The latest "jobs" report.
At 8:30 this morning, the government announced that a whopping 240,000 jobs were lost in October, and the unemployment rate shot up from 6.1% to 6.5%. The job loss numbers are a staggering number for a single month, and more than 1 million jobs have been lost this year, a big big number. Its now 100% clear that we are in a deep, deep recession.
Of course, anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together has known that for several months, and anyone who really thought about the matter has known that for a few months before that. I was advocating for interest rate cuts and big spending-side stimulus packages for many many months, and was on the early side in terms of doing so. If Congress had passed the kind of massive spending increases that I advocated earlier this year, the recession we are now in would be less deep.
There has been talk of 2 upcoming stimulus packages, a small one in the upcoming lame duck session of congress (the old congress, and president Bush), and a new, much bigger one, with the new congress and President Obama. I am all for both of these.
In fact, I've decided that the first item Obama should take up as President is a BIG stimulus package, centered mainly on construction spending. I'd target around $300-$400 billion over the next two years. Unlike the huge amount spent on the various bailouts, which was stimulative in the sense that it prevented the financial system from hurtling over the abyss, but did not increase government outlay into the economy per se, this new huge spending package (which Speaker Pelosi has alluded to being possibly in favor of) would drastically increase federal spending which would go directly into the economy.
Anyway, this godawful (un)employment report should greatly help the cause of big stimulus packages.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Obama's Cabinet
Rather than wasting time predicting Obama's cabinet and other personnel choices, I'll comment about on what I'd like to see.
The first big post became official yesterday when Rahm Emanuel accepted the position of White House Chief of Staff. I'M IN LOVE! Emanuel was a key advisor to Bill Clinton from 1993-1998. He was famous in the Clinton White House, and outside of it, as being an angry partisan warrior ready to "kill" his enemies. He has been in the House since 2003, and has enhanced his reputation as a man who is happy and ready to bury any opposition, GOP or otherwise.
So the first key appointment is a guy who knows where all the bodies are buries, and buried a seriously disproportionate number of them personally! He's been around, he's a partisan warrior and a big believer in growing the number of democrats on the Hill. In short, he's everything Obama says he's not. No post-partisan BS for Emanuel.
WOO HOO!!!!! On a scale of 1-10, I give the Emanuel appointment a 10. Literally. There isn't a man, woman, child or pet in America I would have rather seen named to the Chief of Staff slot. Now of course I have no idea how Obama intends to use him. But clearly it is a loud signal to democrats all across America that he won't be all sweetness and light. Look, sweetness and light has its uses, and if it can be useful for getting comprehensive health care reform, serious energy reform, and the other liberal and flat out left wing goals that I have (and that Obama ran on, in part), then I'm for it. But the GOP isn't going to roll over and play dead, they will fight much of any Obama agenda every step of the way, and friends must be rewarded and enemies punished. And if you're a Republican about to be punished, Rahm Emanuel is about the last guy in America you want to see.
Secretary of the Treasury was a big deal in many administrations, including Bush 41 (his close friend Jim Baker) and Clinton (Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers) and a backwater in the Bush administrations, which made all (disastrous) economic decisions from the White House, and informed the Treasury Secretary, until the varied crises of 2007-08. It is destined to be a huge deal in the incoming Obama administration, alas. According to the latest political news, there are two finalists for the job. One is Larry Summers, who's been there, done that, doesn't suffer fools gladly, doesn't always play well with others, and has angered feminists by suggesting that maybe there aren't as many women in science because women aren't as skilled in the sciences as men are. Now I have no idea whether they are or are not, but I couldn't begin to care at the moment. The nation faces gigantic economic problems, and if Robert Rubin is unavailable, my # 2 choice for dealing with them is Larry Summers. So he'd make me swoon just like Rahm Emanuel does.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15391.html
The other guy listed on the finalist list is New York Federal Reserve Chairman Timothy Geithner. I personally know nothing of him. The article says he's been involved in the current crisis. I just don't know enough about him to form an opinion one way or the other. Needless to say, I'm rooting for Summers.
As for Secretary of State, John Kerry is apparently lobbying for the post. My first reaction was an emotional "NO!" Then I calmed down. Kerry was an early supporter of Obama, endorsing him on January 10, 2008. Rewarding early supporters is good. Now SecState isn't a position you just hand out to reward someone, but Kerry's capable. I could think of people I'd rather have, and these do not include Republicans Dick Lugar and Chuck Hegal. I'd be happy enough with Richard Holbrooke. Kerry'd probably be fine. Well, mediocre actually. His instincts are cautious. Adequate.
For Attorney General, Huffington Post has mentioned Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. With John Edwards, the obvious choice, out of the running for running for president while having an affair and lying about it, (ever seen that one before?), there's no one obvious choice. Hillary doesn't want it. Napolitano's more politician than legal brain, but that's ok. She's up to the job.
For Defense, a lot of people think Obama will keep Robert Gates, Bush's guy, on. That's actually fine with me. Gates is unique in Bush-land, a guy who is highly competent, well grounded in reality, and not a political hack. I'm comfortable keeping him on. I'd be fine with Chuck Hegal or Colin Powell, two Republicans that have been mentioned. God help me, I think my preference is for the current SecDef, Gates.
More on Obama's staff and cabinet posts coming soon.
Rather than wasting time predicting Obama's cabinet and other personnel choices, I'll comment about on what I'd like to see.
The first big post became official yesterday when Rahm Emanuel accepted the position of White House Chief of Staff. I'M IN LOVE! Emanuel was a key advisor to Bill Clinton from 1993-1998. He was famous in the Clinton White House, and outside of it, as being an angry partisan warrior ready to "kill" his enemies. He has been in the House since 2003, and has enhanced his reputation as a man who is happy and ready to bury any opposition, GOP or otherwise.
So the first key appointment is a guy who knows where all the bodies are buries, and buried a seriously disproportionate number of them personally! He's been around, he's a partisan warrior and a big believer in growing the number of democrats on the Hill. In short, he's everything Obama says he's not. No post-partisan BS for Emanuel.
WOO HOO!!!!! On a scale of 1-10, I give the Emanuel appointment a 10. Literally. There isn't a man, woman, child or pet in America I would have rather seen named to the Chief of Staff slot. Now of course I have no idea how Obama intends to use him. But clearly it is a loud signal to democrats all across America that he won't be all sweetness and light. Look, sweetness and light has its uses, and if it can be useful for getting comprehensive health care reform, serious energy reform, and the other liberal and flat out left wing goals that I have (and that Obama ran on, in part), then I'm for it. But the GOP isn't going to roll over and play dead, they will fight much of any Obama agenda every step of the way, and friends must be rewarded and enemies punished. And if you're a Republican about to be punished, Rahm Emanuel is about the last guy in America you want to see.
Secretary of the Treasury was a big deal in many administrations, including Bush 41 (his close friend Jim Baker) and Clinton (Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers) and a backwater in the Bush administrations, which made all (disastrous) economic decisions from the White House, and informed the Treasury Secretary, until the varied crises of 2007-08. It is destined to be a huge deal in the incoming Obama administration, alas. According to the latest political news, there are two finalists for the job. One is Larry Summers, who's been there, done that, doesn't suffer fools gladly, doesn't always play well with others, and has angered feminists by suggesting that maybe there aren't as many women in science because women aren't as skilled in the sciences as men are. Now I have no idea whether they are or are not, but I couldn't begin to care at the moment. The nation faces gigantic economic problems, and if Robert Rubin is unavailable, my # 2 choice for dealing with them is Larry Summers. So he'd make me swoon just like Rahm Emanuel does.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15391.html
The other guy listed on the finalist list is New York Federal Reserve Chairman Timothy Geithner. I personally know nothing of him. The article says he's been involved in the current crisis. I just don't know enough about him to form an opinion one way or the other. Needless to say, I'm rooting for Summers.
As for Secretary of State, John Kerry is apparently lobbying for the post. My first reaction was an emotional "NO!" Then I calmed down. Kerry was an early supporter of Obama, endorsing him on January 10, 2008. Rewarding early supporters is good. Now SecState isn't a position you just hand out to reward someone, but Kerry's capable. I could think of people I'd rather have, and these do not include Republicans Dick Lugar and Chuck Hegal. I'd be happy enough with Richard Holbrooke. Kerry'd probably be fine. Well, mediocre actually. His instincts are cautious. Adequate.
For Attorney General, Huffington Post has mentioned Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. With John Edwards, the obvious choice, out of the running for running for president while having an affair and lying about it, (ever seen that one before?), there's no one obvious choice. Hillary doesn't want it. Napolitano's more politician than legal brain, but that's ok. She's up to the job.
For Defense, a lot of people think Obama will keep Robert Gates, Bush's guy, on. That's actually fine with me. Gates is unique in Bush-land, a guy who is highly competent, well grounded in reality, and not a political hack. I'm comfortable keeping him on. I'd be fine with Chuck Hegal or Colin Powell, two Republicans that have been mentioned. God help me, I think my preference is for the current SecDef, Gates.
More on Obama's staff and cabinet posts coming soon.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
How were my predictions?
