# 87 Blazing Saddles, and It Shouldn't Be This Close

One recent survey indicated that up to 14% of the registered electorate who have not yet voted are still "Persuadeables," i.e., haven't really made up their minds. What in the Blazing Saddles are they waiting for? The election is on Tuesday, and it shouldn't be this close.

The survey also pointed out that 40% of the "Persuadeables," or Undecideds, are leaning toward Obama, 40% are leaning toward McCain, and 20% couldn't find their @$$#$ with both hands and a plunger. The survey did say that. Really. Well, almost.

One Undecided person who was quoted said that neither candidate "knows what it's like to be poor," to have to struggle. EXCUSE ME! Let's see -- which one of the candidates didn't have a father at home while he was growing up, had a mother die of cancer early in his life, was raised by a grandmother who gave up things she needed so that he could go to school?

Where in the Blazing Saddles has the schmuck who made that comment been for the last, oh, twenty-one months? Pardon me: is my impatience at what has to be intentional stupidity showing?

In fact, the surveys conducted do show that, on average, the current Undecideds (or Persuadeables) have less education and are less politically inquisitive than the rest of us. And, the surveys add, they are also less likely to vote, since (a) they are less interested in politics, and (b) they don't know what in the Blazing Saddles they're doing and are less likely to find the polls anyway. Even with both hands and a plunger.

All the polls I can find show Obama ahead in Pennsylvania beyond the margin of error, yet apparently TV stations are calling that state "a dead heat." How in the Blazing Saddles can that be? It shouldn't even be as close in Pennsylvania as Mason-Dixon's poll's four point difference; CNN has it still at twelve points. Either CNN hasn't updated its poll in two days, or I don't know why some networks are calling it "too close to call." Two polls show Obama ahead by seven and four points respectively in Ohio, by four and six points respectively in North Carolina, and by four points each in Viriginia. None of these results is within the margin of error, so where's the tightening coming from?

Frankly, it shouldn't even be close. If you will allow me to use some technical political jargon to explain why: the current administration's policies in economics, education, energy, environment, and foreign policy suck; everyone's retirement and other investments currently suck; John McCain is a petulant, angry, erratic, forgetful candidate whose characteristics and judgments in his first major decision--choosing a vice presidential running mate--suck.

That "giant sucking sound" you hear this election does not come from NAFTA, as Ross Perot was wont to say twelve years ago. This year, it's the Republican party's policies, and there is no Blazing Saddles reason they should still be in this presidential race. Even the issue of Race itself shouldn't be an issue any more: people have begun to discuss it more openly, and to express it during polling. So the polls (one would hope) probably do take the issue of Race increasingly into account. And maybe that's why there appears to be some narrowing of margins in individual states.

Well, we have another four days before we find out the results. I'm ready for this to be over. But only if Obama wins.

-- triton --

#86 The Race is Tightening, As Expected, Near the End

Everyone's talking about it, so it must be so. Even the polls show it's happening. The race is tightening. And Race is one of the major reasons.

Jesse Washington's AP article in today's newspapers begins, "What's more scary: a bleak economy or a black president?" That sums it up pretty bluntly.

In Lafayette, Louisiana, Charles Palmer, a 74-year-old retired oil company manager and registered Democrat who is voting for McCain, is quoted in the article as saying about Barack Obama: "I do think he has that minority thing probably in the back of his mind, deep down. He's not going to hurt 'em, let's put it that way." Later, he adds, "It's just the attitude blacks have toward the whites in this country. It's very negative."

Maybe the way Louisiana and the Feds have treated blacks in Louisiana during and after Katrina has something to do with it, Charles? Maybe the way southern (and northern) blacks have been treated for, oh, ever has something to do with it? And maybe Charlie's view is colored by his generation's background, living through the twentieth century civil rights movement in an area of the country that, a hundred years earlier, lived through the Civil War.

But we digress. Not really. Racial issues are beginning increasingly to surface in the polls, and the polls are beginning to show a tightening in the presidential race. Such tightening has happened before. The last week of campaigning often shows the candidate behind making up some of the ground. In one of the most furious election-last-week finishes, Hubert Humphrey almost made up enough ground to defeat Richard Nixon forty years ago.

However, I believe the current shifts in poll results actually point to less of a surprise come election day this year, since the race issue is now being discussed more openly (it was always underneath the discussion; now it IS the discussion). While my own view is that a candidate's race is irrelevant compared to his policies and the people with whom he surrounds himself, I live enough in the real world to recognize that my view is not universally held. Thus, it is good to get the racial issue out in the open, where it can be examined and, one hopes, rejected by enough people that the major party candidate who will actually do the better job can be elected.

Here's how I still think next Tuesday will work out.

Obama will win New England, NY, NJ, PA, MD, DE. That's a broad swath of Blue to start with. If Obama actually loses PA, then "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world" (thank you, William Butler Yeats). Obama may win Ohio, though I don't really feel confident yet that Ohioans will provide him with majority support. If he does win Ohio, the election is, for all practical purposes, over. Obama will win the northeastern part of the Midwest (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan), and the West Coast (WA, OR, CA).

