of the voting universe next tuesday. i have a feeling turnout will "exceed expectations," although frankly, the only rational expectation is truly massive turnout on a level never seen before.

a meaningful projected percentage needs to be traced back to a numerator and a denominator. i don't want to hear that mccain has 45% right now. i want the pollsters to tell me that they expect mccain to get 50.5 million votes, like bush did in 2000, or 62 million votes, like he got in 2004 (yes, george, with an approval rating of just about exactly 50% at the time of the 2004 election, somehow found 12 million people to vote for him who had neglected to do so the first time).

there were roughly 121 million votes cast for either bush or kerrey last time around. no doubt that number will be bigger (though if neither candidate matches bush's 2004 vote total, i say it's still not too late to launch an investigation; if bush's 2004 vote tally is legit, he captured a percentage of the total electorate on par with reagan in 84 and nixon in 72). how much bigger? is anyone out there making an educated guess? the bigger the number, the greater obama's lead.

i'd like to know how many americans were registered in 2004, and how many are registered today. i'd like to know how many kerrey voters say they will vote for mccain, how many 2004 bush voters say they will vote for obama, how many people say they will vote this year for the 1st time, & who they plan to vote for. that would be information. i say these percentages are understating obama's lead

Posted by Jason Rhodes at 10/28/2008 @ 12:06pm
There may be a new paradigm emerging this election cycle. I truly hope that it isn't just wishful thinking and an old man's illusion, but the kids may actually take part in this election. They most certainly have a vested interest. This my actually be the year of the generational shift. We still have problems, however. I have a daughter who teaches at Boston University and she didn't know that she had to register to vote. These kids are really busy.

Posted by lachatte at 10/28/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 10:24am

I didn't say I didn't like "confidence"....I said I didn't like "cockiness" which is what you get when you start throwing around "Obama wins 400 electoral college votes" fantasies.

There is NO polling that shows that probability.

And it IS scary for you to be predicting an easy win for Obama given YOUR track record. Want to bring up Gonazales?...fine....

I'm happy to go up against you with my 0-1 and your 0-4 win/loss ratio. (impeachment, Gore announcing run for 2008, Gore as "brokered convention" nominee, Gore as Veep to Obama).

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 12:24pm
I have a daughter who teaches at Boston University and she didn't know that she had to register to vote. These kids are really busy.

Posted by lachatte at 10/28/2008 @ 12:08pm

What a shame! My daughter is 9 and is counting the days until she is allowed to register to vote (9 years, 6 mo, 3 days, to be exact, I was informed this morning). Every day I get a diatribe on kids rights and how unfair it is she can't vote for Obama-when do they go from being so eager and enthusiastic to complacent and uninterested? I hope you got her registered in time. Per the article, here in N MI we are anything but complacent-for the first time in my lifetime we have registered over 100 new voters on canvassing routes, and there are Obama signs everywhere in this hard right conservative area-scary and exciting...but we don't dream of fulfilling our liberal agenda until it's in the bag!!

Posted by oldintel at 10/28/2008 @ 12:46pm
I'm happy to go up against you with my 0-1 and your 0-4 win/loss ratio.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 12:24pm

Oh one in denial, ksaM, you were much much more wrong than I and thanks to your trillion continuous broken record sit on hands mantra to hsuB/cHeney admin anti-US Constitution compliance to no-bid contracts, secret energy deals, torture, war,...you brought everyone else as much as possible into the low road of grub eaters. Oh thanks a lot for winning those. You lose more for everyone by winning it for the wrong side. But you're a winner just like the new con corporate repubs and their pilfered billions.

Good luck with that.

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 2:11pm
BTW-- do the math:

http://www.pollster.com/

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 3:39pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/28/2008 @ 4:00pm

Is there really over-confidence: implying that one is over stepping one's ability to accomplish a goal or rather underestimating the effort necessary to accomplish the goal?

There's a big difference whether one is feeling over confident due to a self-assessment or it coming from an observer with a long history of arguing against action that would've prevented how low we'd been sunk.

ksaM's 'cocky', implies that there's no basis to substantiate exuberance.

Once again ksaM's motives seem counter to motivating actions, but rather imply a pessimistic passivity.

Perhaps it's merely a ksaM-type of habitual compliance survival speak to a dic'tatorship perceived too powerful not to follow?

And perhaps a reactionary habit against it on my part as well...

