Once again, the weights of the current polling methods are producing some wild numbers. We can be sure that Obama is ahead by a few points at this juncture. Outside of that, it's a dart toss at best.

except zoxby's? Im confused if you feel this way about "polls" how do you use 'some' but not others. I mean what meets the MBBF threshold for having enough credibility for you to hang your credibility in these issues on?

I've always stated that I believe that the new weights in the polls should be based on previous turnout rather than what they think the turnout will be. Zogby is the only poll that currently uses that weight. I also have not stated that the Zogby poll is necessarily the correct poll, but I do think this election turnout will give us a clear measure of whether these predicted weights used by other polls are very accurate at all. They certainly left a lot to be desired 4 years ago. I'm interested to see if that holds true in this election.

But the voting demo does shift from election to election and leaving it the same just skips the hardest part of polling. I don't know how accurate the various turnout projections will be, but I'm sure turnout will be a few points different than in 2004. Zogby doesn't even try to claim that the 2004 turnout is predictive of 2008, he just uses it for convenience.

It doesn't invalidate a poll to be several points off. That's what MOE is all about.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081020/117842524.html


1. Accepting campaign contributions from foreign nationals is illegal. So why ask?

2. After what he's said about Russia, they're going to give him money?

3. He accepted public funding. Shouldn't he be done with fundraising by this point?

4. You'd think the guy who helped write the most important campaign finance legislation in recent history would a) understand the rules and b) not want to violate, or seem to violate, said rules.

Seriously, WTF?

You nearly owed me a monitor. I just about spewed coffee all over mine. :D

That just smells fishy. I doubt it was really sent by McCain or his people.

I've seen that, but didn't want to post yet, because I have some suspicions about that story. McCain's actions don't make sense. The $5,000 he would get wouldn't be worth the political fallout. I'm thinking the letter is probably a fake, but we'll see what happens.

Has it been verified that the document actually came from McCain's campaign? I didn't see any actual picture of the document. As you say, it seems odd to the point where it's not believable without evidence.

Oh, agreed 100%, and maybe I should have worded my post differently. I'd imagine that somehow the wrong name/address got into one of their mailing databases and sent out as part of a more general appeal.

Still funny, though, and a fair amount of egg on the face of the guy who wrote the book on how and why not to do this.

They make it seem like it WAS from the campaign (the guy from the campaign saying he didn't know how he got the wires crossed).. but I think we can file this under "simple mistake" and no harm, no foul.

Flere:

I dont believe the article one iota. unless as stated prior that some mail purge just printed an address that shouldve been excluded.

As has been mentioned before, predicting turnout is one of the more difficult aspects of predictive polling.

Year State VAP Turnout Rate
2006 United States 37.0%
2004 United States 55.3%
2002 United States 36.3%
2000 United States 50.0%
1998 United States 35.3%
1996 United States 48.1%
1994 United States 38.5%
1992 United States 54.7%
1990 United States 36.5%
1988 United States 50.3%
1986 United States 36.5%
1984 United States 53.3%
1980 United States 52.6%

Here is a table of turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population. Obviously, you can't base presidential turnout on non-presidential years. It is more reasonable to look at presidential years only. But even then, turnout has ranged from 48% to 55% of VAP. That represents a swing of 16 million voters.

Unfortunately, in only 2 out of 6 cases did the difference in turnout differ by 2% or less. Sometimes turnout went up. sometimes it went down. Obviously, these differences can be explained (popular incumbency, open race, etc.)--but these differences are there, nonetheless.

As stated before, the election-to-election differences can also be driven by shifts in demographic/affiliation makeup of the people casting the actual ballots. We don't know what the differences will be, but predictive pollsters have to make assumptions--it is standard practice to base weighting on the demographics of an "ideal representative" previous race, but it is reasonable to expect weights to be tweaked if the case can be made that the upcoming election is different from the last one.

I'm sure the email to the Russian embassy was a mistake, but it just symbolizes McCain's campaign that on the day they decide to make a big deal about Obama's fundraising they have this come out.

It's the liberal media's fault.

Have you seen the latest shenanigans from the far-right Republican Blogosphere? They're trying to manufacture their own October Surprise, by bringing up Obama's "supplemental security provider", a long time family friend, and trying to codeword their way into insinuating that Obama is having a homosexual affair.