I think Obama will win at least one traditionally Red southern state, probably Virginia; Colorado; New Mexico; and possibly Nevada. In other words, I'm sticking to my recent projections, despite the tightening in some of the polls. Even without OH (which Obama could win), FL (some polls show him ahead, others have him behind), MO (depends on voter turnout in St. Louis), and NC (where it's been fluctuating between Obama and McCain), Barack Obama would have enough electoral votes to become president.

I see 271 to 284 electoral votes for Obama, without OH and FL, with the possibility of more if either OH or FL swings his way. Of course, something could happen to cause upsets, especially if there's high voter turnout in Georgia, moving it into the Democratic column, for example, but I'm not counting on too many surprises.

You heard it here first. If I'm wrong, you don't remember where you heard it. The campaign has been a long, wearying process, not just for the candidates but for all of America. Let's all now put our heads down on our desks, close our eyes, and take a long enough nap that we can get through these final days until the results are known.

-- triton --

# 85 The Electoral College Math

Yes, it's Math time again, but we're nearing the end of the campaign so I figured it's time to set out clearly what Barack Obama needs to do to win. I'm an Obama supporter (have already voted early for him) so, if you're a John McCain supporter, you can figure what McCain needs to do to win, by just not having Obama do any of the following.

In 2004, dubya won 286 electoral votes; John Kerry won 251 electoral votes. He should have won 252, but one of Minnesota's electors cast one of Kerry's votes for John Edwards. Since I believe Obama will win all of Kerry's states--even though McCain is still working hard in Pennsylvania--let's start with no defections, which means that Obama starts with 252 votes.

Any of the following combinations will win the presidency for Barack Obama:

1. The three western states that I have already put in Obama's column: NV (5), NM (5) and CO (9);

2. or the two very close southern states, one of which, VA (13), I've already put in Obama's column, and the other of which, NC (15) is currently leaning toward Obama;

3. or either one of the two really big Tossup states, OH (20) or FL (27).

Obviously, some mix-and-match combination would also win the election for Obama, and he is currently leading in most polls in six of these seven (FL seems to swing back and forth between Obama and McCain). But, on election night, if OH for example goes to Obama, the election is probably over, in keeping with my September 24 post, "It's Ohio." It doesn't have to be Ohio as the key state, however, since there are these other scenarios for his victory. As I've indicated more recently, Barack Obama could win the presidency without either Ohio or Florida.

I'm assuming no electoral defections and no split votes in Maine or Nebraska. The freak event in Minnesota four years ago is not likely to be repeated this year, unless Obama is so far ahead in electoral votes that a defection of a vote or two somewhere becomes irrelevant.

Obviously, given my previous posts' awarding of four of these states to Obama, I believe he will be elected. But with ten days remaining before election day, anything could still happen.

As always, I welcome your thoughts either as comment on this post or by email.

-- triton --

# 84 Ohio has WHAT poll results?

Yes, that's the question. Right now the Ohio polling shows Obama ahead(!) by anywhere from 4 to 14 points. How can that be, he asks himself. Remember that I also raised questions when the polls showed West Virginia going for Obama by eight points shortly after they had shown McCain ahead by eight, and I did not move WV from my McCain electoral votes column. WV has corrected itself (or the pollsters have corrected themselves), and McCain has a comfortable lead in that state.

But Ohio? Senator Sherrod Brown (one of the several people I had suggested to be considered for VP on Obama's ticket) was on Rachel Maddow's show last evening, and indicated his belief that Ohio was moving toward Obama. He didn't phrase it quite like this, but what he implicitly said was that it takes Ohioans a little longer to get the point. And the point right now is that McCain's economic policies will continue the disasters of the dubya administration. Maybe Brown is right, and perhaps my original thought that Ohio would vote for Obama was also correct, before I saw that the trend in the state a couple of months ago was favoring McCain. That trend seems to have peaked, and to have reversed.

For now, I'm keeping Ohio as a Tossup state, but if it does go for Obama, the fat lady will have sung. And I'm NOT talking about any individual Ohioan. Remember: I'm a Buckeye too, and lived a great eight years there!

-- triton --

# 83 Ahead of the Curve

So, three hours ago I posted my concern about potential intimidation--direct and subtle--of black voters. Twenty minutes ago, AP posted an article by Charles Babington on the same subject. Writes Babington:

"In past elections, Democrats say GOP operatives have used disinformation and scare tactics to try to suppress voting in heavily Democratic precincts, including predominantly black neighborhoods. Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio said Republicans are trying to frighten newly registered voters in his state by filing numerous lawsuits that question their eligibility. GOP officials say they simply want to avert voter fraud."