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 4:54pm
Michael McDonald, an associate professor of politics and government at George Mason University says that early voting numbers suggest that a record 213 million people are eligible to vote this year (don't know how he got that, but presumably it's an educated guesstimate).

he also says that it's quite likely that 2008 will break the record set in 1964 of a 64% turnout rate. the rate was about 60% in 2004.

121 million people voted in 04 (62 million to bush, 59 million to kerrey)

let's say we hit 65% voter turnout this year. this gets you over 138 million voters (if the prof is right), and 17 million voters in this election who didn't vote in 04.

assume everyone who voted for bush in 04 votes for mccain, & that everyone who voted for kerrey votes for obama, an assumption that i think is kind to mccain. assume that obama gets 60% the 17 million voters in this election who did not vote in 04, another assumption which i think is kind to mccain (among newly registered voters, for example, in states in which people register by party, voters are registering democratic over republican by a ratio of 4:1).

in this case, obama wins the popular vote by a razor, 50.1 to 49.8. give obama 70% of the newbies and it's 51.3 to 48.6. say that 10% of 04 bush voters vote obama, and 5% of kerrey voters vote mccain, and keep the newbie # at 70%, and you get 53.7% obama, 46.2% mccain (roughly 74 to 64 million votes).

there are 2 types of voters in this election. those who did & those who didn't vote in 04. obama will win big with the newbies, and who really thinks more kerrey voters will break for mccain than bush voters (now there's some buyer's remorse!) break for obama?

my prediction: obama will get nearly 75 million votes, and win 54% to 46%.

Posted by Jason Rhodes at 10/28/2008 @ 5:04pm
another factor i've heard mentioned is this: we all know obama's supporters are more enthusiastic about their candidate than mccain's are about theirs. voters will face long lines on tuesday, and enthusiastic voters are probably more likely to endure the wait than luke-warm ones. you could see obama getting around 75 million votes out of a total smaller than the 138 million i mentioned above. there are republicans other than palin lunatics, and in addition to those following the likes of colin powell & christopher buckley across the aisle, many of them may stay home. in 04, 8 million people voted democrat who did not do so in 00, while the number on the republican side was a stunning 12 million*. it's quite possible to imagine that those 8 million new democrats of 04 find obama an improvement over kerrey, while the 12 million in 04 who suddenly decided that bush was the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with have considerably soured on their party.

we'll find out next tuesday, but i think that mccain, who could quite possibly lose even if the election were restricted to 04 voters, will drown in a rising tide of voter participation.

*bush supposedly increased his 04 vote count by 24% over 2000, in spite of the fact that 50% of the country disapproved of the way he was doing his job, and 55% thought the country was off on the wrong track at the time of the election.

Posted by Jason Rhodes at 10/28/2008 @ 5:42pm
Obama has a 19% lead on McCain't in the early voting states.

http://tinyurl.com/64egun

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 5:54pm
And then:

http://tinyurl.com/6eyey9

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 6:03pm
Cocky?:

http://tinyurl.com/5hvpa5

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 6:12pm
The red states seem to be cracking up into pieces:

http://www.pollster.com/

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/28/2008 @ 6:26pm
Nichols performs a public service of sorts I suppose in attempting to rationalize our anxiety.

Posted by Dan Lackey at 10/28/2008 @ 8:29pm
Does anyone think that the revelations of Obama's widespread online credit card contribution fraud will damage Obama's campaign? As a lifelong Democrat, I was hoping the media would keep quiet about this, but I see it's in the Washington Post today. How did that happen? I know they tried to bury it on page A02, but didn't they get the memo to keep quiet about this stuff until AFTER the election?

Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 03:56am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/29/2008 @ 08:08am

Oh, sure....you already working on your "Okay, I didn't count on _____" excuse, in case it doesn't pan out?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 09:37am
Speaking of saving stuff, Darin...

you think comments like this, from Palin supporters, was the reason that we've had such a spate of anti-Palin comments coming from the McCain supporters lately?

"Best scenario: Palin's as wonderful as I imagine her to be (honestly, that's not possible) and McCain dies in office after a couple years and Palin runs as the incumbent."----Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/10/2008 @ 2:39pm

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 09:41am
Darin, would you be willing to bet $15 in stuff from Amazon as to whether turnout will be higher this year than in 2004? I say it will, you say it won't. And let's say it has to be at least 2.5% higher, in terms of total ballots cast, so you don't lose the bet because of some statistically insignificant difference between the two numbers.