I really get the feeling that some of the Republicans in this thread could be running a better campaign than McCain is right now:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politica...f-message.html

I imagine that, whether he wins or loses, the behind the scenes books and articles about McCain's campaign will be interesting. Sort of like the Atlantic article discussing how Clinton's campaign was much more disorganized behind the scenes than anyone suspected during the primaries.

Which isn't, of course, to say that he will lose. Just that a thread on a football message board seems to have more message discipline than his campaign right now.

Some? More like damned near any.


Sort of like the various texts on the demise of Titanic.

Big controversy with Obama out on the stump these last two weeks, is he rooting for the Rays or the Phillies in the World Series?


I don't give a damn about William Ayers but things like this make me wary. I'm glad they could get one of his spokesmen to clear things up.

Seems like normal campaigning BS to me.

FLIP FLOPPER!!!

Oh yes?

Heh, delayed reaction sarcasm fail? :p Just reacting to a society where that question is necessary at this point in a presidential campaign.

I'm sleep-deprived, give me a break. :p

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME

This is a CNN report that McCain is giving up on Colorado. Ummmm, are they fucking insane? They have to win a Kerry state if they do that.

The word from the Republicans is that Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico are now off the list of takeable states for McCain, and they're throwing all their hopes and dreams at Pennsylvania.

(that's not including their must wins in NC/VA/OH/FL)

edit corrected one state after watching the bit a 2nd time

Got beat to the link by 1 minute :)

So it's basically a one state election for McCain. People said he needed to shrink the map, and he sure did.

I'm laughing my head off at this...

PalinAsPresident.com

Poll: Obama Gained During Debates, CBS News/N.Y. Times Follow-Up Survey Of Likely Voters Suggests Democrat's Advantage Grew - CBS News

In a poll taken just before the first presidential debate, the Obama-Biden ticket held a five point edge, with 48 percent of likely voters backing the Democratic ticket and 43 percent supporting the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Those 476 likely voters were re-interviewed for the new poll, and their responses suggest that the Democratic ticket has made gains since the initial survey: The Obama-Biden ticket now holds a 13-point edge, 54 percent to 41 percent, among the group.

This doesn't mean much, it's the same voters, but it may be a sign of how much the third debate hurt McCain.

Nice to see...

Man, can the NY Times be anymore in the tank for Obama? This is terrible 15 days prior to the election:


But this was the best:

This report was completely debunked and even the NY Times called it later an "utter fabrication". This is like saying "Cindy wasn't clear on when McCain stopped beating her". None of it is true, but it makes McCain look bad.


The Long Run - Behind McCain, Outsider in Capital Wanting Back In - Series - NYTimes.com

So, I take it the NY Times will provide a similarly critical piece about Michelle Obama 15 days before the election? Or, if drug use 20 years ago by McCain's wife is newsworthy, maybe the NY Times should look more into Obama's drug use? The correct answer is "of course not".

IMO, the whole thing is terrible and the NY Times is losing what little shred of credibility it had left.

Political leanings aside... this is the sort of "media criticism" that has me shaking my head. It's not the media's job to be "similarly critical" -- it's their job to present the facts. If Michelle Obama has been involved in a major political scandal, been addicted to drugs and lied about her family, then the media can be "similarly critical".

Im with Arles though in that rehashing a overly old story 15 days before an election could make a 'mainstream' rag become a partisan talking point sheet.

If they found drug use by Michelle well into her adult life, especially if it involved other illegal activities, I am sure it will find its way in reports. This shouldn't be an issue in a presidential campaign, but as long as either side plays personal attack politics, the media will not shy away from negative stories that are out there about the candidates and their spouses.

Dola, and Obama's drug use is out in the open, you can read about it in his autobiography. It has already been referenced in plenty of stories about him.

IMO, this stuff is a little off limits at this point. It's just a pure smear. But, if you would like to know possible stories about Michelle Obama, how about:

1.University of Chicago Medical Center (where Michelle is currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a VP) "steers patients who don't have private insurance -- primarily poor, black people -- to other health care facilities."

U. of C. shunning poor patients? :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

2. "Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has released a list of $740 million in earmark requests he made in the past three years, and it includes $1 million for the hospital where his wife Michelle is a vice president."