Let's go prediction by prediction and see how I did:
1) Electoral college:
I thus got every state correct except for reversing Missouri and Indiana. I knew these states would be extremely close (as did everyone else), so in terms of getting the states right I had a great night.
After predicting President Gore and President Kerry, I'm living proof that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
2) Popular vote: I predicted that "Obama will win the popular vote 53.8-45.2, or by 8.6 points."
As of this writing, and votes are still coming in, Obama won the popular vote 53-46. So I was quite close. However, there are, as of now, far fewer total votes than were expected, leading me to think that a lot of votes yet to be counted. The coming days will tell if that is true, or if instead nearly all the votes have been counted.
3) I predicted, "Obama will receive 75.9 million votes(!!!), and McCain 63.3 million (still more than Bush received in 2004!)."
I'll have to wait a week or more to be sure, but this looks way, way off. As of now, 9:50 p.m. the day after election day, Obama has 63.9 million votes and McCain has 56.4 million. Oops.
4) Senate seats: I predicted that the dems would pick up 8 Senate seats. Nope. As of now the democrats have picked up only 5. Oregon my end up with the democrats, and Georgia may end up in a runoff, so its too early to tell, but 8 seems very unlikely, and even 7 is unlikely. Its looking like 6.
Let's go prediction by prediction and see how I did:
1) Electoral college:
I predicted that Obama would win 364 electoral votes. BINGO. Assuming that North Carolina is in the end called for the democrats, as appears highly likely (The Raleigh newspaper has already done so), I will have hit the electoral college numbers exactly.
I predicted, "Obama will win every state Kerry won, plus Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina (by a whisker), Missouri (by a smaller whisker), Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. My last prediction had Obama winning 375 electoral votes. The only state on which I've changed my mind is Indiana, which now looks somewhat red."I thus got every state correct except for reversing Missouri and Indiana. I knew these states would be extremely close (as did everyone else), so in terms of getting the states right I had a great night.
After predicting President Gore and President Kerry, I'm living proof that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
2) Popular vote: I predicted that "Obama will win the popular vote 53.8-45.2, or by 8.6 points."
As of this writing, and votes are still coming in, Obama won the popular vote 53-46. So I was quite close. However, there are, as of now, far fewer total votes than were expected, leading me to think that a lot of votes yet to be counted. The coming days will tell if that is true, or if instead nearly all the votes have been counted.
3) I predicted, "Obama will receive 75.9 million votes(!!!), and McCain 63.3 million (still more than Bush received in 2004!)."
I'll have to wait a week or more to be sure, but this looks way, way off. As of now, 9:50 p.m. the day after election day, Obama has 63.9 million votes and McCain has 56.4 million. Oops.
4) Senate seats: I predicted that the dems would pick up 8 Senate seats. Nope. As of now the democrats have picked up only 5. Oregon my end up with the democrats, and Georgia may end up in a runoff, so its too early to tell, but 8 seems very unlikely, and even 7 is unlikely. Its looking like 6.
5) House seats: I predicted the democrats would pick up 25 seats. That looks good right now. It'll actually be a month until we know the precise number, but as of this moment the democrats have picked up 20, and 21 or so looks like a good final number. So this one worked out.
I'll have a few more posts in coming days discussing why/how Obama won, how little the map really changed, and a few other things.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Election day thoughts
1. Martin Luther King is celebrating in his grave. MLK famously said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
America is poised to elect a partially black man president, and not in a close vote, either. Indeed, it it looks like Obama will get more of the white vote than did either Kerry or Gore on his way to winning. That sounds like it qualifies to me!
2. Turnout is apparently pretty high. There have been a long series of anecdotal news reports of really long lines. Bill Richardson has predicted 80-85% turnout in the swing state of New Mexico. John Corzine has predicted 80% turnout in the non-swing state of New Jersey. Long lines in Florida despite a lot of early voting. Long lines in Virginia. Long lines in New York, not exactly a swing state!
The only question is whether turnout will be really high (130 million votes) or enormously high, like I predicted (140 million votes).
Pennsylvania is, unsurprisingly, expecting really high turnout.
3. A GOP affiliated group began running ads mentioning Reverend Wright about 3 days ago. Insane how long it took. This is after a metric boatload of voters voted in the key swing states of Florida, North Carolina and Colorado, among other places. Obviously McCain was fighting tooth and nail against this, but still someone did it anyway. I'm shocked it took them so long.
4. As I wrote in an earlier post, media widely reporting on calls and fliers telling voters that some people were to vote Wednesday. We hear about this every election, and it stinks every time. Doesn't look like too many people are buying it, to say the least, but its still beyond dirty.
1. Martin Luther King is celebrating in his grave. MLK famously said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
America is poised to elect a partially black man president, and not in a close vote, either. Indeed, it it looks like Obama will get more of the white vote than did either Kerry or Gore on his way to winning. That sounds like it qualifies to me!
2. Turnout is apparently pretty high. There have been a long series of anecdotal news reports of really long lines. Bill Richardson has predicted 80-85% turnout in the swing state of New Mexico. John Corzine has predicted 80% turnout in the non-swing state of New Jersey. Long lines in Florida despite a lot of early voting. Long lines in Virginia. Long lines in New York, not exactly a swing state!
The only question is whether turnout will be really high (130 million votes) or enormously high, like I predicted (140 million votes).
Pennsylvania is, unsurprisingly, expecting really high turnout.
3. A GOP affiliated group began running ads mentioning Reverend Wright about 3 days ago. Insane how long it took. This is after a metric boatload of voters voted in the key swing states of Florida, North Carolina and Colorado, among other places. Obviously McCain was fighting tooth and nail against this, but still someone did it anyway. I'm shocked it took them so long.
4. As I wrote in an earlier post, media widely reporting on calls and fliers telling voters that some people were to vote Wednesday. We hear about this every election, and it stinks every time. Doesn't look like too many people are buying it, to say the least, but its still beyond dirty.
There are anecdotal reports of breathtaking turnout today.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081104/D94876R80.html
CNN has been reporting all day on long lines in places as varied as New York (machines are old), Virginia (machines broke in heavily black areas amidst breathtaking turnout), Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Many states (but not New York) had early voting, and tons of people voted. Here are some of the most amazing numbers:
"In Colorado, the number of ballots already cast this year equals 74 percent of the state’s total turnout in the 2004 election, according to data compiled by Michael McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University. Voting in Georgia has already reached 60 percent of the 2004 mark, and in nearby North Carolina, the figure is 73 percent."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/04/america/04campaigncnd.php?page=2
Now clearly the turnout in each of these states will easily exceed 2004 turnout, but this is still absolutely amazing.
CNN and MSNBC have periodically reported on all of the hoaxes about how certain people or precincts vote on Wednesday. I know it seems like no one in their right mind would believe this, but someone thinks some people will or they wouldn't bother with the hoax. Curiously, all of these hoaxes appear aimed at minorities or registered democrats. What a coincidence. Or not.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081104/D94876R80.html
CNN has been reporting all day on long lines in places as varied as New York (machines are old), Virginia (machines broke in heavily black areas amidst breathtaking turnout), Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Many states (but not New York) had early voting, and tons of people voted. Here are some of the most amazing numbers:
"In Colorado, the number of ballots already cast this year equals 74 percent of the state’s total turnout in the 2004 election, according to data compiled by Michael McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University. Voting in Georgia has already reached 60 percent of the 2004 mark, and in nearby North Carolina, the figure is 73 percent."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/04/america/04campaigncnd.php?page=2
Now clearly the turnout in each of these states will easily exceed 2004 turnout, but this is still absolutely amazing.
CNN and MSNBC have periodically reported on all of the hoaxes about how certain people or precincts vote on Wednesday. I know it seems like no one in their right mind would believe this, but someone thinks some people will or they wouldn't bother with the hoax. Curiously, all of these hoaxes appear aimed at minorities or registered democrats. What a coincidence. Or not.
First election day results go for Obama, big.
The tiny town in Dixville Notch traditionally votes at midnight on election day. It has gone GOP since 1968. This year it went for Obama, 15-6. As a poll this is virtually worthless, but its not a mere curiousity either. People who knew the country would be watching and take politics seriously, voted for Obama overwhelmingly. Interesting.
The tiny town in Dixville Notch traditionally votes at midnight on election day. It has gone GOP since 1968. This year it went for Obama, 15-6. As a poll this is virtually worthless, but its not a mere curiousity either. People who knew the country would be watching and take politics seriously, voted for Obama overwhelmingly. Interesting.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Final predictions post.
I have made various posts predicting the outcome of the presidential and congressional elections. This post is an attempt to organize them all. Virtually none of my predictions have changed.
To sum up, I predict that Obama will win the popular vote 53.8-45.2, or 8.6 points. I predict Obama will receive 75.9 million votes(!!!), and McCain 63.3 million (still more than Bush received in 2004!). I predict Obama will win 364 electoral votes, way more than the 270 needed to win. The election should be called early, as California and its 55 electoral votes are a sure thing for Obama and thus there's no need to wait for them to call the election. As I said in my post of October 19, I predict the Democrats will pick up 8 Senate seats. I have no basis for a house prediction, but since everyone else is doing it, I predict the democrats will pick up 25 seats (up from 20 in my October 19 post). So Obama gets 364 electoral votes, democrats gain 8 Senate seats, leaving them with 59 (counting Joe Lieberman), and democrats gain 25 seats, giving them a 260-174 majority.