And just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water (the Florida water, not Amity water), there's this non-reassurance in Babington's article:

"In Florida, thousands of new voters may be unable to cast ballots because of discrepancies between their registration forms and government records like driver's licenses. And in August in Florida's Palm Beach County, which was using new voting equipment required by the state, officials lost 3,500 ballots in a close judicial race. They eventually found them, but it took three recounts to declare a winner a month later."

As much as I've enjoyed posting on this blog, and your emails about it, I'm ready to elect a president and other officials. It's time to put the nonsense away and get the country back on its feet. Anthropomorphically speaking, of course.

-- triton --

#82 Intimidation

Today, from Reuters:

"Black Americans could vote in record numbers for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, potentially giving him an edge in some states that are tightly contested with Republican rival John McCain. Blacks make up around 12 percent of the voting population and are the Democratic Party's most reliable ethnic constituency, although historically they have voted in lower numbers than other groups. This year, opinion polls show that more than 90 percent of blacks who vote could cast a ballot for Obama, in part because of racial solidarity with a candidate who would be the first black president in U.S. history."

We know that, in past elections, black voters in particular have been the victims of voter intimidation, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly.

The overt intimidation has taken the form of threats and outright beatings, physically and emotionally preventing black voters from going to the polls. In the past, however, such actions have occurred primarily in local and statewide elections. This year, however, is the first time a national election has featured an African-American running for the most powerful position on the planet. Excuse me: as Senator Jim Webb would prefer us all to recognize, "the thirteenth Scotch-Irish to run for president."

The subtle form of intimidation has been practiced more recently, more often in the South but not entirely there. It occurs when black Americans go to the polls, only to be told that they're in the wrong polling place and have to go, instead, to...somewhere else. They are then sent on a wild-goose chase. Or, more accurately, on a missing-poll chase. The hope of the folk practicing this more subtle form of intimidation is that people will tire of running from one place to another and will just give up.

This year, the subtle intimidation has so far taken at least two other forms. In one, local Republican officials have developed lists of foreclosed homes, in order to challenge voter registrations: if your home has been foreclosed, you don't live there anymore, and hence are not eligible to use that address as your place of residence. This form of intimidation is definitely NOT limited to any one region of the country. It is terribly ironic that the very politicians whose deregulation policies have contributed to loss of homes, to the horror of homelessness, may actually profit from their malfeasance.

The second form of subtle intimidation this year is the challenge to voter registration drives conducted, for example, by ACORN. Some of the folk registered by ACORN have listed false names. By law, the good people conducting the registration drives are required to turn over all names, but what they do is identify and separate into different groups those names they could verify, those names about whom there may be some small concern (typographical errors, for example), and those names that are clearly questionable. "Mickey Mouse" may be an American icon, but he/she/it may not actually be a person's name...although one minor party candidate for president or the senate has legally changed his name to "Pro Life." [I hope his VP running mate (if he's running for president) is named "Anti-Choice."]

So far, at least the Ohio state supreme court has sided with Governor Ted Strickland that the governor's office does not have to provide support for the Republican challenge to voter registrations in that state.

If blacks are able to vote in this election, they may indeed move the "swing" states to Obama. As my electoral projections indicate, Colorado or Virginia should be enough (if indeed I'm correct that Pennsylvania is not really in play) to elect President Obama.

Voter intimidation is a violation of a fundamental American right and duty. I find it ironic that the party that claims to be the party of patriotism is so active behind this most unAmerican action.

-- triton --

# 81 But Pennsylvania is Not in Play

It appears that, days and weeks after I had listed Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia in Obama's electoral vote total, John King and his Magic Board on CNN have done the same. I almost couldn't believe my eyes when I saw his board last night, Blue islands in parts of what for dubya had been a Red sea. I'm not surprised, of course, since Obama is running increasingly ahead in those states--as indeed he is in national polls as well, by his largest margin yet, 52 to 42--and McCain is now trying to make headway in Pennsylvania to compensate for the potential loss of five states that went Red four years ago. But Obama is still running a double-digit lead in PA, and shows no signs of losing it. He and Joe and Biden have been making occasional stops there, just to remind the voters that there's still an election coming up.

FL, OH, MO and NC remain tossups, though at this point Obama doesn't actually need any of those to win the election. However, it would be meaningful if he (a) indeed were to be elected president, and (b) were to garner more than 300 electoral votes. The larger the win, the more bargaining power he has with a congress that will likely have more Democrats anyway.

Once again, my familiar caveat: all bets are off if the polls don't reflect latent racism that occasionally bubbles to the surface.

One footnote: 55% of people polled by CNN/USA say that Sarah Palin is "Unqualified" for the Vice Presidency and to be President. The negative campaigning imposed on Palin by her handlers has backfired big time.

-- triton --

# 80 Are We Looking at 306 to 232?

Well, as I indicated last time, WV has shifted back to McCain, and now is even more strongly in the Red column. I'm not surprised. I am surprised that Ohio polling has Obama ahead by nine points(!), 51% to 42%. Frankly, I don't believe it.

