The Worse The Better

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign there were folks out there who said: "the worse the better". They were very unhappy with Mr. Obama. They were not thrilled by McCain and only the advent of Palin sent even a spark of joy to their political hearts. Their political theory was - if we elect some one really bad the American people will wake up and and we will throw out not only the Democrat bums but the Republican bums as well. It was not my theory. I didn't vote that way. I wrote and wrote that such a strategy even if it worked was a very bad idea.

So far it looks like the strategy is working. We get confirmation of that in this Bill Whittle video for PJTV. However, as I predicted, it is a very bad idea. Which Mr. Whittle also confirms. Watch the video because it is definitely worth the time it takes to get to the punchline.

Update: And in another PJTV video Bill Whittle further confirms my thesis.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Why McCain Picked Palin

Eric Dondero of Libertarian Republican in the comments at Independent Political Report is discussing the 2008 Election. He talks about how Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr was surging in August and then explains why McCain chose Palin.

...why did Bob Barr get only 525,000 votes, versus the 2 to 3 million he was well on his way to garnering?

Two words:

SARAH PALIN!

Ryan Christiano, top staffer for John McCain for President confirmed to me in an email when directly asked 3 months after the campaign ended, that “yes” Sarah Palin was picked largely to appeal to “libertarian voters,” and to ward off Bob Barr.

Recall Barr was polling 5 to 6% in Zogby way up til late August.

So Sarah was very attractive to libertarian leaning voters. And if you believe the numbers she added 4 to 5% to McCain's totals. That is not insignificant.

Look at the numbers for the Presidential race. Obama got just short of 53%. McCain got just shy of 46% of the vote. Now imagine the attitude of The WON if McCain had been down around 41 or 42%. He has been insufferable already. With that kind of difference the Zer∅ would have been impossible.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Fundamentally Sound

Yep. Mr. Obama says that we need to focus on the fundamentally sound parts of the economy.

On Friday, the president called on Americans to keep "focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy." The phrase had a familiar ring. During the heat of the presidential campaign last September, Obama ridiculed rival John McCain when he declared, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Now he tells us.

Leaving It To Obama

Commenter Fritz in a reply to a comment by Edgar at Older Protestant White Guys had this to say about the "leave us alone" crowd in the last election.

Edgar, you state that the "leave us alone" crowd are at fault for Obama's victory. OK. I'm one of the "leave us alone" crowd and, while I did not vote for Obama, I certainly was not going to vote for McCain. As far as I could see, he was much less in favor of leaving me alone than Obama.

Social conservatives have to come up with compelling reasons for those of us who are not social conservatives to, well, put up with them anymore. And it will have to be a damn good reason because I for one am tired of them. I want a small and limited government. Social conservatives want a large and annoying one. And as long as that is true, we had might as well have socialists in charge because, for the most part (i.e. except for gun control), they are less obnoxious.

While I did vote for McCain I can definitely understand the sentiment. In fact if National Defense had not been my prime issue I might have done exactly the same thing. The smugness of social conservatives is a huge turn off for me. As a member of the "leave us alone" crowd I'm tired of it. I'm tired of "we know what is right" as an answer to every challenge of their policies instead of reasoned discussion. And God forbid you hit one of their hot buttons like the Drug War or abortion. They go stark raving loony.

Of course the crowd coming in is no better when it comes to their hot issues and I'm tired of them already. As a commenter pointed out in another post - the only people who generally want to get into government are people who want to do something. In fact they want to do a lot of somethings. All very expensive and producing results the opposite of those claimed. That fits in very well with the first rule of politics. Get elected and once elected betray those who elected you.

You know maybe there is some truth to the old wisdom about the general crookedness of politicians and the low morals of actors. The nice thing about actors though is that you don't have to buy a ticket to the show. With politicians there is no way to opt out. They have a captive audience so to speak.

I have a few words for their kind:

Leave Us Alone

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Republicans Stayed Home

So I'm trying to figure out why the Republicans lost. And I go back to one of the stats guys who misinformed me. Yeah I know. But he is an honest guy and is trying to figure out what his error was. Here is what Paul Marston has to say:

As usual, the media has missed the huge story of this election. Their story is that Obama registered huge masses of new supporters and got them to the polls. At first, that was what I thought, but that is not the key factor. I was expecting the highest percentage turnout in 100 years amounting to 130,000,000 voters, but instead as of 5:00 PM EDT, 121,146,964 people voted for Obama or McCain. In 2004, 121,069,054 people voted for Bush or Kerry. Hence in a hotly contested election in which a fortune was spent on the race, there was no big surge in voter turnout. The population is bigger and the number of registered voters is larger than in 2004, yet just about the same number of people voted. What are we to make of this? We know that a higher than normal percentage of minorities and under 30 youths turned out pushing up the Democratic votes. We know that about 15% of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton voted for McCain-Palin (the PUMA voters). So how are we to explain the results? The conclusion is inescapable. The Republicans stayed home in droves. Obama did not win the election, the Republicans gave it to him by not getting out and voting.

Remember when, before the election, I used to say:

Don't give it to him. Make him steal it.

I guess the Republicans weren't listening. Pity.