Obama will win every state Kerry won, plus Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina (by a whisker), Missouri (by a smaller whisker), Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. My last prediction had Obama winning 375 electoral votes. The only state on which I've changed my mind is Indiana, which now looks somewhat red.
In a huge night, Obama wins some or all of Indiana, Georgia, North Dakota, Montana, and maybe even Arizona. All these states matter for is the margin of victory.
The only Kerry state which might be close is Pennsylvania. Obama will win it, but the margin is very uncertain-- he could win by 3-5, he could win by 10. I have no idea.
Shortly after the election I will draft up a post seeing how my predictions worked out. I note again that I was wrong in 2000 about president, wrong in 2004, and consistently wrong during the primaries. Predicting the future is hard. Still, I've paid a ton of attention to this race, and I think I've been able to add some value.
On June 14th, I predicted an 8-point (or more) Obama victory, and went over a bunch of swing states, and made predictions. I completely missed Indiana's new status as a swing state, but did properly discuss a bunch of others. After the election, I'm going to go back to the June 14th post, and see how I did, almost 5 months out.
I have made various posts predicting the outcome of the presidential and congressional elections. This post is an attempt to organize them all. Virtually none of my predictions have changed.
To sum up, I predict that Obama will win the popular vote 53.8-45.2, or 8.6 points. I predict Obama will receive 75.9 million votes(!!!), and McCain 63.3 million (still more than Bush received in 2004!). I predict Obama will win 364 electoral votes, way more than the 270 needed to win. The election should be called early, as California and its 55 electoral votes are a sure thing for Obama and thus there's no need to wait for them to call the election. As I said in my post of October 19, I predict the Democrats will pick up 8 Senate seats. I have no basis for a house prediction, but since everyone else is doing it, I predict the democrats will pick up 25 seats (up from 20 in my October 19 post). So Obama gets 364 electoral votes, democrats gain 8 Senate seats, leaving them with 59 (counting Joe Lieberman), and democrats gain 25 seats, giving them a 260-174 majority.
Obama will win every state Kerry won, plus Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina (by a whisker), Missouri (by a smaller whisker), Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. My last prediction had Obama winning 375 electoral votes. The only state on which I've changed my mind is Indiana, which now looks somewhat red.
In a huge night, Obama wins some or all of Indiana, Georgia, North Dakota, Montana, and maybe even Arizona. All these states matter for is the margin of victory.
The only Kerry state which might be close is Pennsylvania. Obama will win it, but the margin is very uncertain-- he could win by 3-5, he could win by 10. I have no idea.
Shortly after the election I will draft up a post seeing how my predictions worked out. I note again that I was wrong in 2000 about president, wrong in 2004, and consistently wrong during the primaries. Predicting the future is hard. Still, I've paid a ton of attention to this race, and I think I've been able to add some value.
On June 14th, I predicted an 8-point (or more) Obama victory, and went over a bunch of swing states, and made predictions. I completely missed Indiana's new status as a swing state, but did properly discuss a bunch of others. After the election, I'm going to go back to the June 14th post, and see how I did, almost 5 months out.
A long national nightmare is coming to an end
Election day is tomorrow. Tomorrow night Obama will be declared the winner and McCain will concede. Democrats will gain a bunch of seats in the Senate and House. And press articles will declare the end of the Reagan "revolution."
In today's McCain stump speech (in Tennessee, very near the Virginia border) (delivered with great passion to a very enthusiastic crowd), he had the following applause/boo lines:
1) Obama has said that any new coal fired power plants would bankrupt the utility that built it. McCain, of course, is for such new plants, as they will have clean coal technology.
Well, given that the world has a fever (as Al Gore famously put it) building more coal power plants is the very first thing the doctor ordered us NOT to do. Good for Obama.
2) McCain pointed out that Obama said this to, "Guess who? A San Francisco newspaper." The crowd booed. No only in GOP land are certain people more "American" or "Pro-America" than other areas. Of course, the pro America areas are the red states, or at least the red areas of blue states.
This form of politics has poisoned our body politic for far too long, and tomorrow is probably the last day we're going to see it at the national level for quite a while, since it is finally failing.
I note that which areas are the least pro America by this standard? New York State, New York City. California. LA. San Francisco. Illinois/Chicago. Baltimore. Washington DC. Northern Virginia (explicitly from Palin). Philly.
Know what these areas have in common besides being very very blue? They're rich. That is, successful. They pay WAYYYY more in taxes than they get back in government services. Way, way more. They, to borrow a phrase, redistribute wealth, and disproportionately to red states and red areas of blue states. They have lower crime rates than the rest of America. Yes, they have more gays. This is bad why exactly? Well, in warped, twisted GOP thinking, that's bad.
3) Joe the Plumber. Democrats don't care about people like Joe. We do. Well, if huge tax cuts to the rich, the super rich and the Bill Gates rich show caring for Joe, well the GOP cares all right.
I could go on, but it wouldn't be any more productive for me as it would be for you.
Election day is tomorrow. Tomorrow night Obama will be declared the winner and McCain will concede. Democrats will gain a bunch of seats in the Senate and House. And press articles will declare the end of the Reagan "revolution."
In today's McCain stump speech (in Tennessee, very near the Virginia border) (delivered with great passion to a very enthusiastic crowd), he had the following applause/boo lines:
1) Obama has said that any new coal fired power plants would bankrupt the utility that built it. McCain, of course, is for such new plants, as they will have clean coal technology.
Well, given that the world has a fever (as Al Gore famously put it) building more coal power plants is the very first thing the doctor ordered us NOT to do. Good for Obama.
2) McCain pointed out that Obama said this to, "Guess who? A San Francisco newspaper." The crowd booed. No only in GOP land are certain people more "American" or "Pro-America" than other areas. Of course, the pro America areas are the red states, or at least the red areas of blue states.
This form of politics has poisoned our body politic for far too long, and tomorrow is probably the last day we're going to see it at the national level for quite a while, since it is finally failing.
I note that which areas are the least pro America by this standard? New York State, New York City. California. LA. San Francisco. Illinois/Chicago. Baltimore. Washington DC. Northern Virginia (explicitly from Palin). Philly.
Know what these areas have in common besides being very very blue? They're rich. That is, successful. They pay WAYYYY more in taxes than they get back in government services. Way, way more. They, to borrow a phrase, redistribute wealth, and disproportionately to red states and red areas of blue states. They have lower crime rates than the rest of America. Yes, they have more gays. This is bad why exactly? Well, in warped, twisted GOP thinking, that's bad.
3) Joe the Plumber. Democrats don't care about people like Joe. We do. Well, if huge tax cuts to the rich, the super rich and the Bill Gates rich show caring for Joe, well the GOP cares all right.
I could go on, but it wouldn't be any more productive for me as it would be for you.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Big Obama rally in Cincinnati.
I just finished watching a big rally in Cincinnati. Circa 25,000 people largely filled up the University of Cincinnati football stadium. I think that was the venue in any event. The crowd was raucous for an Obama crowd, showing a lot of energy. Obama was on, and full of energy. Still not quite the energy at a McCain or Palin rally, but plenty of enthusiasm.
Nothing I hadn't heard from Obama before, except a few small witty lines, and a lot of catering to Ohio. Lots of statements about how McCain will continue Bush's economic policies. A reminder that he proposes people under $250,000 of income receive a tax cut. No word about where the lost revenue is to come from.
Anyway, this was a really energetic rally, more than I am used to from an Obama rally. And Obama is showing more life as the campaign winds down.
I just finished watching a big rally in Cincinnati. Circa 25,000 people largely filled up the University of Cincinnati football stadium. I think that was the venue in any event. The crowd was raucous for an Obama crowd, showing a lot of energy. Obama was on, and full of energy. Still not quite the energy at a McCain or Palin rally, but plenty of enthusiasm.
Nothing I hadn't heard from Obama before, except a few small witty lines, and a lot of catering to Ohio. Lots of statements about how McCain will continue Bush's economic policies. A reminder that he proposes people under $250,000 of income receive a tax cut. No word about where the lost revenue is to come from.
Anyway, this was a really energetic rally, more than I am used to from an Obama rally. And Obama is showing more life as the campaign winds down.
Report on rallies the weekend before the election.
On the Saturday before the 2000 election, I was at work at the big law firm I worked for. I had a few hours of work, but nothing urgent, and was following the election. So I brought my work into a conference room which had a large projection screen tv, and watched a few Bush and Gore rallies.
The Bush rallies were pro-forma and even a bit on the subdued side. He read from his script without any deviation.
The Gore rallies were totally different. Gore was screaming, nearly at the top of his lungs. None of the wooden, passion-less Gore. The crowds were going absolutely wild.
There was an obvious contrast. I note that Gore was in Tennessee and Florida on the day I watched.
I've been watching McCain and Obama rallies the last couple of days.
