That is the very good question. For all the talk about voter dissatisfaction and Obama being the head of an unstoppable movement, He isn't leading McCain all that much in the head-to-heads. And that's before McCain and the right wing start attacking Obama on being too liberal (something that they are pretty good at doing).

Any talk of "history" is premature. It'll be hard fought battle.

I'm not going to get into personal attacks, but the candidates' positions on the issues are going to be under an intense spotlight during the general election. His voting record in congress is slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. If his inspirational speeches can make enough moderates forget about his voting record, he could conceivably get to 270 electoral votes, but that's going to be an enormous challenge on his part.

The answer is in the poll I think you're citing.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/st...1/daily28.html

"The effect of Bush's job performance had a small impact on the prospect of voting for McCain. Only 23 percent of voters said Bush's performance made them less likely to vote for McCain, while 63 percent said it didn't make a difference. In a similar poll, only 23 percent of voters said they were so angry with Bush that they wouldn't vote for McCain."

Super interesting IMHO. The higher that number goes, the better Obama will do vs. McCain

And the question becomes why would that number be higher? McCain's media status as a "maverick" has obviously done what no one thought could be done, and that is having the Republican nominee NOT be tied to the failed Presidency of George W. Bush. McCain was enough of a thorn in President Bush's side that he escapes a lot of the brunt for it.

And I think his reported struggles to court the conservatives in his party only help in that view of McCain.

Head-to-head polls in February mean nothing. You know that already.

We're all just armchair prognosticators and as we get new information, our ideas about what might happen will change. Because surely no one saw things being how they are right now, conventional wisdom be damned. At least on the Democratic side anyway.

With all of that said, I'm throwing out convention and the past and I'm saying that historically the two main candidates in the general election were usually cut from the same cloth, making it easier to compare them to each other relatively equally.

Polling isn't as random as one would suggest and because of the demographics of the Democratic race, the Bradley effect can be thrown out of the equation. People aren't going to vote for McCain because they think he can be a better President than Hillary or Obama.

The GOP used depressed voter turnout of the Democratic base to fuel their victory in 2004. That's not going to happen this year unless someone plans to go kill a few million people or perhaps, some other world altering situation happens to change the complexion of this race.

But I'll go ahead and put all of this out here so that when I'm wrong, we can bump this part of the thread and all of the fortune tellers among us can point to how history taught us so much. I'll be impressed if that's the case, too. Not because I mind being wrong in this case, because I wouldn't.

Personal feelings aside, I'm thinking solely about the outcome and in the end, I think that 'history' of a different sort will be the trump card in this race.

But again...there is a long road ahead, a lot can happen and we shall see it all unfold.

DC: I don't think it was depressed D turnout as much as an energized R turnout. I remember hearing that there were 4000000 extra R votes in that election.

Cronin: Maybe so, but they have been polling likability for a while now and that number has been the best predictor of victory. For me it makes sense because the swing voters that decide elections don't pay much attention to the issues and vote more on likability than anything else. Issues, generally, are only important to people who've already made up their mind.

Vic: Obama's votes aren't that simple. He's missed a lot of votes over th past couple of years and that "most liberal" label is based on a percentage, not aggregate votes. There also just haven't been a lot of "liberal" causes to vote on. He'll get beat up on some surveillance votes, but what liberal votes does he really have? But of course I don't think those votes will matter to swing voters anyway.

It's based on the actual votes that he has cast in the senate, and the National Journal's 2007 Ratings have him listed as the most liberal senator in 2007.

I do agree that he will probably be able to continue to mask a lot of his senate votes and positions on the issues though his abstract campaign speeches on "hope" and "change". Two 25 year old women in my office are cult followers, although one of them doesn't know what his stand is on any of the issues, and the other one only knows that "he's going to end the war in Iraq." They are probably a good representation of the most politically illiterate generation in American history. Are there enough of them to put him over the top? I guess we'll find out.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I know a ton of people who are Obama fans who are driving me nuts with their talk about him and surely hearing someone on television be asked, "Why are you voting for him" and have them say "because he inspires me" is irritating.

