Is the election really close?

If you have listened to the news lately (especially Fox News, the Weekly Standard, or Drudge), you would think the election is at least somewhat close. 

The answer is not really. Obama is smashing McCain in the electoral college, and leading in virtually all the battleground states. Unbiased pollsters and blogs show clear leads for Obama. Currently fivethirtyeight.com, give McCain a whopping 2.7% win rate. 

I writing this as Fox, claims breaking news, that Drudge (a place that admits it is wrong 20% of the time), claims that Zogby leaked their 1 day poll and McCain was +1. If you know much about statistics, this means absolute crap. Polls are conducted by doing three day surveys each of about 300 people, to avoid special cause of day to day variation. However, each day by itself, is not statistically enough sample information to accurately predict a population, for that you need all three days. Therefore, this poll means nothing, yet the hype is going to be crazy tomorrow if Matt Drudge is right. 

So why, does the media want a close election? Of course, it is ratings. If the election is a "horse race" people are more likely to tune into their daily coverage, and even better given them something to watch on election night. This is a money business, and the closer they can make the better for them.

However, does the media saying the election is close, or McCain is getting destroyed really change the perceptions of the electorate. This is something I have long wondered about. Obama, claims that will help him as it will give more people to worry and GOTV, but I am not so convinced. I think it gives an opportunity for more independents to reconsider McCain, because it the more 'popular' thing to do. Well I look and see if the election closes...

As for PA... as much as the media has hyped it...Obama is looking to easily win it.

Bradley in PA?

More and more this election we continue to hear worries about the so-called Bradley effect: that some voters will lie in the polls and say that they are voting for Obama, but then will turn around and vote against him based on his race once they are in the privacy of the voting booth.

Pennsylvania has not been exempt from this concern, and in fact has been characterized as "Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Alabama in between", referring to the high incidence of racism in the Deep South. The two groups considered highest at risk are blue collar Democrats, who tend to be very culturally conservative, and rural white Republicans, which mostly make up the "Alabama" portion of Pennsylvania. (Though, personally, if this region is characterized as being like Alabama, I am not sure why the residents would feel the need to lie to the polls in the first place.)

But how much credence is there really to this theory? Anyone who is too ashamed of their prejudices before the elections is still going to be too ashamed after as the same consequences still exist, so there is essentially no way to measure this effect unless one has the ability to read minds. Even if records were kept to see how many people voted differently than they polled, there is still no way to prove why they changed their mind.

So we can't prove or disprove the Bradley effect, but what effects could the Bradley effect be having on this election? Most obviously, all of this speculation continues to make race a continuing issue in this election - a topic most carefully avoided by the candidates themselves. Those who are going to vote prejudice are going to vote prejudice - they are not going to forget, even if race was not in the foreground. However, the constant discussion of race may serve to motivate those opposed to it and may serve as a point of relation with Obama for others. Racism us certainly a sensitive topic, with many as violently opposed to it as those who fall under its shadow, and is a difficult matter to discuss without offending. In the end I don't think the speculation on the Bradley effect will affect the polls much, except perhaps with a slight advantage to Obama. (This is not saying the effect itself won;t affect polls, but as we've already discussed that is not possible to measure under current methods.)

But what about after the election? Will this speculation color our view of this election? If John McCain wins, will everyone call race as the cause? If so, we could be in a very dangerous situation. Racists are one of the few and one of the largest factions in the United States (as many believe that non-whites do not deserve the same rights as whites), and it has already torn this country apart and led it into our only civil war. Could a McCain win revive these passions, and bring to the surface the conflict that has been buried so long? Could we see a re-emergence of race riots? This is very worst case scenario, but still a frightening possibility. At the very least, accusations of race as the decisive factor in the next election will only serve to hurt the legitimacy of McCain's presidency and the whole concept of a government based on the equality of its people.

McCain back in trouble in PA

Today's New York Times cover story focused on Pennsylvania being a highly contested state as the McCain campaign is hoping for an upset in this key state. this seems highly unlikely however as all polls listed on realclearpolitics.com show Obama leading by anywhere from 7-14% points. It seems that his likelihood of winning at all depends on him winning the electoral vote, yet losing the popular vote.

Republicans imply Obama will bring the next Holocaust

Recently a Pro-McCain email was sent out to Pennsylvania Jews suggesting a vote for Obama could bring about another Holocaust. It was sent by the state Republican Party's "Victory 2008" committee. In the email it said: “Jewish Americans cannot afford to make the wrong decision on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008. Many of our ancestors ignored the warning signs in the 1930s and 1940s and made a tragic mistake. Let's not make a similar one this year.”

This kind of tactic seems a bit out of line. The Obama campaign has asked McCain to disavow the letter. It will be interesting to see how he handles it. Apparently the individuals whom this went to seem to be divided in the appropriateness and issues with it.

Palin in Pennsylvania

Palin campaigned in Pittsburg today, giving a policy speech in which she said she wished to "expand educational choice for parents, increase funding for children with disabilities and improve services available to parents, medical professionals and schools." She also outlined how federal money would be used to allow parents to pick their own schools, how she would fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Being as this is Palin's first policy speech according to CNN, I would have to agree with the post below that the McCain campaign has not given up in PA.