The McCain rally I'm watching right this instant (2:45 p.m. Sunday) in Scranton Pennsylvania, is typical. I can't tell how big the crowd is, but it is loud. Raucous and boisterous. McCain, who looked a bit tired yesterday (can you blame him?) is as awake and alert right now as it is possible to be. It is, in short, an awfully successful rally.
McCain trips over more words than Bush, let alone Gore, double let alone Obama. The English language is not McCain's very very best friend.
The Obama rallies I have seen, on the other hand, have been hugely attended, but not really loud. In fact, like the rally I attended a few weeks back in Philadelphia, the applause was almost polite, as opposed to raucous. Obama was more lively then I had seen him on tv, but not nearly as energized as McCain is. Of course, that's Obama's personality, to be understated. McCain varies between calm-ish/sarcastic, to the new "fighter" personae, which is highly, highly energized.
I'm not saying that the personality of a rally is a predictor of the upcoming vote, but it could conceivably be. The rallies I have seen for McCain in Pennsylvania have been hugely energized. Worth a note.
On the Saturday before the 2000 election, I was at work at the big law firm I worked for. I had a few hours of work, but nothing urgent, and was following the election. So I brought my work into a conference room which had a large projection screen tv, and watched a few Bush and Gore rallies.
The Bush rallies were pro-forma and even a bit on the subdued side. He read from his script without any deviation.
The Gore rallies were totally different. Gore was screaming, nearly at the top of his lungs. None of the wooden, passion-less Gore. The crowds were going absolutely wild.
There was an obvious contrast. I note that Gore was in Tennessee and Florida on the day I watched.
I've been watching McCain and Obama rallies the last couple of days.
The McCain rally I'm watching right this instant (2:45 p.m. Sunday) in Scranton Pennsylvania, is typical. I can't tell how big the crowd is, but it is loud. Raucous and boisterous. McCain, who looked a bit tired yesterday (can you blame him?) is as awake and alert right now as it is possible to be. It is, in short, an awfully successful rally.
McCain trips over more words than Bush, let alone Gore, double let alone Obama. The English language is not McCain's very very best friend.
The Obama rallies I have seen, on the other hand, have been hugely attended, but not really loud. In fact, like the rally I attended a few weeks back in Philadelphia, the applause was almost polite, as opposed to raucous. Obama was more lively then I had seen him on tv, but not nearly as energized as McCain is. Of course, that's Obama's personality, to be understated. McCain varies between calm-ish/sarcastic, to the new "fighter" personae, which is highly, highly energized.
I'm not saying that the personality of a rally is a predictor of the upcoming vote, but it could conceivably be. The rallies I have seen for McCain in Pennsylvania have been hugely energized. Worth a note.
No reason to panic about Obama.
There are myths circulating out there about the inevitability of a major shift in favor of McCain in the next few days. Well, they're just not true.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9608
There are myths circulating out there about the inevitability of a major shift in favor of McCain in the next few days. Well, they're just not true.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9608
Predicting the popular vote, Take III
Here are the cliff notes:
My Final popular vote prediction:
Obama 53.8%
McCain 45.2%
Other 1%
That's Obama by 8.6%.
I'm going to take a different approach in trying to figure out the percentage margin by which Obama will beat McCain (and yes, Obama's winning the popular vote is a done deal barring (a) a truly massive racism effect, as yet completely unseen; or (b) a gigantic game changing event.
I am, for simplicity, ignoring third party candidates. Since they will in any event receive around 1% of the total vote, I'm not making any great mistake by ignoring them.
Let's start with 2004 numbers. According to CNN, in 2004, democrats and republicans were both 37% of the vote, with independents making up the remaining 26%.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
Kerry received 89% of the votes cast by registered democrats, Bush received 93% of the registered republican vote, and independents were split almost evenly, Kerry leading 49-48. These numbers don't quite add up to the Bush 3-point popular vote win, because they are polls rather than hard numbers, and error creeps in, but they point the way. Independents were close, but Bush got more of the registered GOP vote than Kerry did the registered democratic vote.
The key fact for purposes of predicting the 2008 election is that people registered as democrats and republicans turned out in almost exactly equal numbers. Put another way, the electorate was made up of essentially identical numbers of democrats and republicans. And, as you can see by the above numbers, the partisan makeup of the electorate is very important. Trying to guess the percentage at which these newly registered voters will vote for the candidate of their party registration is a fools errand, but its a safe guess that a very high percentage of the newly registered democrats will be voting for Obama, while a fairly high-very high percentage of the newly registered Republicans will be voting for McCain. The problem for McCain is that there were a lot more democratic registrations this year than Republican.
One of the two $64,000 questions in predicting the popular vote in the 2008 presidential election (along with racism) is what the partisan breakdown will be.
Here is one article on this issue.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420151553142939.html
Each pollster essentially guesses what the party breakdown will be when all the votes are cast. Rasmussen apparently assumes 39.3% democrats, and 33% Republicans. In contrast, Zogby has it at 38% democrats and 36% Republicans. As a random example, the recent Washington Post poll which showed a 53-44 Obama lead, showed that 38% of the people polled thought of themselves as democrat, 29% Republican and 29% independent. Of the remaining people, the lean towards democrat vs. Republican was 50-50. Now how you think of yourself isn't the same as what party you're registered as, but its a decent proxy. A recent CBS national poll, showing a monster 13 point Obama lead, weighted their poll so as to capture a predicted electorate that would be 40.8% democratic, 27.6% Republican, and 31.6% independent, if I am reading their poll correctly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Oct08g-Saturday.pdf
Scroll all the way to the bottom.
Now if I'm reading this right, and I really think I am, the CBS poll is just horse crap. Most people are predicting an electorate that is 4-8 points more democrat than Republican. 8 seems like a HUGE lot to me. The weighted portion of the CBS poll is predicated on 13-point partisan lead of D over R, which is out and out insane.
Now perhaps you can see why the polls showing Obama up nearly double digits aren't any good. If the registered party breakdown of actual voters ends up favoring the democrats by 10 points, I'll eat my hat. It will be closer, possibly much closer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_110108.html
To show how significant a difference the party breakdown makes, if the dem, GOP and indy vote percentages stay the same as in 2004, but 39.3% of the electorate is democrat, 33% Republican and 27.7% are independents, as Rasmussen assumes, Obama wins the popular vote with 50.53 % of the vote. If you assume a 10-point democratic party lead, say 42-32, with 26% indys, then Obama receives 52% of the popular vote. If you assume that Obama gets 2 % more democrats than McCain gets Republicans (not insane) and that Obama wins independents by 8 (quite likely imo), then Obama gets 55.7% of the popular vote, and you have a landslide.
As for independent voters, because unlikely Kerry who tied with Independent voters, Obama has consistently polled ahead of McCain among independents. In the most recent polls, Gallup has Obama up by 5 among indys, Zogby (in a tracking poll quite favorable to McCain) has Obama up by 6 points among independents, the recent IBD poll has Obama up by 8 points among independents, a Fox News poll, otherwise favorable to McCain (Obama was up only 3 points) had independents favoring Obama by 5 points.
Most of these polls had Obama getting around 89% of democrats, and McCain getting around 87-88% of republicans (it is close).
So here's a single attempt at a prediction rather than an example. Using the above-mentioned Rasmussen estimates of the 2008 electorate (39.3% of the electorate is democrat, 33% Republican and 27.7% are independents, which sounds plausible), and assuming Obama gets 89% of democrats, McCain gets 87% of Republicans, and Obama gets 54% of independents, Obama would receive 54.19% of the vote. Taking out some votes for the 3rd party candidate, I am now predicting Obama receives 53.8% of the popular vote, McCain 45.2%, for an 8.6% win. My predictions cannot possibly be as precise as I am presenting them, I am merely "showing the work."
In reality, a 53.8-45.2% win for Obama is (a) not that unlikely, though it beats all of the reasonable polls; (b) allows for the greater enthusiasm for Obama to show through, both in the significantly greater number of democrats than republicans voting, and a slightly higher percentage of democrats voting for obama than Republicans for McCain (this is dicey given the large number of democrats in the south that will NOT be voting Obama). Just FYI, if you give McCain 89% of the GOP vote instead of 87, so that dems vote for Obama in exactly the proportion that Repubs vote for McCain, you only subtract .6% off of Obama's vote (and add it to McCain) resulting in a 7.4% win for Obama.
Final popular vote prediction:
Obama 53.8%
McCain 45.2%
Other 1%
I could be wrong by an embarrassingly large amount here, as could the pollsters. The states seem to be pretty easy to predict, the popular vote not so much.
Here are the cliff notes:
My Final popular vote prediction:
Obama 53.8%
McCain 45.2%
Other 1%
That's Obama by 8.6%.
I'm going to take a different approach in trying to figure out the percentage margin by which Obama will beat McCain (and yes, Obama's winning the popular vote is a done deal barring (a) a truly massive racism effect, as yet completely unseen; or (b) a gigantic game changing event.
I am, for simplicity, ignoring third party candidates. Since they will in any event receive around 1% of the total vote, I'm not making any great mistake by ignoring them.