Paul goes on to say:

It goes without saying that when the results were widely different from what I predicted, I wanted to know how I could be so wrong. At first I thought it was because the PUMA voters did not turn out and vote for McCain-Palin but they clearly did. Then I thought that it was because Obama got millions of new voters to the polls and simply swamped the PUMA factor.

It was only when the turnout figures became available that I had to discard that theory. If the usual number of people voted yet more Democrats than normal turned out and there a sizable number of PUMA voters voting Republican, how could McCain-Palin have lost? When the results were staring me in the face, I was totally shocked. The smaller turnout meant that even fewer PUMA voters were required in the key states than I had calculated so McCain-Palin should have done even better than I predicted. Naturally my predictions were based on a normal Republican turnout. Who would have ever thought that the Republicans would fail to turn out in this election? While I am still busy trying to wipe the egg of my face, I am also extremely curious as to why so many Republicans stayed home. I imagine that I am not alone in wondering that at this point.

So lets look at some percentages.

"A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to 31.3 percent. It was the seventh straight increase in the Democratic share of the eligible vote since the party’s share dropped to 22.7 percent of eligibles in 1980."

There is a rumor going around that it was the Romney Republicans who stayed home. Is there any evidence of that? Yes there is.

WASHINGTON - For four years, Utah conservatives have proudly proclaimed they lived in the reddest state in the nation.

But no longer.

That mantle now belongs to Oklahoma and Wyoming, where Republican John McCain scored bigger victories in Tuesday's historic election of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

For those of you not keeping up - Utah is a predominately Mormon State and Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

There is even anecdotal evidence relating to the recent attacks on Sarah Palin by former campaign staffers.

There was speculation that the culprits may be former aides to Mitt Romney, positioning their hero for a future presidential run.

I'm sure the Republicans will remember Romney's loyalty when 2012 comes around and respond in kind.

And how about Romney himself? Was he for McCain all the way or did he have reservations?

“And as we face the very real possibility of an Obama presidency, that’s the last thing we need,” writes Romney. “It’s more critical than ever that we have a strong Republican leader to act as a “firewall” against bad legislation, tax increases, and increased spending. And Mitch McConnell has proven he will stand up for us.”

You know, that doesn't sound like the position of some one who wanted a McCain win with all his heart.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

McCain Is Against Coal

You know. That looks to me like a McCain dirty trick. Bringing out the charge with barely enough time for Obama to respond.

Pollsters Need The Anecdote Factor

Sean Malestrom is looking at one of the things the pollsters are missing. The anecdote factor. Why is it important? Because polling is an art not a science. First how about leading indicators. Actual facts on the ground that can be checked.

In my second post about the election, I told you to keep an eye on Iowa for if Obama comes back here, a state he should have locked at this time, he is toast. Well, Obama is back in Iowa which means he is toast. If it is competitive in Iowa (it was very competitive in 2004), that means that McCain is running as well as Bush or better and has FL, CO, IN, NC, OH, NH, and VA all comfortable. McCain going to Maine suggests Obama is performing worse than Kerry or, rather, Obama’s support is ’soft’ among Democrats.

No surprise there. Except to the fans of Obama.

Sean discusses the nature of insanity in the Shrinking Media™.

From my perspective, it has been sheer comedy watching pundits and observers attempt to ‘rationalize’ the candidates’ visits to states the public polls say are not in play. When McCain and Palin hip hop across Pennslyvania, is it because the public polls are wrong? NO! It is because McCain is doing a ‘hail mary’ strategy to launch all efforts on Pennslyvania in order to win it as a last ditch effort to save his campaign. What about Obama visiting Pennslyvania, is it a suggestion the public polls are wrong? NO! It is because Obama is only going there to respond to McCain and clean up whatever mess he makes. What about when McCain went to New Hampshire? Could it be the polls were not the reality on the ground? NO! It is because McCain is senile. So how does this explain Palin going to Iowa which is considered a ‘lock’ to Obama by polling? Could the polls be wrong and that it may be more competitive than we thought? NO! The only possible answer is that Palin had gone completly rouge and is going to Iowa to jumpstart here 2012 presidential campaign (this ‘rationale’ was so hysterical I actually spit coffee on my monitor. The idea of the VP candidate deciding to run off to Iowa to start his/her own presidential campaign is hilarious in itself). But why is Obama going to Iowa then? Could it, possibly, be the polls in that state are more competitive than we think? NOOOO. The reason why Obama is going to Iowa is to make up for his trip to grandma, and as a pitstop before he goes trick-or-treating with his kid (I kid you not! People actually think this). When McCain goes off to Maine, they are going to run out of excuses as they have already used the ‘insane candidate’ one.

Well, it is a little late for Maine. Iowa is good enough for me. More Electoral Votes too.

So what are the analysts missing in the electorate that is making their numbers so crazy? People.

Real political analysts (meaning not hacks or unprofessional pundits), use historical trends, demagraphical data, and other ‘truths’ of past elections. Much of this cannot be translated into a chart or graph. It is a myth that analysis is done via math or graphs or computer models. The original economists, for example, used only words and essays. Political analysis is not about math. Political analysis is about people. To analyze politics, you must be able to analyze people. In other words, the poet and novelist becomes the political analyst, not the mathematician and software engineer. Politics is all about people.