But, the most political illiterate generation in history? Let's not get carried away, Father Time.

Vic: I know it's based on actual votes, but what I'm saying is that the methodology is flawed in that it tracks percentages without accounting for raw number of votes. If you look at Nation Journal's data Hillary actually voted the liberal position more often than Obama, but her total votes was much higher so her percentage was lower. Does this make her more or less liberal than Obama?

The other flaw in the data is that while campaigning Senators tend to be most likely to show up when the vote is the most partisan. Obama could miss a 65-35 vote, but the pressure from party leaders would intense for him to come back for a close party line vote.

This isn't to say Obama isn't a liberal, but I think his 10-15th most ranking average from the prior two years is more in line with reality.

I'd also argue that the youth of today aren't any more detached than other generations. Most people don't have any idea what the issues even are, never mind actually have a position on them.

dola

There's also some questionable uses of liberal and conservative. The first economic vote is:

Clinton voted no, the conservative position, and Obama voted yea.

As I further looked at the votes the difference between Hillary, the 16th most liberal and Obama comes down to two votes where they voted opposite each other(Hillary the conservative position) and two votes where Hillary voted the conservative position and Obama didn't vote. I'd say the real story is that Hillary and Obama are voted almost identically.

Right slams Obama as 'shady Chicago socialist'

As a sidenote, he was endorsed by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and the Houston Chronicle for Sunday's paper.

I've been away from this for far too long.

As alluded to. It has already begun.

On the other hand, the left don't need to slam McCain, all they have to do is watch a stuttering old man talk about staying in Iraq for another hundred years.

That is already losing a lot of steam, as McCain isn't allowing his statement to be taken out of context anymore. In his interview with Larry King, McCain noted that we have now had troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea for over 50 years. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

I wonder what he's going to do when we create the next terrorist training ground and have to station there as well?

That's right, just keep talking Johnny Straight-talk. Just keep talking.

What's Obama gonna do?

At this point I am still an Obama supporter. However my hatred of McCain has declined somewhat. I still don't trust him, but I think he's less inherently evil than I at first suspected.

I don't know, but I bet I know what YOU think he's going to do. And that's coddle all his Muslim pals. Right?

Is it possible we could get a thread about the general election and get all the nail-biting GOP'ers who know they have a crap candidate into their own thread without continually crapping on this one? Kthx.

Plus I seriously doubt any liberals (with a name or not) would ever say anything that could be suggested to be an attack against McCain. Because if they did, the timesonline.co.uk would surely report it. Surely they would.

So you can launch personal remarks towards me, but you cannot answer a question that was in no way personal towards you?

Additionally, since we already all know that Obama is likely to be the next President, wouldn't it be better to know what he's going to do vs what McCain is going to do?

Um, what?

So you're saying that liberals don't need to resort to swift boat-like attacks against McCain because his numerous faults say everything we need to know? Or that conservatives have finally given up the myth of liberal media bias in our country and are now busy getting their panties in a twist over the London Times' coverage of our election? Literally baffled trying to figure out what point you're trying to make here.

The point is that conservatives attack liberals and liberals attack conservatives. Always have, always will. Whether it's covered that way or not is another story. No pun intended.

Anybody know of a good place to check for where Obama will be speaking and whatnot in Ohio? I checked his site but couldn't find a good list of events where he will be attending.

Yes and no.

I think that a lot of these visits are shotgun deals (no pun intended) where they make the plans early, but release the specifics at the last minute. I think it gives more flexibility for pulling last minute deviations.

His web site is probably the best place to look and to stay attended to. I'm sure he'll be visiting there again as it gets closer, but the secret service probably doesn't want him releasing his moves super far in advance either.