Let's start with 2004 numbers. According to CNN, in 2004, democrats and republicans were both 37% of the vote, with independents making up the remaining 26%.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/
Kerry received 89% of the votes cast by registered democrats, Bush received 93% of the registered republican vote, and independents were split almost evenly, Kerry leading 49-48. These numbers don't quite add up to the Bush 3-point popular vote win, because they are polls rather than hard numbers, and error creeps in, but they point the way. Independents were close, but Bush got more of the registered GOP vote than Kerry did the registered democratic vote.
The key fact for purposes of predicting the 2008 election is that people registered as democrats and republicans turned out in almost exactly equal numbers. Put another way, the electorate was made up of essentially identical numbers of democrats and republicans. And, as you can see by the above numbers, the partisan makeup of the electorate is very important. Trying to guess the percentage at which these newly registered voters will vote for the candidate of their party registration is a fools errand, but its a safe guess that a very high percentage of the newly registered democrats will be voting for Obama, while a fairly high-very high percentage of the newly registered Republicans will be voting for McCain. The problem for McCain is that there were a lot more democratic registrations this year than Republican.
One of the two $64,000 questions in predicting the popular vote in the 2008 presidential election (along with racism) is what the partisan breakdown will be.
Here is one article on this issue.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420151553142939.html
Each pollster essentially guesses what the party breakdown will be when all the votes are cast. Rasmussen apparently assumes 39.3% democrats, and 33% Republicans. In contrast, Zogby has it at 38% democrats and 36% Republicans. As a random example, the recent Washington Post poll which showed a 53-44 Obama lead, showed that 38% of the people polled thought of themselves as democrat, 29% Republican and 29% independent. Of the remaining people, the lean towards democrat vs. Republican was 50-50. Now how you think of yourself isn't the same as what party you're registered as, but its a decent proxy. A recent CBS national poll, showing a monster 13 point Obama lead, weighted their poll so as to capture a predicted electorate that would be 40.8% democratic, 27.6% Republican, and 31.6% independent, if I am reading their poll correctly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Oct08g-Saturday.pdf
Scroll all the way to the bottom.
Now if I'm reading this right, and I really think I am, the CBS poll is just horse crap. Most people are predicting an electorate that is 4-8 points more democrat than Republican. 8 seems like a HUGE lot to me. The weighted portion of the CBS poll is predicated on 13-point partisan lead of D over R, which is out and out insane.
Now perhaps you can see why the polls showing Obama up nearly double digits aren't any good. If the registered party breakdown of actual voters ends up favoring the democrats by 10 points, I'll eat my hat. It will be closer, possibly much closer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_110108.html
To show how significant a difference the party breakdown makes, if the dem, GOP and indy vote percentages stay the same as in 2004, but 39.3% of the electorate is democrat, 33% Republican and 27.7% are independents, as Rasmussen assumes, Obama wins the popular vote with 50.53 % of the vote. If you assume a 10-point democratic party lead, say 42-32, with 26% indys, then Obama receives 52% of the popular vote. If you assume that Obama gets 2 % more democrats than McCain gets Republicans (not insane) and that Obama wins independents by 8 (quite likely imo), then Obama gets 55.7% of the popular vote, and you have a landslide.
As for independent voters, because unlikely Kerry who tied with Independent voters, Obama has consistently polled ahead of McCain among independents. In the most recent polls, Gallup has Obama up by 5 among indys, Zogby (in a tracking poll quite favorable to McCain) has Obama up by 6 points among independents, the recent IBD poll has Obama up by 8 points among independents, a Fox News poll, otherwise favorable to McCain (Obama was up only 3 points) had independents favoring Obama by 5 points.
Most of these polls had Obama getting around 89% of democrats, and McCain getting around 87-88% of republicans (it is close).
So here's a single attempt at a prediction rather than an example. Using the above-mentioned Rasmussen estimates of the 2008 electorate (39.3% of the electorate is democrat, 33% Republican and 27.7% are independents, which sounds plausible), and assuming Obama gets 89% of democrats, McCain gets 87% of Republicans, and Obama gets 54% of independents, Obama would receive 54.19% of the vote. Taking out some votes for the 3rd party candidate, I am now predicting Obama receives 53.8% of the popular vote, McCain 45.2%, for an 8.6% win. My predictions cannot possibly be as precise as I am presenting them, I am merely "showing the work."
In reality, a 53.8-45.2% win for Obama is (a) not that unlikely, though it beats all of the reasonable polls; (b) allows for the greater enthusiasm for Obama to show through, both in the significantly greater number of democrats than republicans voting, and a slightly higher percentage of democrats voting for obama than Republicans for McCain (this is dicey given the large number of democrats in the south that will NOT be voting Obama). Just FYI, if you give McCain 89% of the GOP vote instead of 87, so that dems vote for Obama in exactly the proportion that Repubs vote for McCain, you only subtract .6% off of Obama's vote (and add it to McCain) resulting in a 7.4% win for Obama.
Final popular vote prediction:
Obama 53.8%
McCain 45.2%
Other 1%
I could be wrong by an embarrassingly large amount here, as could the pollsters. The states seem to be pretty easy to predict, the popular vote not so much.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Where does the election stand as of Sunday November 2?
Various Pennsylvania politicians, prominently including democratic Governor Ed Rendell, have been screaming for weeks that the polls showing Obama up double digits were not realistic and the race was much closer than that. Well, now the pollsters agree. Again working backwards, the most recent polls in Pennsylvania (21 evs) have Obama up 6, 4, 8, 5, 4, 7, 14 and 9. This is noticeably tighter than the double digits that prevailed 2 weeks ago, but still don't leave McCain with much chance of painting the state red. Given the amount of polling in Pa, even if there is a race effect, it would be a stunning upset for McCain consistently down mid-high single digits to pull out Pa.
In 27 ev Florida, where early voting is well underway and long lines have been reported for early voting, Obama has been up 4, 2, 7, 4, 4 and 4 points in the recent polls. A consistent, but very narrow lead. Whatever the real state of the race was has been partially locked in by the enormous early voting numbers. In any event, Florida has if anything widened very slightly in Obama's favor, although that could easily be statistical noise. Florida is (a) very close; and (b) static in the polls.
In 20 ev Ohio, Obama is up 5.5 points on average, and the polls have been very static despite a frenzy of campaigning by McCain, Palin, and various GOP surrogates. No tightening here.
In critical 13 ev Virginia, Obama is up an average of 6. Virginia polls appear to have tightened a point or two in the last week, but is still favoring Obama. McCain hasn't led a single Va poll since October 1. Since then Obama has led 22 polls in a row. Its close enough that there is some chance it could swing to McCain, but it doesn't appear likely.
In 15 ev North Carolina, still hotly contested despite being quite red in recent years (Clinton didn't win it either time), the race is very tight, within 2 points. It has been for several weeks. No tightening at all.
In 11 ev Missouri, the polls have definitely moved in McCain's favor, as traditional GOP voters come home. In the parts of the state where the state name is pronounced Missour-ah, McCain has surged. In the parts of the state where the name may be pronounced Missour-ee, Obama is still extremely strong. Missouri does not have early voting, so this may be a state that has swung from blue to red in the last week. It was always a state that Obama would only win in a landslide.
In 9 ev Colorado, Obama is up an average of 6 points, as he has been for weeks. This 6-point margin is probably baked in the cake due to the breathtaking, record-setting early voting numbers. McCain hasn't visited Colorado (or Nevada or New Mexico) in ages, and the GOP cut their ad buy there. There has not been any tightening here, and the race appears over.
Meanwhile, in McCain's 10 ev home state of Arizona, the two most recent polls have McCain up only 1 and 4 points, respectively. Similarly, in 15 ev Georgia, McCain was up only 3 and 5 points in recent polls. Now Obama will not win either of these absent a landslide, but if the polls are basically correct, Obama has nearly the same chance of winning Arizona or Georgia as McCain has of winning Pennsylvania. Or Virginia or Colorado. All of these states are about as far from tied as the other, give or take.
Which is a fancy way of saying that even if the race has tightened a little, and it may have, it has not tightened in any way in which you could say that McCain's chances of actually winning are anything other than a huge long shot.
Many news reports, and not just on Fox, are, THE RACE IS TIGHTENING, THE RACE IS TIGHTENING!! MCCAIN IS SURGING! Both campaigns have it in their interest to have that as the storyline. Obama is terrified of complacency, and McCain of defeatism. So both sides are happy with that storyline. If one actually looks at the polls, however, although there is a tiny bit of tightening at the national polls, real tightening in one big state, Pennsylvania, and a little tightening in some of the red states leaning towards Obama, the race itself has not tightened materially, and Obama is still a gigantic favorite to win.
Regarding the national polls, working from the most recent polls backwards, the national polls all favor Obama. By: 5, 10, 5, 7, 13 (questionable methodology), 9, 5, 4, 7, 3 (godawful methodology, Fox really blew this poll). This averages out to an Obama 6.8 point lead. With one bad poll in each direction, its a fair average. There are still undecideds in these polls, and they seem highly likely to me to break somewhat for McCain. The average is about 51-44. If the 5 point undecideds break 3-2 McCain (which sounds right to me), that would leave Obama as the 53-47 6-point leader.