It seems no one is interested in studying ‘people’ anymore. Look at the political analysis currently. There is very little analysis of the current ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, for example, or the person from Pennslyvania or person from Iowa. In fact, there are no people. There are only numbers. Stark, lifeless, numbers. The problem with leveling political analysis to nothing more than a soup of numbers is that it cannot measure intensity. What does intensity have to do with politics? Well, everything. Intense people are those who vote.

OK. We will come back to that subject in a minute (Sean wanders).

How about a look at a poll aggregator that I have on my sidebar. Fivethirtyeighgt.com. What are they all about? Sean says: "FiveThirtyEight Is Propaganda Site Masquerading as a ‘Calculation’ Site". And then he backs up his pronouncement with some observations.

And, for another ‘neutral’ media entity that is actually a player in the Obama campaign strategy of ‘inevitable victory narrative’, is Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.

I was first made aware of FiveThirtyEight when, after explaining to a friend why the probability of Obama losing Pennslyvania is very high, he laughed and said McCain’s chances of winning the election was 5%. I went, “What!? Whoever told you that?” “This website…” I went to the website and, instantly, I could tell it was a hack. Political campaigns are a very uncertain business which can change overnight for one candidate or another. No political scientist would seriously say a candidate has 5% chance to win the election. Maybe if the candidate was a social conservative running in San Francisco or a communist running in Kansas, this might be true. But for a presidential election? No. Not even Mondale was given that percentage. The ‘interviews’ with Dan Rather are raised flags because after 2004, Dan Rather lost all ‘neutral’ status after the forged memo scenario (in 2004, the retiring Dan Rather put up memos from early seventies whose fonts count only have been done in a modern word processor, an obvious forgery). I’ve met Dan Rather personally as he was raised in my area. He is a nice guy. But no network will hire him for news now for the reason of partisanship.

Here are some of the (many) problems with FiveThirtyEight:

-Nate Silver’s ‘news stories’ carefully follow Obama Campaign’s strategy, used both in the primary and now in the general campaign, of inevitable Obama victory (which no political analyst, worth their salt, believes as no election is inevitable), showing pictures of a closed McCain Campaign office and declare “It is all falling apart”, etc. etc.

-Nate Silver says he is busy with real life job and life but when the Zogby poll, that had McCain +1, came out, he responded to it ASAP (and on Halloween night of all times!). Now, I don’t trust Zogby because he was off in 2004. I also know, for a fact, Zogby is contractually obligated to weight more Democrats in his polling (and weeks ago, when the AP showed a close poll, Zogby got ‘angry’ at them). However, Zogby also publicly declared Obama’s declaration of ‘inevitable victory’ ismore about strategy. Nate Silver doesn’t bother to tell his readers why Zogby became famous in the first place. It was because Zogby was the only pollster who picked up on the Gore surge in the 2000 election. This, alone, is why people are listening to Zogby closely now. (I still don’t trust him as he has been all over the place. However, that might had been intentional). The ‘rapidity’ to deconstruct a positive McCain poll obviously should be a flag raiser. Real political scientists never rush to deconstruct or denounce anything.

-There is absolutely no questioning as to why the candidates are going to solid blue areas. In fact, there is strangely no questioning to the polls at all.

-Nate Silver, on his FAQ page, says he incorporates 2000, 2004, and 2006 election returns. What about 2002? In 2002, in a historical upset (President’s party loses seats in the off year election), Republicans performed well and made gains in both the House and Senate. In fact, exit polls were seen as ‘unreliable’ and thrown out that year with only ‘votes’ counted (which is how it should be done anyway). Only after the election did we realize the exit polls were thrown out because the analysts/media couldn’t believe the results.

-Nate Silver bans all internal polling by the reason that internal polls are used to manipulate opinion while public polls are ’scientific’. He has it totally backwards.

OK. There is more. But you get the picture.

OK. Let us get back to the people question.

One of the reasons why Democrats lost the elections of 2002, 2004, and won in 2006 so handily is the appearance (and disappearance) of the phenomenon I refer to as ‘Broken Glass Conservatives’. Conservatives are generally apathetic and have been lately about their candidates. While Bush was a Republican, he was not a conservative. He was conservative on a few things, the things that mattered most to conservatives (foreign policy, judges, taxes), but Bush has no interest in the conservative movement and doesn’t want to ‘lead’ it unlike Reagan. So conservative support for Republican candidates have been very soft (as illustrated in 2006). But if a Democrat or the legacy media (who conservatives believe are the same) insult or attack conservatives or what they believe, the result is ‘broken glass conservatives’ meaning the apathetic, soft Republican (or Democrat) conservative suddenly turns enraged and will literally walk over ‘broken glass’, if need be, to vote. ‘Broken glass conservatives’ phenomenons are all easily prevented if someone had some sense. An example of a ‘broken class conservative’ scenario would be Congressman Murtha (twice) declaring western Pennslyvania as ‘racists’. Remember, Murth’s district is mostly Democrat, and they know about Murtha’s shenanigans (the idea of ‘he’s a crook, but he is OUR crook’). But conservative Democrats took the insult personally and, out of the blue, Murtha’s safe seat suddenly becomes competitive . In 2004, the ‘broken glass conservatives’ were generated by, what conservatives felt, media bias in that veterans who served with Kerry were never had the spotlight shown (which they resorted to their own ads which became the ‘SwiftBoat Ads’) as well as Dan Rather and the forged memos.