3. Michelle Obama was on the corporate board (payed 50K + stock options) of TreeHouse Foods Inc. earlier this year. TreeHouse’s largest customer is retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and the company paid $26.2 million in total compensation in 2005 to then-CEO Sam K. Reed. This happened while Barrack Obama was criticizing Wal-Mart and corporate pay practices like above.

And that's not even getting personal. The point is you could write a "hit piece" on Barrack, Michelle, John or Cindy at this point if you look hard enough (and not have to go back 20+ years to get information). But, the question is why do that when the "hit piece" (esp in this case) has nothing to do with the election?

And no one has ever referenced Cindy McCain's drug use or "lie" about her family (which was a joke when it was reported in Arizona decades ago) back in 2000 and before? All this stuff is just as much rehashed as the Obama claim would be. Yet, for some reason, the NY Times decided to re-report all this information 2 weeks prior to the election.

In fact, there would be no difference in referencing Obama's drug use or his wife's questionable board roles. Both have been reported numerous times, but so was the Cindy McCain stuff.

Looks like a biographical piece on the potential first lady from a liberal leaning newspaper. No offense, but this barely registers on the list of outrageous articles that have been written during this election season.

Just for those who don't believe me on the McCain issue:

Feb 14, 2000: NY Times:
McCain's Double Standard: Hawk In The Drug War, Yet His Wife Got No Penalty

This was also mentioned in the 2007 Bazaar magazine, 2007 NY Daily News, Arizona Republic, Washington Post and numerous other wire stories going back to the early 90s.

You know, having gone and read the actual article now (as opposed to just your post, which was what I was originally responding to), I'm inclined to agree. That's just a really strange article.

Really I think you are taking the piece a little too personally. Maybe the story shouldn't be published today, and maybe it could have including different pieces of information, but I hardly think it was written for the purpose of just being a "hit" on Cindy McCain.

After reading the article it seems to be a response to the reality that Michelle Obama has been more visable in this election thus far. So part of the article is an answer to "why?" Part of the answer is: Cindy McCain's past and present image brings as many negatives to a presidential campaign as positives. It may not be fair that those past issues are seen as negatives towards her ability to represent America as first lady; but thats modern politics, where some will see her as a man stealing drug popper, and the Obamas as un-American.

If/when someone does an article about Michelle Obama in the next couple of weeks, you can be sure that someone from the left will be able to interpret the listed negatives her image brings to the campaign as part of a hit on her.

So as long as it's not the worst article, it's OK?

For balance, here's the piece they ran on Michelle Obama on August 26:

Michelle Obama, Reluctant No More - NYTimes.com

No mention of her curious role in the hospital scandal I mentioned above. No mention of her being on a board for a company supporting WalMart while her husband was criticizing those exact actions? No mention of her controversial comments earlier.

Obviously, there's one standard for what's "appropriate" for Obama and one for McCain at the Times. I don't see how anyone can argue that at this point.

The NY Times did one on Michelle in late August. You read how "hard-hitting" it was in the post above.

Really, are any of those situations that controversial or interesting to any large groups of people? These are issues that hardly got the attention of the blogging community, and they get excited over the stupidest issues known to man.

Dola, I dunno, again I just don't think your list of crappy character issues against Michelle Obama are even good crap character issues. The whole Un-American line is more successful crap than all of that.

Why do conservatives get their panties in a row every time the New York Times smears a Republican?

I don't really think of it as okay or not okay. To me, I take all news mediums with a grain of salt and try to piece together enough information to make my own opinions. I don't really think this article is particularly eye-opening or shocking and I certainly don't think it stands out compared to the types of things that are written during an election season.

If you are reading the New York Times and not expecting a liberal lean, I don't know what to tell you. You are acting as if you are shocked that a very liberal newspaper wrote a critical and unfavorable article about Cindy McCain. To me, that is just feeding red meat to the base.

I agree to the most part here. It's just a shame that what used to be such a major national publication has gone such in the tank for one political candidate. At this point in time, the NY Times to the democratic party is no different than Pravda to mother Russia. It's a shame, but as you say, you have to expect it now.

Wouldn't that be the same thing?

To me, it's all a stupid game - the end justifies the means. No one is still reporting much on the inevitable expansion of federal government powers, expenditures and deficits.

You wouldn't have liked living in the 19th century. :)