Thus, if the national polls are to be believed, my 9-point margin of victory for Obama is unlikely. Not completely out the window, but unlikely. I'm not ready to throw in the towel on that one yet, but it does look like a long shot. Besides, I can't make 5 different sets of predictions and then claim credit for the one that just happens to come true.
As for the Swing states, the McCain campaign has put an absolutely huge effort into Pennsylvania over the last week, and it has definitely tightened. (I note that there is no early voting in Pennsylvania, so McCain has every chance for the tighter race to be reflected in the final vote tally).Various Pennsylvania politicians, prominently including democratic Governor Ed Rendell, have been screaming for weeks that the polls showing Obama up double digits were not realistic and the race was much closer than that. Well, now the pollsters agree. Again working backwards, the most recent polls in Pennsylvania (21 evs) have Obama up 6, 4, 8, 5, 4, 7, 14 and 9. This is noticeably tighter than the double digits that prevailed 2 weeks ago, but still don't leave McCain with much chance of painting the state red. Given the amount of polling in Pa, even if there is a race effect, it would be a stunning upset for McCain consistently down mid-high single digits to pull out Pa.
In 27 ev Florida, where early voting is well underway and long lines have been reported for early voting, Obama has been up 4, 2, 7, 4, 4 and 4 points in the recent polls. A consistent, but very narrow lead. Whatever the real state of the race was has been partially locked in by the enormous early voting numbers. In any event, Florida has if anything widened very slightly in Obama's favor, although that could easily be statistical noise. Florida is (a) very close; and (b) static in the polls.
In 20 ev Ohio, Obama is up 5.5 points on average, and the polls have been very static despite a frenzy of campaigning by McCain, Palin, and various GOP surrogates. No tightening here.
In critical 13 ev Virginia, Obama is up an average of 6. Virginia polls appear to have tightened a point or two in the last week, but is still favoring Obama. McCain hasn't led a single Va poll since October 1. Since then Obama has led 22 polls in a row. Its close enough that there is some chance it could swing to McCain, but it doesn't appear likely.
In 15 ev North Carolina, still hotly contested despite being quite red in recent years (Clinton didn't win it either time), the race is very tight, within 2 points. It has been for several weeks. No tightening at all.
In 11 ev Missouri, the polls have definitely moved in McCain's favor, as traditional GOP voters come home. In the parts of the state where the state name is pronounced Missour-ah, McCain has surged. In the parts of the state where the name may be pronounced Missour-ee, Obama is still extremely strong. Missouri does not have early voting, so this may be a state that has swung from blue to red in the last week. It was always a state that Obama would only win in a landslide.
In 9 ev Colorado, Obama is up an average of 6 points, as he has been for weeks. This 6-point margin is probably baked in the cake due to the breathtaking, record-setting early voting numbers. McCain hasn't visited Colorado (or Nevada or New Mexico) in ages, and the GOP cut their ad buy there. There has not been any tightening here, and the race appears over.
Meanwhile, in McCain's 10 ev home state of Arizona, the two most recent polls have McCain up only 1 and 4 points, respectively. Similarly, in 15 ev Georgia, McCain was up only 3 and 5 points in recent polls. Now Obama will not win either of these absent a landslide, but if the polls are basically correct, Obama has nearly the same chance of winning Arizona or Georgia as McCain has of winning Pennsylvania. Or Virginia or Colorado. All of these states are about as far from tied as the other, give or take.
Which is a fancy way of saying that even if the race has tightened a little, and it may have, it has not tightened in any way in which you could say that McCain's chances of actually winning are anything other than a huge long shot.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The fed should leave interest rates unchanged tomorrow.
There is a lot of talk in the markets that the fed will again cut interest rates tomorrow. I strongly think the fed should stand pat. The Federal Funds rate is currently at 1.5 %, so there really isn't much room to cut. I think it would be far far better for the fed to keep rates unchanged so there is room to make additional cuts if warranted, or if needed to respond to a future new crisis.
There is already a ton of monetary stimulus in the pipeline, from past interest rate cuts, and a fair bit of additional stimulus in the form of the various bail outs. The drastic drop in oil (and thus gas) prices also acts as a real economic stimulus. There is a lot of talk in Congress of another fiscal stimulus package, which I strongly favor. But the fed should hold off.
The markets, however, are nearly certain that the fed will cut rates by half a point or more. That is what I predict, but I would dissent if I had a vote on the Federal Open Market Committee.
There is a lot of talk in the markets that the fed will again cut interest rates tomorrow. I strongly think the fed should stand pat. The Federal Funds rate is currently at 1.5 %, so there really isn't much room to cut. I think it would be far far better for the fed to keep rates unchanged so there is room to make additional cuts if warranted, or if needed to respond to a future new crisis.
There is already a ton of monetary stimulus in the pipeline, from past interest rate cuts, and a fair bit of additional stimulus in the form of the various bail outs. The drastic drop in oil (and thus gas) prices also acts as a real economic stimulus. There is a lot of talk in Congress of another fiscal stimulus package, which I strongly favor. But the fed should hold off.
The markets, however, are nearly certain that the fed will cut rates by half a point or more. That is what I predict, but I would dissent if I had a vote on the Federal Open Market Committee.
Huge polling day for Obama.
As we wind into the home stretch of this campaign, which began when Hillary announced for President just 6 months after President Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, the talking points of the GOP, and many a pundit is, "the race is closing, the race is closing, THE RACE IS CLOSING. It isn't.
There were a bunch of national polls, counting tracking polls (polls which are continuously taken, and the previous 3-days' results released) released today. 9 of them. Obama is up an average of approximately 6 points. One of them, by Pew, had Obama by 15. That's so out of reach of the other polls, that I discounted it to 12 (I was probably being generous to Obama there). Anyway, the national polls may have tightened about 1 point in the last 3-4 days. Then maybe not. The margins are all about the same.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
So the national polls were "favorable" to Obama only insofar as they confirmed his lead. Nothing changed.
The state polls, however, were generally favorable. Even where the polls were favorable to McCain, they were in states where the predicted electoral votes were most most unlikely to shift. By this I mean that if Texas moves from McCain + 10 to McCain + 17, that's a good poll for McCain but it doesn't matter. Ditto New York going from Obama + 26 to Obama + 17.
Arkansas: McCain + 10. Irrelevant, but a "good" poll for Obama.
Colorado: Obama + 8.
Florida: Obama + 7 (McCain has closed near to even in the Sunshine state, so this actually has real significance)
Indiana: Obama + 1 (Indiana is a tough get, so + 1 is reasonably good. Not great, but good).
Mississippi: McCain + 8. Ok, that's a good # for McCain. Although McCain is hugely likely to win Mississisppi, the margin of victory in the presidential race may decide one of the two Senate races, where the democrat needs a massive Obama turnout to win.
Montana: McCain + 4. This is a great result for Obama, making Montana in play in a landslide. It doesn't matter of course, Obama is terribly terribly unlikely to win narrowly and carry Montana.
Nevada: Obama + 4, + 10. Two polls, one good, one absolutely fantastic.
New Hampshire: Obama + 11, Obama + 25. Two polls, one very very good, one hugely outlying. Still, the fact that there have been no polls in competitive red states (Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri) showing McCain way way up, is telling to me. Obama is very very likely to win New Hampshire, but 25 points is laughable.
New Jersey: Obama + 15. Sounds huge, but that's about right for New Jersey. Actually very mildly disappointing.
North Carolina: TIE. A good result for McCain, most recent polls have shown Obama narrowly ahead in the Tar Heel state.
Ohio: Two polls: Obama + 4, Obama + 9. One good poll, one great poll.
There have been 28 polls in Ohio in October. McCain has led in 5 of them, by 3, 2, 2, 1 and 1. Obama has led in 22 of them (one tie), by an average of 5.9 points. He has led in each of the last 7 polls, by an average of 6 points. That's a big body of polling and it clearly (not decisively, but clearly) favors Obama.
Pennsylvania: two polls: Obama + 7, Obama + 9. Excellent results for McCain, but only compared to past results. In this now must win state for McCain, where he has spent probably the most resources in the last two weeks (yes, more than Florida or Ohio), Obama has led every poll in Pennsylvania since a tie released on September 17. That's 27 polls in a row, with 11 of them in double digits. So these results, though good news for McCain, almost certainly won't make Pennsylvania remotely competitive. Having said that, it does appear that McCain's huge effort in Pennsylvania has had some results in closing the state a little bit.
Wisconsin: Obama + 9. The second straight sub-double digit lead for Obama in Wisconsin. McCain hasn't led a poll in Wisconsin since May. Not a one.
As we wind into the home stretch of this campaign, which began when Hillary announced for President just 6 months after President Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, the talking points of the GOP, and many a pundit is, "the race is closing, the race is closing, THE RACE IS CLOSING. It isn't.
There were a bunch of national polls, counting tracking polls (polls which are continuously taken, and the previous 3-days' results released) released today. 9 of them. Obama is up an average of approximately 6 points. One of them, by Pew, had Obama by 15. That's so out of reach of the other polls, that I discounted it to 12 (I was probably being generous to Obama there). Anyway, the national polls may have tightened about 1 point in the last 3-4 days. Then maybe not. The margins are all about the same.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
So the national polls were "favorable" to Obama only insofar as they confirmed his lead. Nothing changed.