In 2008, there are more phenomenons of the ‘Broken Glass Conservatives’ than I have ever seen…

-Conservatives believe the media has been outrageously fawning over Obama and doing everything it can to protect him. This has enraged them even more than in 2004.

-Obama’s comment of people in rural areas were nothing more than ‘bitter clingers’ who cling to guns and religion have caused lingering outrage at him. This comment, alone, is one reason why Pennslyvania turned on him.

-The Bail-Out Bill enraged many and was when conservatives finally abandoned Bush. But Bush is not on the ticket anymore so that doesn’t matter. Rather, the enragement is aimed at Pelosi and Reid, the leaders of the House and Senate.

-Media treatment of Sarah Palin generated many ‘Broken Glass Conservatives’ and even overlapped to the Hillary Clinton supporters.

Of course Sean being thorough has more points. One of them is that Nate has undecideds splitting 50/50. What are the odds of that?

And then comes the Palin factor. The Palin factor is cultural and if you understood America (which the elites currently do not) you would instantly get this.

Palin is representative of something within the American mythos that many outside America may not get. There is a mythos of America of the frontiersmen and women, living in log cabins, going through harsh winters, hunting, surviving through the elements. When Palin was introduced, the photos and her history left many jaws dropped. She grew up in a log cabin, hunted, survived the harsh Alaskan winters, had a large family, and generally appear as if she walked out of a history book on America’s frontier. Palin’s life history matches many American’s grandmothers and great grandmothers. (Camille Paglia, ardent feminist and Obama supporter, admitted as much). Much of the appeal Palin holds is that she is representative of the mythos of the American frontierswoman. I think this is why she keeps being compared to Reagan because Reagan draped his speeches and actions in the American mythos. But she has more in common with the mannerisms and personality of Truman than Reagan.

Anyone who knows anything about analyzing this election knows the reports of Palin ‘dragging down’ the McCain ticket are laughable. It is pretty clear she saved the ticket. The base would not be mobilized or passionate if Palin was not there. When Palin was announced, McCain Campaign could not keep up with the donations coming in. McCain knows he needs her in order for his ticket to win. He knows she pulls largers crowds than he does.

Sean then goes on to discuss the civil war in the Republican Party and what the election of McCain/Palin will mean in terms of winners and losers in that war.

And now let me close with one of the most under reported factors in the race. The PUMA factor.

This election has been the strangest one I have ever seen. It started off with conservatives fearing and despising Hillary Clinton (they’ve always hated her) as she made her climb for the White House. Yet, now, conservatives and Hillary Clinton voters are campaigning side by side. Gay activists for Clinton are campaigning side by side with fundamentalist conservatives against Obama. In Pennslyvania, as I’ve said before, the phone banks and people in McCain offices are democrats. While it is usual to hear the fringe of one party to describe the opposing candidate as evil incarnate, the PUMAs have the strongest language for Obama beyond the most right wing conservative. “He is a proto-nazi!” they say. “Do you really believe that?” I ask them. “Yes. We do.”

There are some new political symbols appearing. The PUMAs have adopted the cougar or bobcat as their symbol. The Palin conservatives have adopted the moose (could this eventually replace the elephant?)

Election night will be very long because pundits will be stunned at what is going on. They think this is already over and election night is just a coronation. All these electoral map projections and polls, yet votes weren’t cast yet.

Consider Obama toast, guys. He will join Dukakis, Dole, Gore, and Kerry in the ashbin of history.

Did you get that? Gay activists for Clinton are campaigning side by side with fundamentalist conservatives against Obama. That is not supposed to be possible. It is like the lion lying down with the lamb. Historical. A change of Biblical proportions even.

You know, this may be the beginning of a political re-alignment. Or at least the beginning of respect.

In any case there is much more I haven't covered. You should read it all.

And for those of you who want to follow along here are some interactive electoral maps:

CNN electoral map

Not a CNN electoral map

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Window Stickers - Hippies For McCain Palin

It is a little late in the election season for campaign material but I'd like to show you a very special set of window stickers for McCain/Palin made by Matthew Lopina from Prints Design. Here is what it looks like on the back of my mate's van. Obviously it is perfect for tinted windows.

Here is another view.

You can click on the pictures for a larger view.

Needless to say those stickers are very pretty and Matthew has been just a prince to deal with. You need custom graphics? Prints Design is the place to go.

Prints Design is dedicated to one thing... customer satisfaction. And at a price far less than franchise print shops can offer.

Did I mention that the stickers are very pretty, easy to apply, and the execution first rate?

Cross Posted at Classical Values

PUMA Power

Paul Marston takes a look at how the PUMA factor is affecting the polling.

The results of the polls for President are all over the map. If the polls are supposed to be correct to a 95% degree of certainly give or take 2 or 3 percent, how can the polls be that much different for the same candidates when taken at the same time? The simple answer is that they should not be that far apart. If you take a look at the polls making up the average at www.realclearpolitics.com on October 23rd, you will see a range from Senator Obama being up over McCain from 1 to 14 percent. Now there is such a thing called an outlier poll. That is where that other 5% comes into play and statistics says that the result could be outside of that normal sampling error of 2 to 3 percent. So let’s say that happened with both the 1% and 14% results and throw those away. That still leaves a range of 2 to 11% and that is way outside the margin of error on both polls. How come?