I am a little confused here as well, especially since the London Times is one of the more conservative UK papers, though it tends to be much more balanced than the Telegraph (very conservative) and the Independent (very liberal).

Well, there's also Susan Eisenhower. You may have heard of her grandfather. ;)

The two newest Texas polls have Obama down by just 5% and 2%.

Holy heck, it was cold out hiking to the polls today.

But I voted nonetheless, for Hillary.

I also braved the cold to go out and vote for Mr. Obama. I figured it'd be pretty sad if I donated money to him and didn't even vote.

Too bad the tavern next to the polling place wasn't open.

You know why Wisconsin gets such good cell phone service? More bars in more places.

Very nice.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure I heard that my town has the most bars per capita in the nation. We might've lost that title as the town is growing but the bar concentration is shrinking.

Although an unincorporated town about 5 miles from me has two bars for about 10 people.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...sin_exits.html

They're saying Obama won big in Wisconsin, chipping into Hillary's normal demographic strongholds.

Don't forget, Kerry won huge in the 2004 exit polls in an electoral college landslide over GWB, taking down Ohio and Florida by surprising margins.

And that means what to me? My great-great grandfather was head of the 4th ward of Chicago and was the financial alderman of the city during much of the early 20th century. He helped build the Chicago machine and was a staunch democrat. Yet, his grandson and the rest of the family since then has been republican.

My point is that names don't mean much unless they are leaders of the party. Lest we forget Obama and Cheney are related and they are on opposite sides of everything.

I haven't forgotten. I was just reporting what I read. There were a couple exit polls that were off this year as well. A California exit poll on Drudge had Obama winning. Hillary won California.

CNN projects Wisconsin for Obama.

9-0 sure is a bitch. He'll win Hawaii to give him 10-0, so...geez. Gotta love spending all money they're making on new signs just for Texas for Obama. lol...hope the GOP is sharpening their knives, 'cuz he held serve in his first chance at the helm in the race.

We'll see what happens. I'm tired of hearing about superdelegates. Let's wait until Denver to hear about that.

It appears that McCain's advisors have already told him to forget about Huckabee and Clinton and start campaigning against Obama. Here's a quote from his victory speech tonight:

"I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change."

9-0 (10-0) is certainly an impressive feat in a close race.

Didn't Bill Clinton lose nine primaries in a row in 1992?

Allow me to ask a really stupid question: how can you possibly predict a winner with 3% of precincts reporting? Obviously I'm missing a basic element of how polling and these elections work, so please enlighten me.

Hillary probably isn't going to address her losses in this speech in Ohio right now. Love the new signs, "We've Got Your Back, Hillary!"

She won't even address him by name. Just "my opponent." Love the "avoid him, let's talk about us" theory of this. Her people have to be scrambling and they need to stop the bleeding, but man...if they can pull it off, they'll prove their mettle that's for sure.

They poll people after they leave the polls, to ask them how they voted. If those people lie, then the exit polls are wrong. But provided those folks are right, you can capture a pretty good idea of how the voting is going to go. Not just media companies conduct exit polls, but campaigns do too.

It's not a stupid question, though. And the news networks do an awful job of explaining this stuff. They're like ESPN, but with matters of the nation rather than just talking NBA trades.

He lost seven of the first nine.

I think they're both purposely speaking over each other today. Swapped to FOX to watch it, because I knew they wouldn't show Hillary for that long, giving a stump speech.

Damn, that's a pretty big crowd he's got in Houston.

Wow, where did all the talk this week about Clinton pulling close and only a slim lead in Wisconsin? Obama looks to win soundly there at least from poll results? I don't see Clinton thrashing Obama enough in Ohio or TX most likely something like 55-45. This is over.

The exit polls that came around 1pm were saying it was going to be a landslide in Wisconsin for him.

It'll be interesting to hear about his speech tonight, because he's been pretty much repeating the same victory speech for a few weeks now.