Florida polling has McCain slightly ahead and, despite Obama's allegedly near-double-digit lead in Ohio, I'm still planning my electoral vote count with McCain winning both of those states. Nothing against Ohioans, "my friends," but I can't imagine the Ohioans who lived there when I was a graduate student at Ohio State (forty years ago, to be sure) voting for a black man. Well, yes, I guess I do feel something against Ohioans, at least those who in one poll last week tacitly admitted they were racist.

I still feel comfortable with my having placed CO, NV, and VA in Obama's column a few days ago. He maintains at least a 4% lead, and actually it's been fluctuating to as high as 10%, in those states.

So with two weeks to go, I still have Obama over 270 electoral votes. The surprise is his strength in what I have considered to be the two other Tossup states, MO and NC. Today's published poll has Obama ahead 49 to 44 in Missouri, and that's Rasmussen, reporting for Fox News, which is usually skewed in favor of McCain. In North Carolina, Obama's ahead 51 to 48. That doesn't leave a lot of Undecideds in that state.

I'm not willing to award either state to Obama, however. They're both within the potential Bradley (or Wilder) Effect, which is as high as 6%. Of course, Obama drew upwards of 100,000 people last week in St. Louis, and McCain drew downward of 2,000 soon thereafter in the same area.

Palin's the one who's drawing for the Republicans, but I'm not sure it's entirely due to her popularity. I think it's more like the crowds that gather around a train wreck, looking to see what damage has been done and what more might be done. In other words, I still think the negativity that has been imposed on Palin's speeches by her handlers has adversely affected the Republican ticket's support.

Right now, then, I still see it as Obama 291 and McCain 174. If I'm correct about OH and FL, and if even MO and NC go Red, it will be Obama 291, McCain 247. More likely, NC may go Blue and MO go Red: Obama 306, McCain 232.

In any case, my standard caveat is still in effect: there's no real way to determine how race will play out in this election. As fewer folk are listed as Undecided, my electoral numbers are based on what I hope is minimal racist influence. But, as they sing in "Porgy and Bess": "It Ain't Necessarily So."

-- triton --

#79 Updated Electoral Vote Guesstimates: 291-174 (73 Tossups)

With the debates over, with John McCain still shifting the tactics of his campaign, and based on today's poll numbers and the momentum that seems to be continuing, today I'm moving Colorado (9), Nevada (5), and Virginia (13) to Barack Obama's column. That's a big move, since all three states went for dubya four years ago and eight years ago. Obama currently leads in the polls by 7 points in Colorado, 5 points in Nevada, and 10 points in Virginia. He has been maintaining these leads pretty consistently recently.

These three states add 27 votes to Obama's previous total of 264, giving him 291 votes -- and the Presidency.

I have added no states to McCain's column; he remains with 22 states and 174 electoral votes.

Obviously the election is not over. These guesstimates are a snapshot in time--today--but I believe that, if the election were held today, Barack Obama would be elected.

West Virginia (5), which had shifted from eight points ahead for McCain in late September to eight points ahead for Obama in mid-October, has shifted back to McCain by two points. North Dakota (3) is now in play, but I suspect it will retreat to McCain by election day. Ohio (20) and Florida (27) are still Tossups and could go either way; for now, however, I'm assuming they'll go Red in November, though I haven't moved them yet into the McCain column. I feel the same way about Missouri (11) and North Carolina (15) going Red, but I'm leaving them in Tossup as well. They still have some slight possibility of going for Obama by November 4. Obviously, if two of more of these states go to Obama, he'll be well over 300 electoral votes and could be approaching landslide proportions.

Even without West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and North Carolina, Obama can win with either Colorado or Virginia. Both plus Nevada provides a cushion. And we still have more than two weeks to go.

A major international disruption, a major national gaffe by either side, or a host of any other events could alter the calculus.

Here are my current guesstimated totals. Remember -- You read it here first; if I'm wrong, you don't remember where you read it:

McCAIN
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Arkansas 6
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
North Dakota 3 – MIGHT BE IN PLAY?
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
West Virginia 5 – MIGHT BE IN PLAY?
Wyoming 3

Currently 22 states with 174 electoral votes for McCain

-- -----

OBAMA
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
DC 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21
Iowa 7
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
Nevada 5
New Hampshire 4
New Mexico 5
New Jersey 15
New York 31
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 11
Wisconsin 10

Currently 24 states + DC with 291 electoral votes for Obama

----- -----

TOSSUP
Florida 27 THOUGH OBAMA OCCASIONALLY AHEAD, I THINK WILL BE RED
Missouri 11 A SMALL CHANCE TO BE OBAMA’S THOUGH I DON’T THINK SO
North Carolina 15 REALLY A TOSSUP, PROBABLY McCAIN
Ohio 20 REALLY A TOSSUP, BUT I THINK WILL BE McCAIN

Currently 4 states with 73 electoral votes are Tossups.

-- triton --

#78 Comedy at Hofstra: Logic 101

John McCain created the most comedic moment of the four debates tonight, unintentionally so. My quotations below are probably not exact, but they're more than close enough to make the point.