Take a look at the polling results for the 2004 election. Here you do not see the wild differences between the various polling firms. In the same time period in October of 2004, the range was from a 1 to 6 point lead for Bush. That is a five point spread and within the margin of error. That is a big difference between the current 13 point spread that is way outside the margin of error. To have this kind of spread indicates that something unusual is happening that is causing problems with the adjustments polling companies have to make to get the sample of voters to properly represent all of the voters. No random sample of voters perfectly represents all voters and polling firms have to weight their results to force them into being representative of all voters.

Of course they could reduce this adjustment by increasing the sample size by a factor of 10X. But then the polls start to cost real money. About 500 to 1,000 responses is considered a reasonable rate. Fairly good accuracy at a reasonable cost.

If their weighting algorithms are not correct, this would skew the results. Still, major national polling firms have a lot of experience and they have learned how to fine tune these algorithms pretty well. What is far more likely is that the sample simply does not accurately represent the voters in the area being polled as a whole due to some new factor. Obviously, when the polling companies look at the results from other polling firms and they see results different from their own outside the margin of error; they know something is amiss just like I do. This has caused them to try and tweak their weighting algorithms during the election season. Departing from tried and true weighting algorithms is a risky thing to do, but what choice do they have?

The fact of the matter is that instead of properly correcting for this unknown factor, they have only made things worse. I know of nothing else that could cause such wildly different results. This problem in turn has resulted in totally different headlines about what is happening in this election. Some say that the race is tightening considerably and others saying that the gap is widening to the point of being a landslide. The Drudge Report for October 22nd showed both of these claims. If you believe the Zogby results, then we are heading for a blowout. If you believe the Associated Press result, we are headed for another squeaker election. Obviously, they both cannot be right so which one is correct? That is precisely why the folks at www.realclearpolitics.com prefer to average all the polls hoping that the various sampling errors will balance each other out.

Well that was a real hoot. The race is tightening/widening depending on who you believe.

What does McCain believe?

Meantime, back at the McCain camp, their strategy makes no sense. They have practically conceded Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico and are still pursuing some blue states. They are not overly worried about Ohio and Virginia either. Neither do they seem very worried about all of those toss up states. So what is going on here? Clearly, the McCain campaign thinks the narrowing algorithms are correct, but isn't that just wishful thinking? They pulled out of Michigan when the Democratic Rossman Group/MIRS poll had them down by only 5 points. Yet they persist in Pennsylvania when the RCP average has them down by 10.5 points. No one has them closer than 8 points right now and no one has had them closer than a tie in the last six months. They sent Palin to New Hampshire where they are behind from 8 to 13 points. Why would they do this? They cannot be that stupid unless they think they are on to something.

Remember that the McCain camp has their own polling firm and are running their own private polls. The only answer that makes sense is that the McCain folks are convinced that their own polling firm has figured out what factor is causing all those wildly differing results from the other polling firms. Whatever this factor is, it is something that the tried and true weighting algorithms are not handling properly. In a previous article, I speculated that it could be that the Bradley Factor is alive and well in this election. Since this is the first presidential election with a black candidate, the weighting algorithms are just not equipped to handle the race factor. The fact that the race card has been repeatedly played in this election could be causing the Bradley Factor to be much more prominent than it ordinarily would be.

Yet Gallup Polling claims that the Bradley Factor is a wash at best and could actually be adding an extra 3 points to Obama's total in a kind of reverse Bradley Effect. Looking at where the McCain folks are competing when they would seem to have no chance, they all have one thing in common. They were carried by Hillary Clinton and in some cases even after it was obvious that Obama had it locked up. McCain was bound to pick up some of Hillary's supporters anyway after the way Hillary was treated by the Obama campaign. These are the so-called PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) folks. Clearly the McCain folks think that there is a P.U.M.A. Factor in play which is a variation of the Bradley Factor. The results that Hillary got simply cannot be explained by race alone. It was the positions that she took that were different than Obama's that resonated with these voters. Because Obama has such an extremely liberal voting record, there were some issues where even Hillary agreed with McCain more than she did with Obama.

There is way more and you should read it all for it is good.

And then you should read his quantification of the PUMA factor at The McCain-Palin Landslide and How Big is the P.U.M.A. Factor?.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Big Obama Win Predicted

The pollsters at Gallup are predicting a 13 point win for Obama.

Me? I've looked at their numbers (you should too) and I don't believe them. History will show that the pollsters have been consistently wrong all through the primaries and they will be no better in the general.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

The Anecdotes Just Keep On Coming

Via a comment at HillBuzz comes a link to audio of a Republican Operative who says some pretty outrageous things about the state of the election. Things like McCain is way ahead in Pennsylvania. And that McCain has a chance in California. Who could believe it? Here are the numbers the operative gives according to GOP internal polls.

NJ McCain 48 Obama 43 Undecided 7
MI McCain 44 Obama 42 Undecided 10
CA McCain 43 Obama 44 Undecided 9 Barr 3
PA McCain 55 Obama 33 Undecided 10

Undecideds are going for McCain by 4 to 1 the operative says.