I don't quite think so, DC. Each precinct/district has a distinct demographics (in my field, it's called market segmentation). Based on previous votes (not polls), they already have a model for how the vote should go. When results come in for a precinct/district, they can match actuals against predicted and notice any deviations from the norm. If, for example, early precincts/districts model a slight advantage for Clinton but the votes show a solid Obama win, then you would predict him to be the winner because the model would already show him winning what he was supposed to win and will likely do so because he won what he wasn't supposed to win. Makes sense?

Thanks for spelling it out.

Nine in a row, I'm trying not to get too optimisitc but it's getting harder and harder...

Is Texas the only state to have this combination of primary and caucus?

I know it's irrelevant, but if the primaries schedule were a little more balanaced geographically, it would have been over sooner. The southern states didn't come into play until later, unlike this year , I perceive.

Hilary's "gang of thugs" political advisors must of hated when the networks cut right in the middle of her speech to go to Obama's:D

Oh God, Begala probably beat Wolf Blitzer up.

This stump speech is generally the same speech over and over. I guess he has to do that. He throws some stuff in there for the folks who say he doesn't address new themes, but my guess is that if you watch him read off the paper..he's awful at it.

As someone who isn't voting for him, it's tiring to hear the same thing over and over. But from a marketing perspective, it's fun to watch people eating it up. Because man..it's zombies at work, but the zombies are so fervent.

So I think he probably just goes with what works and is saving his "good stuff" for the general, because it's clear to me that he must have some other material that he can work in. But I think all of the polling that proves people don't know him that well, but as he moves into their territory and they get to know him, they like him more. So...I think he's going that way more and more.

It's smart that they're going in for the kill now, because if they don't beat her now or if they breathe life into her campaign, that she'll come roar back and kill them off.

Should be interesting...

His health care plan sounds almost as ridiculous as Hillary telling people that "everyone who wants to work hard should have a job" and "we should increase the minimum wage to $9.15 an hour."

Shit, just promise them cars like Oprah. At least that's easier to deliver on.

It's all the same. Hillary isn't bringing new material either. I think it's funny that she's saying she's all action and he's all talk. At this point, what does it say about the action when so many people are getting behind "talk". I voted for Obama because I'm not concerned with what he's stumping for, I'm concerned that Hillary and McCain are more of the same and I don't really want that.

I wish he'd found a way to incorporate "Houston, we have a problem" into his stump speech. That would've been awesome.

DC, I would agree with you. I know this has become a cliche of late but "experience" does mean something. If all you have campaigned for is a local office and a Senate that fell into his lap, he doesn't have much political experience to draw from. But he is getting the support out and that says a lot considering that he is going up against a hardcore political machine in the Clintons.

I'm not voting for him either, and longtime members in the political threads on this board know that I voted for WJC twice, Al Gore and John Kerry. If Obama was running for game show host, he'd get my vote, but not for President. FWIW, I wouldn't vote for Hillary against McCain, either.

Obama is going to have to come up with some new material for the general election. "Yes we can" and "in the face of change, I believe in hope" isn't going to cut it.

Thanks for the explanation DC.

I have been following the primaries game too closely and do not know if there are any Congressional races this year. Would it be true that Congress would still be Dems-controlled in 2009?

Meh. I'm sure his speech writers are just as good as coming up with presidential rhetoric rubbish as every other politician's speech writers.

There is a Senate seat up in New Mexico. The Republican Senator is retiring.

I would predict that the shit will start hitting the fan when he would be asked about Russia, China, Palestine, Gaza, etc. and have to say more than "I will make nice with everyone". Obama has already acknowledged McCain's foreign policy experience so the economy has to be his selling point, unless he plays the class warfare card.

True. But I think the fundamental premise of his campaign -- whether we buy it or not, is irrelevant -- is that the sort of experience that McCain, Clinton and that ilk have is not what America needs and not what Americans want. That the fundamental idea behind government ought to be to help the people who need it most and to provide the country with stability and an atmosphere to thrive and innovate.