The problem of trust, in my opinion, is a non-issue. I trust myself 100% to send you the stuff if I lose. No doubt you have the same level of trust in your own integrity. As for my uncertainty as to your reliability (and no doubt yours with regard to me), my world will not crumble if I discover that you're not trustworthy, though I actually think that as a citizen of this great land who cares deeply enough about its future to be sparring here in the cyber-nation, you're probably just about as honest as they come.

Whaddaya say? Put your money where your gut is!

Posted by jasonrhodes at 10/29/2008 @ 09:56am
Darin, would you be willing to bet $15 in stuff from Amazon as to whether turnout will be higher this year than in 2004? I say it will, you say it won't. And let's say it has to be at least 2.5% higher, in terms of total ballots cast, so you don't lose the bet because of some statistically insignificant difference between the two numbers.

The problem of trust, in my opinion, is a non-issue. I trust myself 100% to send you the stuff if I lose. No doubt you have the same level of trust in your own integrity. As for my uncertainty as to your reliability (and no doubt yours with regard to me), my world will not crumble if I discover that you're not trustworthy, though I actually think that as a citizen of this great land who cares deeply enough about its future to be sparring here in the cyber-nation, you're probably just about as honest as they come.

Whaddaya say? Put your money where your gut is!

Posted by jasonrhodes at 10/29/2008 @ 09:57am
Darin, would you be willing to bet $15 in stuff from Amazon as to whether turnout will be higher this year than in 2004? I say it will, you say it won't. And let's say it has to be at least 2.5% higher, in terms of total ballots cast, so you don't lose the bet because of some statistically insignificant difference between the two numbers.

The problem of trust, in my opinion, is a non-issue. I trust myself 100% to send you the stuff if I lose. No doubt you have the same level of trust in your own integrity. As for my uncertainty as to your reliability (and no doubt yours with regard to me), my world will not crumble if I discover that you're not trustworthy, though I actually think that as a citizen of this great land who cares deeply enough about its future to be sparring here in the cyber-nation, you're probably just about as honest as they come.

Whaddaya say? Put your money where your gut is!

Posted by jasonrhodes at 10/29/2008 @ 09:57am
apologies for the triple post - that's never happened before! (hope this doesn't also post in triplicate!)

Posted by jasonrhodes at 10/29/2008 @ 09:59am
FAIR WARNING

Is Joe Biden the foot-in-mouth candidate - or is he the Obama campaign's designated teller of inconvenient truths?

First, the Democratic veep hopeful declared that America's enemies will generate "an international crisis, to test the mettle of" a President Obama.

Scary - but likely true.

And yesterday Biden let slip that he and Obama apparently have a sliding scale to determine who's "super-rich."

Obama, after all, has been promising a tax cut for the "middle class" - those making $200,000 a year or less.

Biden yesterday lowered that bar.

"What we're saying," he told a Pennsylvania TV interviewer, "is that [our] tax break doesn't need to go to people making . . . $1.4 million. It should go to [people] making under $150,000 a year."

Oops. That's a 25 percent downward redefinition of "middle class."

An Obama mouthpiece quickly dismissed the discrepancy as just another one of Joe the Senator's gaffes.

But consider: The campaign has a new TV commercial out declaring that families - not individuals - earning $200,000 or less would qualify for a tax cut. Two incomes - not one.

And, as most middle-class wage-earners know, that's a huge difference.

As Sen. John McCain said yesterday: "At this rate, it won't be long before Sen. Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 should get a tax increase."

We wouldn't be surprised - what with leading congressional Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank licking their chops at the chance to raise taxes.

"We'll have to raise taxes, ultimately," Frank declared over the weekend.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:18am
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:18am

Hey, PONTI, when Bush-41 said "Read My Lips"...

you believed THAT too, didn't you?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:41pm
TO OLDINTEL:

Take a moment out of preaching and kneeling at the alter of self adulation for a moment and think that we possibly have a national problem with voting and standardization. Doesn't matter if you register a million voters, admirable as that is, if their votes aren't counted it isn't worth a darn. We need to standardize voting procedures nationally and produce a paper trail. (i.e. a simple receipt would be a good start.) We may have outlived the secret ballot value. How about a voter holiday? By the way Senator Obama polled ahead of Sen. Clinton in New Hampshire and lost because the kids all went home for college break. Didn't Kerry poll ahead of Bush in Ohio? We are also being set up to be disenfranchised again with the "so called Bradley effect". Pardon me but I think that is bull shit, AND HOW IN HELL WOULD WE KNOW?

Posted by lachatte at 10/29/2008 @ 12:57pm
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant and equal.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote (270 of 538). All the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Posted by mvy at 10/29/2008 @ 2:09pm