When asked if/how their views on Roe v. Wade would affect nominating justices to the Supreme Court, McCain replied:

"I won't have a litmus test. The overall judgment that the justices show is what I would consider for me to nominate them."

Sounds clear enough. Except that a minute and a half later in the same set of comments, he said: "I believe Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision. I believe it should not have been made. I would have to question the judgment of any judge who supports that decision."

Sooooo -- McCain will not let Roe v. Wade disqualify any justice from being considered for nomination to the Supreme Court; it's their judgment that matters. But he doesn't trust the judgment of any justice who supports Roe v. Wade. [Ergo, I conclude, he won't nominate a justice who supports Roe v. Wade. But it's not a litmus test for nomination.]

While my head was spinning on that reply, I noticed that Barack Obama had this HUGE smile on his face as McCain came full circle with his logic. Obama understood exactly what John McCain had done to himself, but was gentle enough not to say anything. Perhaps he thought one of the post-debate commentators would have mentioned it. If any did, I missed that part.

Interesting poll taken after the debate:
Question: Who used more negative campaign ads?
Poll Result: Obama 7%, McCain 80%

That was, by the bye, the only poll John McCain won tonight.

-- triton --

# 77 The RNC, the Polls, and the Final Debate

Today's headline from the AP on Yahoo! News:

"RNC out of Wisconsin, Maine; focuses on red states
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer"

The Republican National Committee is not actually pulling ALL of its funding out of Wisconsin quite yet: it's still buying air time until October 26. But, as with Michigan, it is a major concession that John McCain doesn't have a realistic chance of winning these states, and doesn't have a realistic chance of gaining even one of Maine's four electoral votes (which possibility I had discussed in a previous post).

It is putting the displaced funding into Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida, all states that voted for dubya four and eight years ago. Right now, Obama leads the polls in four of these states (CO, MO surprisingly enough, VA, and FL incredibly enough!), is tied with McCain in North Carolina, and is behind in Indiana. If Obama holds on to all the states that John Kerry won in 2004, adds Iowa and New Mexico (as I have quite awhile ago predicted he will) and wins either CO, MO, VA, or FL, he'll be the next president.

However, all of these thoughts are based on current polls. Here is the heart of the problem with polling in general, and with polling this year in particular: what are their samples, are they of adequate size, and are they representative of the folk who will actually cast ballots? This year, we need to add one question (which is virtually unanswerable until after November 4 when the pollsters hit the fan): to what extent does latent racism, or its opposite--fear of exposure that one is actually voting for a part-African American--not show up in the polls?

Is part of the undecideds--or part of the alleged Obama voters--actually folk who don't want others to know that they can't vote for a black person solely on racial grounds? or are some of them folk who, in the sanctity of the voting booth, will vote for Obama but claim to vote for McCain, because in their social circle they would be ostracized for doing otherwise?

Aside from these considerations, and based on the movement in the polls, Obama could be expected to garner more than 300 electoral votes and probably 52 to 53% of the popular vote. But this year, even more than in the last two elections, the polls just may not be very meaningful.

And tonight's debate will probably have little effect: unless Obama messes up mightily (and so far, at least, he seems too much in control of his emotions and abilities to do so) and McCain exceeds any politicking savvy he has shown thus far (and so far, at least, he seems too little in control of his emotions and abilities to do so), we should not expect much movement in favor of McCain as a result of this final debate.

-- triton --

#76 Some New Numbers

The new poll numbers are appearing. Right now on average Obama is ahead in states with 313 electoral votes. There are, of course, reasons why those totals can change, with unacknowledged racial bias being the primary one. There's no way we can determine the extent unless folk actually say so, as they've done in Pennsylvania and Ohio recently. McCain is listed as having 135 electoral votes.

Other items--such as an October surprise (international or national crisis in addition to the financial crisis, Cindy McCain personally contributing her fortune to eliminate the credit crisis, and stuff we can't even begin to imagine)--could change the polls quickly, so I'm not assuming anything. But if the election were held right now, we likely would have a new party in the White House.

According to these most recent polls, Ohio is still a tossup (in the polls I've seen, Obama is ahead more often than behind), but even Florida gives Obama a 5 point lead. Nonetheless, right now at least, I expect Florida and Ohio to go Republican.

Obama's ahead in New Hampshire (10 points), West Virginia(by 8 points!?), Nevada (4 points so I haven't even included NV in Obama's total), Colorado (more than 5 points), Minnesota (6 points), Wisconsin (more than 8 points), Virginia (more than 8 points! -- can that be?), Pennsylvania (14 points -- that's Biden's work), and Florida (5 points).

I've already put New Mexico (only 4+ points ahead) and Iowa (13 points ahead) into the Democratic columns.

I'll keep looking but not yet every day.

-- triton --

#75 Why Isn't Anyone Talking About West Virginia?