I don't think what he proposes is really the blueprint for that, but...you have to admit that if nothing else, the people who are backing him in droves understand this message. They assume that all politicians are fundamentally crooked and flawed people who don't care about them. They feel that Obama cares about them and that he's essentially one of them and that he's "called" to do this thing.

That's where they are, how they feel about it and well....I think it speaks volumes that they've turned this guy from an afterthought to an insurgent candidate. Whether it's all bluster or not isn't really an issue, because if we're being honest..Clinton and McCain aren't much different, it's just their rhetoric isn't the same.

It's been a fascinating year to watch all of this unfold though and I almost want to fast-forward, just to see how it ends, because it's pretty evident (I'm guessing) to all of us that no amount of punditry will really be able to determine the outcome of all of this.

This can be interpreted at least a couple of different ways.

Here is a link to a brief runthrough (from a familiar site to many): http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...s/Feb19-s.html

The Dems have a huge financial advantage at present and have to defend 12 seats, while the Repubs have to defend 23.

I would guess (and he has suggested) that McCain may resign from the Senate to fully concentrate on running for the presidency, even though he is not up for election. I would doubt that Obama or Clinton will resign theirs.

I don't watch many speeches...are they always that long?

I think he'll recruit people on his team to brief him on that stuff. To some degree, I feel like they've come this far that they're not going to fall flat at this stage. If they were gonna fail, they would've a long time ago.

Isn't to say that they can't get real-world curveballs or whatever. But...I think they'll prove formidable and as a former law professor, he has enough understanding of how to get information down, that he can be okay in a head-to-head on big issues like that.

I don't think he intends to try to beat McCain on his own turf or to try to create his own brand of what McCain is selling to get voters to sign onto him. I think he's just going to keep it consistent and do what he's done up to now, with maybe some new twists on it.

He could solve world peace and pull of a rabbit out of his ears and the fact that he wants to raise the capital gains tax makes him a non-starter to me, let alone how he intends to pay for ALL of the shit he wants to do. But my suspicion is that his economic people figure that pulling us out of Iraq and repealing the GWB tax cuts and raising capital gains will give them all of the money they need to "help people".

They've gotten a lot longer. It's free airtime and the channels won't pull away from them and so they've gone from mere victory speeches to faux stump speeches.

Did Obama say "I love you" at the end of that speech. It's not that there is anything wrong with that just I don't think I have ever heard a politician running for president say it. The guy does come across as sincere and believe s what he says, it's too bad Sauron's Republicans are going to crush him in the general in all likelihood.

Man... I think it was JiMGa that said it first, but Obama's voice and the Rock's voice are damn near identical. Now, everytime I hear him speak, I am holding out hope that he says, "Can you smell what Ba-rock is cooking?!?!"

Puts the whole "words mean things" bit in a little more perspective when, after 6 years or so of the media referring to the guerillas in Iraq as 'insurgents,' I had to think twice about what you were actually saying there.

Again, I am agreeing with you.

[rhetorically-speaking]There are those that expect nothing good to come out of Washington, those that expect bad things to happen only to them and those that can't name Washington DC as the nation's capital. If only someone would say something that shows they care about ME. Clinton1 made a lot of political hay out of pretending he cared but really didn't. It doesn't matter though, maybe I can start feeling better about myself because someone said that they will do things that will make my life better. If they don't, then we'll blame the opposition.

I think it's because his people are always saying "I love you!" in the audience when he speaks and he often will say "I love you back."

...unless it's Hillary :).

Yeah, I thought of using a different word, but figured I'd try to bring it back to its original context before it got bastardized. :)

Well, she was the loser. If it'd been the other way around, they would've done it to him too.

They're showing the part of her speech we missed. I didn't realize she went on that damn long. Maybe it was a purposeful tactic intended to get them to do just this, to give her seeming "double coverage".