If you want to listen to the audio you can click here.May I suggest that you do a save as - because the audio loads slow (even with broadband) and it might not complete if you open it in a tab or a window. Or you can listen to it at YouTube. The whole thing is a little under 6 minutes and really worth your time because it is very interesting.

Of course the whole thing could be nuts and the national polls could be right. So may I suggest:

Don't give it to him. Make him steal it.

Because it is not over until it is over and that won't be until the morning of 5 November. Every vote counts. Not just in the win/loss column but also as a show of support.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

You Betcha

HillBuzz has this to say about their Halloween Report.

Halloween costumes are a reflection of the zeitgeist in that moment — Palin and McCain were the costumes on people’s minds, because they are who are in the pop culture’s imagination right now.

The ticket that is best represented in Halloween costumes in an election year is the ticket that has won the White House since people first started paying attention to this anecdotal barometer.

If that’s true, then there’s a chance this election could not even be close and McCain/Palin could absolutely TROUNCE the Democrats. We’ve never seen that many representations of a Republican ticket out at Halloween. Never.

The report is from - you are not going to believe this - Chicago. And you know what else they report? Not one single Obama costume. None. ∅.

Based on this obviously anecdotal report the HillBuzz guys expect a McCain/Palin blow out.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Stand Up And Fight

Don't give it to him. Make him steal it.

H/T the Jager Gazette

Another Rumor

Our Country Deserves Better PAC sent me an e-mail with the following information.

New polling in Michigan shows that the Obama/Biden campaign has plunged 11% in the polls over the past two weeks!

Two polls, one internal poll and one private, show our efforts for the past 2 weeks to sneak in and take this state for McCain/Palin are paying off. As you know, we stepped up our efforts in Michigan after Obama's campaign pulled most of their advertising and staff out of the state, believing the state was "safe" for Obama.

So while few people have been paying attention, we've been spending several hundred thousand dollars on TV advertising to defeat Obama in Michigan. We brought "The Stop Obama Tour" bus tour through Michigan for two swings - holding 13 rallies across the Upper and Lower peninsula of Michigan. (You can see pictures from some of our events below - we'll be sending out some news coverage of our efforts in a future email... we're definitely getting the word out!)

And we're not done! Tomorrow we'll launch another statewide ad blitz in Michigan from Wednesday-Friday. We're asking for your financial support once more so we can keep this ad blitz continuing through the final weekend before the Nov. 4th election.

Donate $5 - $5,000 online here.

So is there any truth to this or is it just hype to get donations? I don't know. All I can say for sure right now is that the trend is not Obama's friend. BTW Rassmusen in their latest poll has Obama 53% and McCain at 43% in Michigan. So is Michigan close or out of reach? The best way to tell will be if the McCain Campaign sends Johnny Mac or Sara P. to Michigan some time between now and 4 Nov. Or if Obama makes a surprise visit.

Huge Democrat Turnout Advantage In Florida

Kim Priestap reports on early voting in Florida. Democrats seem to have a big advantage in turnout.

Democrats are beaming that their party is outperforming the Republicans in early voting, releasing numbers Wednesday that show registrants of their party ahead 54 percent to 30 percent among the 1.4 million voters who have gone to the polls early.

"We're thrilled at the record turnout so far," said Democratic Party of Florida spokesman Eric Jotkoff. "It's a clear indication that Democrats want to elect Barack Obama and Democrats up and down the ballot so that we can start creating good jobs, rebuilding our economy and getting our nation back on track."

But party breakdowns for turnout aren't the same as final tallies, and at least one poll offered a different view for the campaign of Republican John McCain.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave McCain a 49-45 lead over Democrat Barack Obama among Floridians who have already voted.

And Republicans continued to show a traditional strength, leading 50 percent to the Democrats' 30 percent in the 1.2 million absentee ballots already returned.

I wonder if the PUMA vote is having an effect? I looked into that at The PUMA Question. My conclusion? The PUMAs are being very underrated.

OK. That is Florida which is looking pretty good right now. What about Maine and New Hampshire?

Tonight’s been a busy night, in that we’ve talked to a half dozen people on three times as many subjects - including Team Hillary members in New Hampshire and Maine, who we know well from the primaries.

Here’s the kicker: these people aren’t McCain supporters. Several are working for Obama now in both states, because they have political jobs and thus must tow the party line. Others are voting Green and no longer campaigning for anyone, but are tuned into things in their states.

We know nothing about New Hampshire or Maine and have never pretended to. We won’t start now. All we’ll tell you is what these people told us tonight, and it’s that they truly do expect John McCain to win both New Hampshire and Maine next week, for the reasons they gave below:

(1) In both states, they have never seen an enthusiasm deficit for Democrats like this. Hillary Democrats there say there are more “closet McCain supporters” than anyone can count. Despite what the media says, people are not enthused and fired up to go out and vote for Obama — quite the contrary: people are scare of Obama’s policies and will be voting McCain. The enthusiasm deficit in both New Hampshire and Maine is “as clear as day” according to those we spoke to tonight. They say they do not see anywhere near the level of Obama signs, stickers, buttons, etc. out this year, as they did Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and even Dukakis gear in years past.

Interesting. It seems that it is the Shrinking Media™ that is the most enthusiastic for Obama and the rest of America not so much.

It also looks like Joe The Plumber has had a big effect in Maine. And as Maine goes so goes the nation.