On June 6 and September 24, John McCain led Barack Obama in West Virginia by 8 points in the Rasmussen Reports polls. In the polls between those two, the spread was smaller but McCain always led. Today (Oct 9), the Rasmussen Reports poll--which in state after state has consistently given McCain the highest poll numbers of all the poll takers--has Obama ahead by 8 points, 50 to 42. Maybe it's an error on the posting, and maybe McCain is actually still ahead by 8 points.

If it isn't an error, then Obama has gained 16 points on McCain in fifteen days. That doesn't sound possible. But if it's correct, it can only be the economy. West Virginia's miners and other hard-working citizens must be feeling the economic slowdown more than the other states, several of whose citizens have also gravitated toward Obama recently. Indiana, on the other hand, which had been a tossup, seems to be crawling back toward McCain, and the Idahos and Utahs of this country, and Texas and most of the deep south states, also seem to be solidly for McCain.

Florida, however, has a slug of new voter registrations, especially on college campuses, and those new voters are expected to favor Obama strongly. I suspect the same thing is happening in North Carolina, one of the few southern states where Obama is now expected to do very well, maybe even carry it in November. Virginia is another southern state that has been solidly Republican but that Obama could possibly carry, or at least do well in. He and McCain are both pouring money into all three of these states.

If Obama carries Florida or Ohio, by the way, I think the election is over. That is, as long as racism does not cause the 6 point drop between the polls and the voting that the recent Stanford study has indicated is historically the case.

These current poll numbers are all available at http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/ which, however, lists only ten states as pro-Obama. In my post #74 I listed 21 states as being for Obama. They list 18 states as favoring McCain; I list 22 states for McCain. So either I'm too optimistic, or I've jumped the gun on some of these states, or the website is behind the times.

If the October 9 polling numbers are correct in West Virginia, then that website needs to update its assigning of states. The website still lists West Virginia as in McCain's column.

It will be fun (perhaps in a sick sort of way) to see what other changes occur over the next 25 days.

-- triton --

##74 The Electoral Math, If Racism Doesn't Exist...Much

Liz Sidoti (AP), CNN and triton seem to be on the same wave length. Here's Sidoti on October 4:

"McCain can't prevail without holding onto most of the states that Bush won, and he's now virtually tied or trailing in public polls in at least 10 of them — Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia — as he tries to fend off Obama's well-funded advertising onslaught and grass-roots efforts.The GOP nominee also is only playing in five states that Democrat John Kerry won in 2004 — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and, now, Maine — and he's running behind."

CNN and triton are saying almost the same thing, though I admit surprise that Obama is currently LEADING in several states that were Red for dubya: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. I'm not yet ready to put any of these in Obama's column, since we still have nearly four weeks until the election, and the polls are fluid. Still, I believe Obama will win at least some of them.

Today I'm putting Iowa and Connecticut into Obama's column. The Lieberman Effect, which caused me to classify CT as a Tossup, seems to be absent. Weeks ago I put New Mexico in Obama's column, and he's solidified his lead since then. Indiana is going for McCain, so that's off the table as well.

The only state I've moved from my Tossup list to McCain is Arkansas. The Clintons have all but disappeared from this election: no news, no appearances, no interviews.

The five blue states where McCain is putting his money--Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota--will go for Obama, though McCain could get one vote from Maine, depending on the voting pattern in the state’s four electoral districts. Maine and Nebraska are the only states that allow their electoral votes to be split. And that could, under one particular circumstance (keep reading), be an important single vote. Obama, by the way, will get no electoral votes from Nebraska.

That leaves Ohio, which I have called the key state to this election. Perhaps no longer: so many Red states are now in play that Obama may actually not need to win Ohio to win the election. Ohio is still pretty much a dead heat, though Obama is leading there in four polls and McCain in two.

If Obama wins the states I've listed as his, and wins even only one Tossup state except Nevada, he'll be our next President with more than 270 electoral votes. Nevada's 5 electoral votes will give him 269 votes, and a tie with McCain. In that case, the House of Representatives decides who becomes President, and there's an excellent chance the House will still have a Democratic majority, even more strongly than now.

However, if Obama wins all of the states that I've listed in his column, plus only Nevada from the Tossups, but McCain wins one of Maine's four votes, then Obama will have 268 votes and McCain will have 270 votes. And John McCain will be President.

If, however, Obama wins any one of the other Tossup states instead of Nevada, Barack Obama will be our next President. Right now, late at night, looking at the polls' statistics, I think Obama will win more than one Tossup state, could even win most of them.

Two words of caution: (1) the polls can change radically in 26 days, as they have changed in the last month; (2) I don't know how or even if racism will play a significant role. But if racism does enter significantly, silently or not, Sarah Palin may be too close to the presidency for comfort.