She was trumping labour there at the end of that speech and so, I think that's a play back to the Edwards base. I wonder when he'll come out and endorse Obama. He can't endorse Clinton. He won't attach his cart to the loser and given all of the supporters and unions of his that went to Obama, he really only has two choices. Sit it out and endorse no one or endorse Obama and be the one that hammers the nail they're beginning to drive in that coffin Hillary's getting fitted for.

Not that I think if he did go the other way (or even for Obama, honestly) that it'll have an appreciable impact.

I enjoy the whole "not giving up, because America didn't give up on me" angle Clinton is taking despite the licking she's taking. I think Obama will win Texas, which isn't a big surprise given how the numbers continued to close after his wins last week or whenever. But...Ohio is really where I think Hillary has to put up or shutup. I think she looks like a disparate candidate on stage right now.

Her enthusiasm seems artificial (I know, big shocker) and I really wonder what her people are thinking of doing. I've heard for a week or so now that they need a big meltdown and they need to win big the rest of the way out...but it seems more and more than no matter how much engineering they do, their horse is pulling up going down the stretch rather than coming on strong.

I'd be okay with being wrong though, just for the entertainment value of it all.

I haven't looked at house races too closely, but in the Senate if anything, by more of a majority. Top 10 races to watch - http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...671716,00.html

Thank you.

Which is a damned nice line... and one that'll probably resonate with plenty. After all, McCain was railing for change in Washington when Obama was a state Senator.

Bucc: The Republicans also have around fifteen percent of their House caucus retiring and an investigation into improper handling of funds at the RCCC.

On the experience thing, I really don't think it matters. I used to think experience was more important, but over time I've come to believe that judgment is really what's paramount. Since 1960 I think you could credibly argue that the most experienced Presidents have been the biggest failures (LBJ and Nixon certainly, maybe GHWB) It's not that experience is a negative, but experience can too often be seen as a substitute for good judgment.

Any President is going to be surrounded by experience, but what they do with that experience is what's important. Lord knows I'm no GWB fan, but I don't think the problem has been a lack of experience. His advisers had plenty of experience, but IMO his judgment was the problem. If Obama or Clinton or McCain is going to have difficulties in the White House I'd bet that experience won't be much of an issue.

Say what? LBJ was alright, but Vietnam sunk him (as it probably would have to any). Nixon was a very good President, who got caught doing dirty tricks that I'm sure every campaign was engaged in at the time, and George HW Bush was actually a good President who got blamed for a recession that was in recovery during the election year.

Not saying they were the best, but the least experienced Presidents since 1960 were worse (Kennedy, Carter).

But Vietnam didn't just happen. LBJ made policy decisions that sunk his presidency and embroiled the U.S. in a failed war.

Nixon made disastrous economic decisions, never had a clear policy in regards to Vietnam, hid Kissinger's actions from his own cabinet members and engaged in crimes while in office. He may have had a good side, but the decisions he made led to his resignation. Again, these things didn't just happen.

GHWB is a tougher case as I don't put him in the same category as LBJ or Nixon, but he and Carter are the only two presidents over that time span to only serve a single term. In some sense, even if only politically, he was a failure.

I'll give you Carter as a failure. Kennedy made some good economic decisions and played the Cuban Missle Crisis very well. It's hard to judge him, though, when his term was so short.

When Kennedy started Vietnam, it was hard for any President to back out. No one wanted to be the first President who lost a war. LBJ couldn't back out without seeming weak on Communism. His hands really were tied.

Nixon's economic policies weren't that horrid. Sure he made a few blunders in dealing with the oil shocks, but he did take the US off the gold standard, which was major. Ironically enough, he called for a universal health care plan back in the 70s which didn't go anywhere. Besides, he was mostly uninterested in domestic politics. He was a foreign policy wonk, who opened up China and negotiated SALT I. Two historic actions.