The state polls, however, were generally favorable. Even where the polls were favorable to McCain, they were in states where the predicted electoral votes were most most unlikely to shift. By this I mean that if Texas moves from McCain + 10 to McCain + 17, that's a good poll for McCain but it doesn't matter. Ditto New York going from Obama + 26 to Obama + 17.
Arkansas: McCain + 10. Irrelevant, but a "good" poll for Obama.
Colorado: Obama + 8.
Florida: Obama + 7 (McCain has closed near to even in the Sunshine state, so this actually has real significance)
Indiana: Obama + 1 (Indiana is a tough get, so + 1 is reasonably good. Not great, but good).
Mississippi: McCain + 8. Ok, that's a good # for McCain. Although McCain is hugely likely to win Mississisppi, the margin of victory in the presidential race may decide one of the two Senate races, where the democrat needs a massive Obama turnout to win.
Montana: McCain + 4. This is a great result for Obama, making Montana in play in a landslide. It doesn't matter of course, Obama is terribly terribly unlikely to win narrowly and carry Montana.
Nevada: Obama + 4, + 10. Two polls, one good, one absolutely fantastic.
New Hampshire: Obama + 11, Obama + 25. Two polls, one very very good, one hugely outlying. Still, the fact that there have been no polls in competitive red states (Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri) showing McCain way way up, is telling to me. Obama is very very likely to win New Hampshire, but 25 points is laughable.
New Jersey: Obama + 15. Sounds huge, but that's about right for New Jersey. Actually very mildly disappointing.
North Carolina: TIE. A good result for McCain, most recent polls have shown Obama narrowly ahead in the Tar Heel state.
Ohio: Two polls: Obama + 4, Obama + 9. One good poll, one great poll.
There have been 28 polls in Ohio in October. McCain has led in 5 of them, by 3, 2, 2, 1 and 1. Obama has led in 22 of them (one tie), by an average of 5.9 points. He has led in each of the last 7 polls, by an average of 6 points. That's a big body of polling and it clearly (not decisively, but clearly) favors Obama.
Pennsylvania: two polls: Obama + 7, Obama + 9. Excellent results for McCain, but only compared to past results. In this now must win state for McCain, where he has spent probably the most resources in the last two weeks (yes, more than Florida or Ohio), Obama has led every poll in Pennsylvania since a tie released on September 17. That's 27 polls in a row, with 11 of them in double digits. So these results, though good news for McCain, almost certainly won't make Pennsylvania remotely competitive. Having said that, it does appear that McCain's huge effort in Pennsylvania has had some results in closing the state a little bit.
Wisconsin: Obama + 9. The second straight sub-double digit lead for Obama in Wisconsin. McCain hasn't led a poll in Wisconsin since May. Not a one.
The coming Republican crack-up.
Republicans all across the land are forming a circular firing squad, as they prepare to do what democrats normally do, and destroy their own. Its very real, its going to happen, and it WILL be pretty. Indeed, it will be a beautiful thing to watch.
The second most important reason I want Obama to win (behind only health care reform) is to encourage this very crack-up in the GOP. For too long the GOP has lost touch with reality and common sense, as Andrew has been beating into me for years. A big old fashion out-behind-the-woodshed whooping is just what the doctor ordered to get the party to rethink its principles.
There are many causes for the coming crack-up, but needless to say they center around the likelihood of McCain losing next week, and the magnitude of the likely upcoming GOP losses in both houses of Congress.
First, many Republicans are furious with the scatter shot nature of the McCain campaign.
One week the focus is on Obama's "shady" connections with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Despite Sarah Palin saying, and I quote, that Obama "pals around with terrorists," McCain has ruled off limits his 20-year long very real association with Reverend Wright. This bizarre decision has infuriated many Republicans (and rightfully so-- if you're going to do personal attacks, why do largely weak and ineffective ones and decline, presumably based on principle, to do the actually effective attacks?) After all, Obama had very little association with Bill Ayers, serving on some boards with him. In contrast, he undeniably had a long and close association with Reverend Wright. Wright married him and Michelle and baptised his kids! The baffling decision to leave Wright off limits has puzzled and infuriated Republicans.
The next week the emphasis is on McCain the "fighter." He fought and suffered in Vietnam, and he'll fight for you.
The next week Obama is young and inexperienced and untested. McCain is none of these things.
Now we've entered the Joe the Plumber phase of the campaign, where Obama has a secret plan to raise taxes on patriotic Americans (who of course live in red states, or red areas of blue or purple states, and emphatically NOT in blue areas of blue states). A lot of the emphasis now is on taxes. Not a bad theme for Republicans, keep lying through their teeth about taxes, its worked from them for years.
Nevertheless, it has been a theme of the week campaign.
In addition, there have been some strange resource allocation decisions. McCain made a big early effort for Michigan, then pulled out. I vigorously disagreed with this decision (from McCain's perspective) at the time, as I thought Michigan was the easiest state to flip from the ones Kerry won, and has 17 electoral votes.
The really insane decision was to keep competing in Iowa, where McCain has never led a single poll, in part because of his opposition to ethanol subsidies. I have commented on this before and have nothing new to add-- they are still spending precious time, and fairly precious money (if little money) on Iowa, which they not only won't win, but won't come within 10 points of winning.
In contrast, Obama has stayed vigorously on message:
a) Bush sucks;
b) McCain agrees with Bush on many areas;
c) I'll cut taxes on 95% of Americans;
d) I'll raise taxes on those over 200k or 250k.
There's been more to Obama's campaign, but by and large this has been the main theme since July. They have not shifted emphasis over and over again.
In any event, the great GOP-crack-up has begun. It had its clearest manifestation when Elizabeth Dole, incumbent Senator from North Carolina, ran an an in her Senate race strongly implying that Obama will win.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/23/gops-argument-dont-give-president-obama-a-blank-check/In this ad, Republican Liddy Dole says that if the democrat wins they will hold the White House and Congress, and thus get a blank check. Its a perfectly fair ad.
Needless to say, this is something which can't possibly please the McCain campaign. Now imho, McCain doesn't give a rat's ass about the GOP in Congress, and wouldn't really if he was winning! Still, party discipline is supposed to forbid these things. There's an old saying in politics, that Republicans generally take very seriously: you either hang together or hang separately. But individual Republicans right now are scurrying like scared children from what they perceive as the sky falling all around them.
In fact, The pre-obituaries have begun. A major article in the New York Times this past Sunday showed all of the different McCain messages during his campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?scp=1&sq=%22Robert%20Draper%22&st=cseSimilarly, David Frum wrote a piece in the Washington Post stating that McCain's lousy campaign has had awful consequences down ballot (Senate and House races).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302081.html
In summary, as Politico put it, the GOP has formed a circular firing squad, with everyone blaming someone else.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Insane early voting turnout in North Carolina.
According to the main Charlotte, North Carolina newspaper, as of Sunday October 26th, nearly 1.1 million people have voted early, as compared to 984,000 early votes during the entire early voting period in 2004. Not the comparable period, the entire period.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/politics/story/280450.html
Now this isn't really surprising. In 2004, North Carolina was not a swing state at all, it was safely in Bush's column. In contrast, and to the surprise of nearly everyone who follows these things, the polls in North Carolina are almost dead even, and it has been hotly contested, with visits from all 4 people on the tickets.
Still, that is quite the increase. Of the early voters thus far, 58% are registered democrats, while 25% are registered Republicans. So clearly registered democrats are much more enthusiastic than Republicans. However, North Carolina does have many more registered democrats than Republicans. I estimate based on looking at January 2008 figures that the NC electorate is 48% democratic, 32% Republican, and 20 percent other. So the 58% number is far less stunning than it first appears. Still, its there.
In addition, as you might expect, black voters have disproportionately voted early. Approximately 28% of early voters as of now are black, even though they are just 21% of North Carolina's population and were 19% of North Carolina's electorate in 2004. That 19% number will certainly climb for 2008. It is precisely that increase which gives Obama hope in North Carolina, and may spell doom for Senator Liddy Dole (Bob's wife) who is in real trouble in her reelection bid.
According to the main Charlotte, North Carolina newspaper, as of Sunday October 26th, nearly 1.1 million people have voted early, as compared to 984,000 early votes during the entire early voting period in 2004. Not the comparable period, the entire period.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/politics/story/280450.html
Now this isn't really surprising. In 2004, North Carolina was not a swing state at all, it was safely in Bush's column. In contrast, and to the surprise of nearly everyone who follows these things, the polls in North Carolina are almost dead even, and it has been hotly contested, with visits from all 4 people on the tickets.
Still, that is quite the increase. Of the early voters thus far, 58% are registered democrats, while 25% are registered Republicans. So clearly registered democrats are much more enthusiastic than Republicans. However, North Carolina does have many more registered democrats than Republicans. I estimate based on looking at January 2008 figures that the NC electorate is 48% democratic, 32% Republican, and 20 percent other. So the 58% number is far less stunning than it first appears. Still, its there.