And now the states as I see them lining up:

McCAIN

Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 10
Arkansas 6
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 6
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
North Dakota 3
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 34
Utah 5
West Virginia 5
Wyoming 3

Currently 22 states with 174 electoral votes for McCain
----- ----- -----

OBAMA

California 55
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
DC 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21
Iowa 7
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 12
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
New Hampshire 4
New Mexico 5
New Jersey 15
New York 31
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Washington 11
Wisconsin 10

Currently 21 states + DC with 264 electoral votes for Obama

----- ----- -----

TOSSUP

Colorado 9
Florida 27
Missouri 11
Nevada 5
North Carolina 15
Ohio 20
Virginia 13

Currently 7 states with 100 electoral votes are Tossups, most of them with Obama holding a small lead on October 7, 2008.

-- triton --

#73 The Secret Service

After tonight's debate, and all the poll and approval numbers were aired, I realized that the Secret Service may have its collective hands full for the rest of the campaign and then, depending on the results of the election, for four or eight years thereafer.

The polling about the debate showed that Obama clearly won, and is increasingly the favorite to win the election. In my next post, I'll list where I think the states are going to fall, and, yes, on that basis Obama will apparently win. There's still plenty of time for fluidity in the electoral count, however, so I'm not saying the election is over. Especially in light of the following:

As David Gergen (my favorite commentator on political affairs, even ahead of James Carville) said tonight on CNN, when asked what could now change Obama's momentum in this campaign: "Well, for one thing, he's black."

That sums it up. I've been writing periodically on this blog about latent racism. I have two concerns.

(1) As Gergen also expressed it, the polls may not be accurate. A recent Stanford study indicated that racism could shift the election's popular vote by as much as 6%. With Obama currently ahead nationally by 5%, that could enable McCain to overcome seemingly long odds and be elected. David Gergen looked really kind of ill when he made these remarks, as if he was implicitly and extremely concerned about...(#2, next)

(2) Even before the election (and obviously also after the election, if Obama wins), some crazy out there with a gun or some fertilizer, and stoked up on a derivative of pseudoephedrine or some other drug of choice, may try to make his/her "vote" count more than everyone else's. The Secret Service has to be particularly vigilant, and our government's intelligence resources have to be employed to eliminate any potential threats before they can be acted upon.

Now, more than ever during this campaign, I am truly concerned about racists acting out their delusions.

-- triton --

#72 Strategy vs. Tactics

Sarah Painful mentioned, and almost discussed, "the difference between 'strategy' and 'tactics' " during her part of the debate this past week. Of course, as with so many other topics (that, however, Gwen Ifill was actually asking about), Painful did not discuss even this one that she had brought up herself.

But we've been getting practical examples during this past week of the Republicans' distinction between "strategy" and "tactics."

Republican strategy: to withdraw most of its campaign support from Michigan, because Obama has opened up close to a double-digit lead in the polls there.

Republican strategy: to keep putting money into five states that Kerry carried in 2004 (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and, now, Maine).

Republican Strategy: to put more money into Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, ten states that dubya carried four years ago.

Unfortunately for McCain, he's trailing Obama in the polls in the first group, the states that went Blue for Kerry, and he's trailing, tied, or at best only slightly ahead in the polls in the ten states listed above that went Red in 2004.

Now I have to repeat that I'm not sure we can particularly trust the polls this year, given the accuracy of polls in previous elections with Black vs. White nominees running for other offices. But if we practice "the willing suspension of disbelief" (thank you Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who was NOT talking about politics when he used that phrase), then the electoral college could play out very differently this election than last time around.

Republican Tactics: more money in the ten Red states listed above is the Republican admission of desperation. Desperate times call for desperate measures (gee, I wish I had coined that expression). And so, the Republican shift in "tactics": from normal-dirty to REALLY-dirty.

That's right. So far, they've attacked Obama's qualifications, they've attacked what has been said or done by people he knows, and now they're going after his character, his integrity, directly. Sarah Painful was on the news yesterday, indicating that Barack Obama has consorted with terrorists. I don't think she used the word "consorted" (it does have three syllables, after all) but, whatever word she did use, that's what she meant. She was referring to a 1960s era terrorist against whom the government had brought up charges...and then dropped the charges. The man is now a University of Chicago professor, and we all know of the surveys listing university professors as among the most highly respected profession (I'm not making that up). The truth is, Obama had worked with him to help a non-profit organization in Illinois in the 1990s, thirty years after the charges were filed and more than twenty years after the charges were dropped.

Never mind, by the bye, that Painful had chided Joe Biden this past week during the debate, "There you go again, Joe, looking to the past!" when Biden tried to tie John McCain to the bush administration's failed policies.

I think attacking Obama's character will fail: it will create a strong, indignant backlash against Republicans nationally, and may actually drag down Republicans who are further down the ticket rather than just affecting John McCain at the top. Such ad hominem attacks are indeed a sign of desperation. As tactics, they will also be futile.

-- triton --

#71 Not-So-Latent Local Racism

Yesterday we put up several Democratic candidate signs in our front yard. This morning all but one were still up. The Obama-Biden sign was missing. So I drove around our neighborhood and saw that, during the night, all Obama signs had been removed in the six square block area--from Blaine to Hayes, from Sixth to Third. The other Democratic candidate signs, for local and statewide offices, were still standing in the light rain that fell this morning.