GHWB only served one term because he was decent enough to realize that his campaign promise to not raise any more taxes wasn't going to work if he wanted to control the deficit.

And Kennedy was HORRIBLE during the Cuban Missile Crisis! A complete failure of diplomacy. Instead of making a simple phone call to the Kremlin as Ike would have done, the moron decided to escalate it by telling everyone in the US about things!

Actually, this is not completely right either.

You are right to imply that when an early projection of an election result is made, it is usually not due to the raw results from exit polling. It is a misconception that a projected call without the benefit of much of the actual vote must be the result of exit poll numbers. Some of the modeling does incorporate exit poll numbers, but it is actually quite rare that races are called due to exit polling alone. The technique you are describing is used, but doesn't often yield reliable results until closer to the tail end, where a significant percentage of the precincts have already reported. In the early stages, you can't really project a winner based on actual votes on the few precincts that are in, since (a) you can't be assured that the precincts that are in are representative of the state as a whole and (b) even if you know the demographic/past voting profile of the missing precincts, it is very risky to make call based on past voting on so many precincts. Now, the models are continually updated as more of the vote comes in, so in time, it does become less risky when fewer precincts need to be projected.

But, to get back to the original question--what is the basis for an early call when there is little actual vote in? A significant, but rarely talked about, source of information are actual votes taken from a pre-selected sample of precincts. The precincts in the sample were selected to be representative of the state both in terms of demographics and prior voting record. What makes this sample of votes more projectible than an early raw vote total is the nature of the representative of the sample (or at least the assumption of representativeness) present in the precinct sample that cannot be guaranteed in an early raw vote total.

One other thing to note here is that multiple models are being run concurrently--some creating estimates based on the exit poll, others based on raw vote, others incorporating past race information, and various combinations of the above. The analysts like to see model convergence. So, while it's risky to project a race based on models incorporating only exit poll data, it becomes less risky if the precinct sample models are saying the same thing. In a close race, this is still not enough information to make a call, but in a not-so-close race breaking in the expected direction, the data available at an early stage may be adequate.

Maybe. I wouldn't say likely yet. The Republican turnout was still just 40% of the Democratic turnout. McCain and Huckabee together had less votes than Hillary alone, by a fair margin. You could say it's because the Repub race is wrapped up, but it's been like this damn near everywhere, and I don't buy that the difference is Repubs voting for Hillary to keep it close.

Someone might want to clue Billary in that in a year where a President has a 30% approval rating and Congress is around 15%, trumpeting your "experience" and that you know how things work in Washington probably isn't your best bet.

On second thought, don't. Wait until she actually concedes, then tell her.

http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4223/181/

10% in.



Heh.

666, huh?

Great post, DC. I am with you. Wish we could just fast forward this puppy to November and see how this is going to turn out.

He really does sound like The Rock.

"FINALLLLLLYYYYYYY.... BA-RACK.... HAS COME BACK... TO O-HI-O!"

I work in politics for a living, and have had similar discussions about Senator Obama's experience with a lot of friends and acquaintances.

What I don't really buy is the notion that at the same time most people will agree that Congress is an inept and corrupt and pointless institution that accomplished basically nothing in most situations (whether this is fair or accurate I set aside for the moment) but then seems to be saying that Omaba only needs more of that to be qualified to be our President. I don't get it. What exactly do we want in terms of "experience" here? Sitting around in the US Senate for 8 more years, introducing the occasional bill, scratching Ted Stevens's or Robert Byrd's back for some project or another, holding some press conference here and a fundraiser there to pander to one group or another? Forgive me for being less than inspired.

I'm not saying that experience is irrelevant. I just think in the political realm, it's tough to simultaneously say that the whole game is useless, but you have to play it a lot to get anywhere.

This really isn't the thread for this argument, so I won't threadjack further. I do think, though, that my primary argument that experience doesn't equal success stands.