(2) We asked why people in these states are not voting for Obama and were told that in Maine, especially, a lot of it has to do with Joe the Plumber and redistributing the wealth. Much of Maine makes its living off the sea: fishermen pull in $200,000 or more a year in family businesses. Joe Biden’s slip that Obama really intends to define “wealthy” as $150,000 a year or above sent terror through Maine’s fishing community and other small business industries. We were told tonight that Maine and New Hampshire have more small family businesses that would be affected by Obama’s redistribution of wealth than we could imagine. Joe the Plumber resonated with these people — especially the fishermen.

And guess what? The Republicans have the wife of a fisherman on the ticket. Word is that Todd Palin is going to Maine to gather some votes. I think he just might get some.

It also looks like caucus fraud is also playing a part.

The other interesting tidbit that came out of the conversation tonight was that of the Hillary Clinton convention delegates who are openly supporting John McCain, the largest number of these people come from states that held caucuses.

We were told tonight that no one is yet picking up on the fact that Democrats in states that held caucuses, and who saw firsthand the fraud, voter intimidation, and other vile tricks Obama pulled in caucus states have NOT forgotten about any of this. These people are still LIVID that a Democrat dared to use Chicago fraud and intimidation to game the caucus system. The Clinton delegates from caucus states have been coordinating efforts amongst themselves for payback against Obama on November 4th, since no state will vote in a caucus then.

We’re told this is the reason that Iowa is so much closer than we ever dreamed it would be. Remember, we have insisted McCain would lose Iowa because of his opposition to ethanol subsidies. So, we’ve been baffled by McCain and Palin’s appearances throughout Iowa, or the fact internals we see show the state incredibly close. We never could figure out why — and it was so obvious this whole time. THE CAUCUS FRAUD Obama committed back in January is coming back to bite him in a HUGE way. Because of the ethanol opposition, McCain should be losing Iowa by large numbers — but the people we spoke to this evening says he’ll end up winning the state, largely because of Democrats who are so disgusted by the behavior of Obama’s followers during the caucuses.

This isn’t just Hillary Democrats either. It’s a large swath of Democrats who feel violated by the tactics Obama employed in their state — bringing thugs from Chicago across the Illinois border to vote in Iowa’s caucuses. People there remember the truth, and will have that in mind on November 4th.

It seems like Obama had a good strategy for winning the nomination (fraud and intimidation), but it is not playing well in the general election. So in terms of strategy Obama did well. In terms of grand strategy he is a failure. We have historical evidence of just such mistakes in warfare. The Austrian Corporal made the same mistake. Easy victories were not solidified by making friends with the populations of his new conquests. It turned out badly for him.

Obama did not cement his relationship with those he defeated by offering them a large consolation prize (Hillary as VP) to make up for all the rubbed raw emotions the caucuses created. When he picked Joe Biden he made the hill he had to climb much steeper. And then along comes Joe the Plumber in the last two weeks of the campaign to put a large hole in his campaign below the water line. And Obama keeps enlarging that hole by lowering the threshold for those who will see tax increases. First $250,000, then $200,000 and finally (so far) $150,000. Worrying people the most I believe is not the actual number, but the fact that it keeps going lower. Where will it stop? I think it will stop with a huge Obama loss on the night of 4 Nov.

Do we have any other anecdotes and fuzzy data points? Yes we do. The results so far in Nevada show that the Obama/pollsters turn out model is not near what has been hoped/projected (change we can believe in - heh).

Analysts have predicted that new voters, young voters and Hispanic voters will turn out in record numbers in this election. But as Nevadans continue to flock to the polls, turnout among those three groups is lagging, at least in the early going.

While turnout statewide was nearly 25 percent through Sunday, it was just 20 percent among Hispanic voters, 14 percent among voters under 30 and 15 percent among those who didn't vote in the last three elections, according to an analysis of state early voting records through Sunday prepared by America Votes, an organization that works to mobilize voters.

The data provide a glimpse into the composition of the more than 300,000 Nevadans who had taken advantage of early voting over the first nine days of the 14-day period. The information comes from proprietary databases that political action groups purchase from commercial vendors, cross-referenced with the public data the state releases showing who has voted.

Traditionally, older people, whites and people who vote consistently tend to turn out at the highest rates overall, said David Damore, a political scientist at UNLV. But this year, much has been made of the idea that the youth vote, the Hispanic vote and first-time voters would turn out at unprecedented rates, galvanized by a heightened political climate and the candidacy of Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

Hope springs eternal in the Democrat camp. No surprise there. It is part of their theme song this year.

"I would have expected those numbers to be a little higher," Damore said. "At the same time, the people who come out for early voting may tend to be the tried and true."

The idea that the electorate will be radically reshaped this year remains an open question, he said, and it's possible the Obama campaign faces a challenge turning out the untested voters it's relying on to win.

Recent polling shows Obama leading in the Silver State by varying margins. Democrats' hopes have been boosted by a tectonic shift in voter registration that has left them with more than 110,000 more registered voters than Republicans, but the GOP insists there's hope because the election will be decided by who votes and how.

"What Republicans have been saying is that registration is only half the game, and they have the tried and true model to get people out," Damore said.

U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., was in Las Vegas on Tuesday working to rally Hispanic voters for Obama. She said she expects high Hispanic turnout this year.