I can reach only one conclusion: some not-so-latent racists were busy in the dark. It's annoying of course, and violates our freedom of speech.

But it also reinforces my concern that the polls this year may be particularly inaccurate. If racists do their dirty work in the dark, might they also be concealing their true vote preferences?

On September 27, Sam Wang published online a discussion of a large-scale empirical study by Harvard political scientist Dan Hopkins. Wang cites Hopkins' findings that, since the mid-1990s, the Bradley effect [named after former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley] has disappeared. The "Bradley effect" occurred when a non-white candidate falls short of the result projected by opinion polls on Election Day when he/she runs against a white candidate.

Wang explains: "Tom Bradley, a black man, lost the 1982 governor’s race despite the fact that in opinion polls taken before the election he led George Deukmejian, a white man. Sometimes it is also called the Wilder effect, after Gov. Doug Wilder of Virginia, who had a comfortable lead by nearly 10 percentage points in his 1990 campaign, but only won by a whisker."

Hopkins' study indicates that "Polls did show a significant Bradley/Wilder effect through the early 1990s, which includes the period when Bradley and Wilder were running for office. However, Hopkins notes that the effect then went away in races from 1996 onward. To quote the study: 'Before 1996, the median gap for black candidates was 3.1 percentage points, while for subsequent years it was -0.3 percentage points.' "

Of course, people can change their minds at the last moment about whom they wish to vote for. Still, I'm concerned by the possibility of people masking their intentions when they take part in this year's polls. And many people choose not to participate in the polls at all. Hence, I don't know how applicable to this year's election Hopkins' study truly is, and specifically how accurate the polls will turn out to be. Our neighborhood's disappearing Obama signs give additional cause to raise that question.

-- triton --

#70 Biden's Passion

Several bloggers and TV commentators have mentioned Joe Biden's passion that surfaced a few times last night. They point particularly to his emotional reference to the loss of his first wife and infant daughter. That was a touching moment, and it did steal the thunder from Sarah Painful's introducing what it's like to be a parent with a job and home responsibilities and government responsibilities.

But I thought Biden's passion was at its strongest when he interrupted Gwen Ifill after Painful finished referring--for the umpteenth time--to McCain and herself as "mavericks." Biden said (and these are close to but probably not exact quotes), "Gwen, I have to interrupt you at this point to refute what the governor has said about John and her being mavericks. I love John [a point he made just a liiiiiittle too often last night], but he's no maverick most of the time, and certainly NOT on the issues that matter most to the American middle class." And then Biden looked straight to the camera, which zeroed in on his face, and he listed the litany of times that McCain supported the dubya administration's policies that adversely affected normal, middle-class Americans. It was, from my point of view, the most powerful moment in the debate.

It is this kind of passion, straight from the heart, that connects Joe Biden with the blue-collar voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania and, I hope, Ohio.

Next post: a return to the states that are moving.

-- triton --

#69 It's still the economy....

Two debates down, two to go. But the debates--so far at least--haven't done much to change the direction of the election. "It's the economy...," to quote part of James Carville's mantra from eight years ago.

"Employers cut 159,000 jobs, most in more than 5 years; jobless rate holds steady," is today's AP online headline. And of course the stock market has been tanking, with its double-digit moves down and up--mostly down--for several weeks. This drop in the Dow Jones Industrial average, the S&P 500, Nasdaq and nearly every other indicator was foreshadowed months ago when the Dow Jones Utilities average broke below its 474 support level. It's at 415.52 as we begin trading today.

The economy has taken its toll on the Republican ticket, and probably not just on John McCain/Sarah Painful. If there is not a dramatic, and highly unusual movement upward in the next month (or a dubya-manufactured October surprise), expect Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate to increase significantly.

The economy hits home first and hardest and most obviously. People vote their pocketbooks. And many more people are unemployed and homeless today than a year ago, with unemployment up nearly 33% from the 4.6% average 2007 US unemployment. Banks and investment firms are going out of business, or are being bought up at bargain prices by their stronger former competitors; and over a trillion dollars was lost in one day in retirement accounts this past week.

McCain has all but pulled his support staff and advertising budget from Michigan, once thought to be a battleground state, conceding its 17 electoral votes to Obama. North Carolina is now a tossup; Pennsylvania--another battleground state--seems to be moving solidly toward Obama; Nevada and Colorado are battleground states, while New Mexico (which I moved weeks ago to the Obama side) now is more solidly Blue. Montana, on the other hand, seems pretty solidly a Red state again.

If NV and CO actually vote Democratic for president this year, Obama might not need to win Ohio, though I still don't trust the close polls, especially with a significant number of "undecided" voters out there.

But the economy has shaken things loose and shaken up the McCain campaign. We have 32 days until the election. Still anything can happen, but September and early October have been disastrous for the economy, and for the Republicans.

-- triton --