In addition, as you might expect, black voters have disproportionately voted early. Approximately 28% of early voters as of now are black, even though they are just 21% of North Carolina's population and were 19% of North Carolina's electorate in 2004. That 19% number will certainly climb for 2008. It is precisely that increase which gives Obama hope in North Carolina, and may spell doom for Senator Liddy Dole (Bob's wife) who is in real trouble in her reelection bid.
Palin's a hockey mom?
There have been any number of stories recently about the fact that more than $150,000 have been spent on Palin's wardrobe. More interestingly, the highest paid person in the McCain campaign over the first two weeks of October was Palin's makeup artist, who received $22,800 for the first two weeks of October.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/10/24/palin_makeup/index.html
Now millions of Americans, including loyal reader and commenter Larry in California are particularly fond of the idea that Obama is an elitist while Palin and (7-house) McCain are ordinary "real" Americans. Now ordinary Americans don't spend $22,800 in 2 weeks on makeup artists. Trust me.
Having said that, apparently some big Republican donors were very unhappy to find out about the enormous clothing expenses. Now if I were a big Republican donor (a truly unlikely state of affairs, believe you me!) there are a million things that would piss me off about Palin. That she's nowhere near smart enough to run for major office, that she's incurious, that she lies all the time, that she divides Americans, that she's killing the McCain campaign. I could go on. But her clothing bill? Nope, that wouldn't upset me one tiny little bit. Sure, its hypocritical, given that she's running as a hockey mom. But a big part of her appeal is her ability to connect, and looking good/looking the part is a part of that, perhaps even more than usual because she's a woman (and attractive at that). She hasn't been in major office long enough to amass an awesome wardrobe, like say Hillary). She needs the kind of clothes that look good and can stand up to the rigors of campaigning.
This is a phony story, except insofar as it reveals the blatant hypocrisy of the entire GOP effort these days. We're for Joe the Plumber, but mysteriously, our plan has ginormous tax cuts for the very wealthy and for big corporations (which are owned primarily by the upper middle class, wealthy and very wealthy).
It does seem like a ton of money, and sure she's hypocritical, but again, would her huge clothing and makeup bills upset me if I were a big GOP donor? Nope.
There have been any number of stories recently about the fact that more than $150,000 have been spent on Palin's wardrobe. More interestingly, the highest paid person in the McCain campaign over the first two weeks of October was Palin's makeup artist, who received $22,800 for the first two weeks of October.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/10/24/palin_makeup/index.html
Now millions of Americans, including loyal reader and commenter Larry in California are particularly fond of the idea that Obama is an elitist while Palin and (7-house) McCain are ordinary "real" Americans. Now ordinary Americans don't spend $22,800 in 2 weeks on makeup artists. Trust me.
Having said that, apparently some big Republican donors were very unhappy to find out about the enormous clothing expenses. Now if I were a big Republican donor (a truly unlikely state of affairs, believe you me!) there are a million things that would piss me off about Palin. That she's nowhere near smart enough to run for major office, that she's incurious, that she lies all the time, that she divides Americans, that she's killing the McCain campaign. I could go on. But her clothing bill? Nope, that wouldn't upset me one tiny little bit. Sure, its hypocritical, given that she's running as a hockey mom. But a big part of her appeal is her ability to connect, and looking good/looking the part is a part of that, perhaps even more than usual because she's a woman (and attractive at that). She hasn't been in major office long enough to amass an awesome wardrobe, like say Hillary). She needs the kind of clothes that look good and can stand up to the rigors of campaigning.
This is a phony story, except insofar as it reveals the blatant hypocrisy of the entire GOP effort these days. We're for Joe the Plumber, but mysteriously, our plan has ginormous tax cuts for the very wealthy and for big corporations (which are owned primarily by the upper middle class, wealthy and very wealthy).
It does seem like a ton of money, and sure she's hypocritical, but again, would her huge clothing and makeup bills upset me if I were a big GOP donor? Nope.
Friday, October 24, 2008
How many votes will Obama and McCain actually get?
I don't mean what percentage of the vote, I mean actual vote totals. I predict Obama will win the popular vote by 9 points, and receive 75.9 million votes, and McCain about 63.3 million. By way of contrast, Bush received 62.04 million votes in 2004, and Kerry received 59.03 million. Here's how I get to this astonishing prediction.
According to someone interviewed by CNN, 213 million people are eligible to vote this year (note, not REGISTERED, eligible to vote).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/early.voting/index.html
I have no reason to disbelieve that number, so I'll go with it.
Turnout was 60% in the 2004 election.
If turnout was the same this year, that would imply that a total of 127.8 million people will vote this time around. This is most unlikely. Turnout will be quite a bit higher. According to the above-linked article the high turnout election of 1960 (Kennedy squeaks by Nixon) had 64% turnout. The CNN article speculated we could beat that number. It wouldn't surprise me if we did. In fact, I predict that we will have a 66 percent turnout, tying the highest mark in American history, which occurred in the 1908 election!
66% of the above-referenced 213 million people yields an expected vote total of 140.6 million!
I have previously predicted an 8-point win by Obama. I now believe that my projected margin of 8 points was too conservative. I am now predicting a 9-point Obama win. Assuming that 3rd party candidates receive 1% of the total vote (its too large a number, but not by a ton and it simplifies things), Obama would win 54-45. 54% of 140.6 million is 75.9 million votes!! (Again, Bush received 62 million and change votes in 2004). I thus predict that Obama will receive 75.9 million or so votes, and McCain will receive approximately 63.3 million.
Obama receiving less than 70 million votes would surprise me considerably, whereas his receiving 80 million votes would surprise me but not shock me.
If this prediction of a high turnout election bears out, Obama will in fact win the 375 electoral votes I predicted recently, and may well win by more than my predicted 9 points. I have drank the Kool-Aid, big-time. Feel free to laugh and criticize if I'm seriously wrong.
I will write up after the election and see how all of my various predictions turned out.
I don't mean what percentage of the vote, I mean actual vote totals. I predict Obama will win the popular vote by 9 points, and receive 75.9 million votes, and McCain about 63.3 million. By way of contrast, Bush received 62.04 million votes in 2004, and Kerry received 59.03 million. Here's how I get to this astonishing prediction.
According to someone interviewed by CNN, 213 million people are eligible to vote this year (note, not REGISTERED, eligible to vote).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/early.voting/index.html
I have no reason to disbelieve that number, so I'll go with it.
Turnout was 60% in the 2004 election.
If turnout was the same this year, that would imply that a total of 127.8 million people will vote this time around. This is most unlikely. Turnout will be quite a bit higher. According to the above-linked article the high turnout election of 1960 (Kennedy squeaks by Nixon) had 64% turnout. The CNN article speculated we could beat that number. It wouldn't surprise me if we did. In fact, I predict that we will have a 66 percent turnout, tying the highest mark in American history, which occurred in the 1908 election!
66% of the above-referenced 213 million people yields an expected vote total of 140.6 million!
I have previously predicted an 8-point win by Obama. I now believe that my projected margin of 8 points was too conservative. I am now predicting a 9-point Obama win. Assuming that 3rd party candidates receive 1% of the total vote (its too large a number, but not by a ton and it simplifies things), Obama would win 54-45. 54% of 140.6 million is 75.9 million votes!! (Again, Bush received 62 million and change votes in 2004). I thus predict that Obama will receive 75.9 million or so votes, and McCain will receive approximately 63.3 million.
Obama receiving less than 70 million votes would surprise me considerably, whereas his receiving 80 million votes would surprise me but not shock me.
If this prediction of a high turnout election bears out, Obama will in fact win the 375 electoral votes I predicted recently, and may well win by more than my predicted 9 points. I have drank the Kool-Aid, big-time. Feel free to laugh and criticize if I'm seriously wrong.
I will write up after the election and see how all of my various predictions turned out.
My still active oil wager with Andrew.
Loyal readers will recall that I recently won my oil wager with Andrew in which I bet him a fancy dinner that oil prices would go below $80/barrel at some point before the end of this decade. Oil is well below $70 as of this writing, and I have now solidly won that wager.
In 2005, Andrew and I made a separate oil wager. Andrew bet me in 2005 that on the date of June 9, 2015 (10-years to the day after we made the bet), that oil will be higher than $75 in 2005 dollars. I have the low side, wagering that (adjusting for inflation) oil will be lower than $75 a barrel.
Well, as of this instant, I'm winning by more than $10 a barrel. I'm not exactly jumping for joy-- as of June I was losing in a rout.
This wager won't be decided until June 9, 2015, so you will all have to stay tuned to see who wins.
Loyal readers will recall that I recently won my oil wager with Andrew in which I bet him a fancy dinner that oil prices would go below $80/barrel at some point before the end of this decade. Oil is well below $70 as of this writing, and I have now solidly won that wager.
In 2005, Andrew and I made a separate oil wager. Andrew bet me in 2005 that on the date of June 9, 2015 (10-years to the day after we made the bet), that oil will be higher than $75 in 2005 dollars. I have the low side, wagering that (adjusting for inflation) oil will be lower than $75 a barrel.
Well, as of this instant, I'm winning by more than $10 a barrel. I'm not exactly jumping for joy-- as of June I was losing in a rout.
This wager won't be decided until June 9, 2015, so you will all have to stay tuned to see who wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