Expects and happens are two different things though. One point I have brought up before is that there is huge antipathy in the Hispanic community for the Black community. It boils down to this: Hispanics see Blacks living on the dole while they toil away at jobs like gardening and construction to improve themselves. No one likes free riders. People who are not pulling their weight. And for good or ill that is the Hispanic community's impression of the Black community they come in contact with.

So let me do a short analysis of why I think Obama will lose.

1. Caucus fraud rubbed Democrat voters the wrong way.
2. Failure to select Hillary was a failure to mend fences
3. Sarah Palin gave the Republican base and disaffected Hillary voters something to cheer about.
4. Joe the Plumber (a gift from the Maker) sealed the deal

But it is not over until it is over. Don't let any analysis - positive or negative - keep you from doing what must be done. And what is that you ask? Well I'll tell you. Again.

Don't give it to him. Make him steal it.

Vote. Vote like your life and your country depended on it. It may. If we get a very strongly Democrat legislature it is critical that McCain/Palin have all the support we can show to keep the legislature in check. So even if you live in a state that is a foregone conclusion one way or another, your show of support will matter come 20 January 2009. Vote.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

HillBuzz Needs Your Help

HillBuzz needs your help with their get out the vote effort for McCain/Palin.

We need to ask for your help. We’re putting together a canvassing trip into Ohio this coming weekend to bring what we hope will be about 70 DeMcCrats for McCain and Young Republican supporters into Ohio to canvass for McCain/Palin in the Buckeye state. We’re $1,500 short of what we need to rent buses for this trip, and cover the accommodations and costs for our volunteers while there. We’re also buying as many DeMcCrats for McCain and other McCain/Palin buttons and stickers to hand out in Ohio as we can. This is a bipartisan effort here in Chicago — and the biggest push we’ve ever made for canvassing. It’s a long ride from Illinois to Ohio, and the bus is expensive. We’ve all scraped together what we can, but need help covering the rest.

So follow the link and go over there and donate if you can. Because:

Don't give it to him. Make him steal it.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

McCain Has A Poll

The Wall Street Journal has a memo from the McCain Campaign. Let me just give one highlight that touches on something I wrote about yesterday: The PUMA Question.

* We are beginning to once again get over a 20% chunk of the vote among soft Democrats.

Importantly as well, our long identified target of “Walmart women” – those women without a college degree in households under $60,000 a year in income are also swinging back solidly in our direction.

Finally, in terms of critical improvement, even as this track shows more Republicans voting for us than Democrats supporting Obama, we are witnessing an impressive “pop” with Independent voters.

As I said during our Sunday briefing, we do substantially more interviews per day than any public poll, but, given the shift we were witnessing, it was my expectation that by Tuesday/Wednesday multiple public polls would show the race closing. A quick glance at Real Clear Politics would indicate this is happening by today, Tuesday, and that’s good!

Which goes back to some of the points I made in The PUMA Question. Sometimes anecdotes can give you advance warning of changes not yet recognized by polls.

The memo writer also notes that there are no good models for voter behavior in this election season. So it is all seat of the pants for both campaigns and the people who do public polling.

H/T The StrataSphere and HillBuzz comments.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

A Funny Thing Happened In The Voting Booth

Red State has an interesting anecdote about some Democrats who got together to vote early.

Yesterday, I heard a great story from a friend who describes herself as a “Legacy Democrat” she says that everyone in her family has been a registered Democrat as far back as she can remember – parents, grandparents, great-grandparents… you get the picture. Well the other day, her and four of her friends, all proud Nevada Democrats piled into the car and together went to early vote for Obama.

On the way to their polling place, she said they were all very excited but she kept having this funny feeling in her stomach. Upon entering the voting booth, she said, the anxiety worsened and standing there poised to cast her vote a little voice or call it instinct began gnawing away at this life long Democrat (life long - well she’s only 35) She finally said “I can’t do it... I can’t vote for Obama, he’s just not ready” and voted for McCain.

She said she was shocked walking out of the polling place, she didn’t think she would ever vote for a Republican… Ever!!!

On the ride home with her four friends the mood was a bit somber I think she even called it sobering. About halfway home she let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, and told her friends she had voted for McCain and her reasons for doing so. Their reaction was shocking, even to her, all but one said they had done the same thing and for the same reasons.

Steve Foley goes on to discuss what he calls The Readiness Effect. Read the whole thing and follow the links. Steve has been on this for a while.

H/T The Infidel Bloggers Alliance

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Reposting To Omaha

Michael S. Malone has a few words about the bias of the Shrinking Media in this election season.

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months I've found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer.

But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I've begun -- for the first time in my adult life -- to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was "a writer," because I couldn't bring myself to admit to a stranger that I'm a journalist.

So what can be done about the occasional reporter who lets his enthusiasms run away with a story? Send them back to the Minor Leagues.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.

The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.

No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

So if reporters can be corrected, who exactly is at fault for what we see in the press?

So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?

The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.

And what can be done about them? It is easy really. Put them out of business. Turn off the TV. Cancel the newspaper subscription. And if you really want to hand them a shocker - vote McCain/Palin. Get your friends to do likewise. If McCain wins this election the Shrinking Media is going to have some 'splainin to do.

Computer Wars

Obama's Computer





McCain's Computer