McCain placing his eggs in PA

In political circles (and starting to be revealed in the national media), that McCain is starting to pull out in New Mexico, Colorado, Maine, Iowa, and Wisconsin. He is doing this to refocus on PA. The reason he is behind, is it is believed no matter what he does he is going to lose two battleground states, which would cost him the election. However, PA has enough electoral votes to counteract that. So far there has been little movement in the polls. In addition, McCain has already spent his fortune there and has not edged up in polls.

Latest numbers I have heard of what John McCain would need to win:

95% Republican Vote

15% Democratic Vote

60% Indpendent Vote

Nearly impossible given the current political atmosphere.

Link to Time article

http://thepage.time.com/2008/10/24/11-days-left/

McCain visits PA

Yesterday John McCain visited 3 different cities in PA hitting key points accross the state near Philadelphia, Harrisburg, the capital, and Pittsburgh. McCain's advisors say that the state is still within reach of McCain's grasp while the Democrats have all but written the state off as won by them as they have new polls showing double digit leads. Their VP candidate also hailing from Scranton, PA is also holding their lead in the state, and historically the state has ran democratic for several elections. For McCain to win nationally though, it would behoove him to win PA.

Response to Old for Obama

I have one objection to SRodens post. You suggest the elderly vote for Obama because he is for a better economy...so what, is McCain FOR a BAD economy? Of course not, this is like saying a candidate may be for more crime - no one holds that position. I would say that you have oversimplified the matter and it is more a situation of the Obama campaign doing a better job of sending their message regarding the economy. One may think conservative economic principles will be bad for the economy, but that doesn't mean they want a bad economy, they just hold a different opinion on what will help. The criticism should be more about the poor delivery of message rather than suggesting only Obama is for improving the economy.

Another point to keep in mind is that this economic downfall has just occurred, and when drastic nation- and global-wide crisis occur, it is the natural tendency for people to want their governments to just fix it, and then later regret giving them the additional power and influence. To take a democratic view this is exactly what happened with the war on terror. Of course everyone is against terror (except the terrorists, presumably), and when we were in the aftermath of September 11th we all unanimously wanted to fight back against terrorism, but now many, democrats especially, now regret the power we gave the national government in the pursuit of it, such as the patriot act, and regret what the result is.

I think it is very interesting how this election has been influenced by our current trials. Before the last fall in the economy that really sealed the US economic coffin for the next several months, McCain was steadily gaining and even ahead according to many polls, enjoying widespread popularity. But now the economy has crashed, and we all have changed our focus to wanting someone to make it all better for us - so we turned to the democrats who have been viewed as strong on the economy since "It's the economy stupid!" first took ground. Really this is very intriguing since so many feel Democratic tax policies are so bad for the economy. Already we are seeing more government involvement in business with the bailout and other efforts, but I see little attention being paid to what sorts of precedents the actions that we take in the next several months will establish, especially if there is more governmental intrusion into business as is democratic policy. When the dust settles, are we again going to have buyer's remorse yet again?

Where would be now if instead of an economic crash we had suffered another terrorist attack? Can anyone deny this would be a totally different picture? And what does this say about the American electorate if they are so flippant as to be so biased by current events and so quick to forget?

The proof for my last post!

my last post talked about how joe the plumber would become famous on snl and late night talk shows and here is the proof!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl97

Ballot controversy in PA

This year Steven Porter attempted to run as a third party candidate in the 3rd District of Pennsylvania. He obtained 3,000 signatures, more than the necessary 2,171. Unfortunately for Porter, these signatures were challenged by a few supporters of the Democratic challenger because Porter had filled out some of the date and location information for the signers, but never a signature. All parties agreed that each signature was authentic and that there was no forgery of signatures, but nonetheless Pennsylvania courts ruled that he could not appear on the ballot since he had written some of the information in himself. This morning the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld that decision, despite Porter's appeal that the law (this and the fact that third parties need twice the number of signatures as the major party candidates) made it unreasonably difficult for third party candidates and goes against the concept of free and equal elections. The court agreed the state legislature should revisit the laws and the impact they have on candidates, but that nothing was unconstitutional about the laws and as such under the law he was off the ballot. So, based on a technical detail, with signatures of 3000 people that no one thinks are forged, Porter is out.

How do events such as these affect the democratic process? Perhaps the worst is the de-legitimizing of the the process to those 3rd district Pennsylvanians. Many perceive any limit on who the people can choose to represent them as inherently undemocratic, and seeing this sort of technicality get in the way of it causes people to start to think that something is wrong with the process established. And if the process is flawed, then that weakens the claims that anyone elected by that process is legitimate. Our government's ability to govern is based on the fact that the people believe it should be. Undermining that belief undermines the government itself.

In general this controversy seems to tie to a theme of conflict throughout the United States - how do we prevent corruption without making it unreasonably difficult for third parties to participate? The same problem arises with campaign finance reform - how do you prevent corruption from campaign finance without hindering the third party's ability to express their views? Corruption is also damaging to the legitimacy of the government. These two forces seem at tension, and it will be up to the American people to decide the relative importance of preventing corruption and choice.

Old for Obama?

For the past month, there has been an uptick for Obama in the polls. Which demographic has Obama seen this large up tick- the 55+ crowd. This is no surprise as most polls show that democratic candidates are more appealing to improve the economy. Elderly people want there medicare, social security, and a protection of there investment, which generally democratic candidates support. Zogby shows they support Obama by a 10 point margin from a nearly 10 point McCain poll.

Why is this bad for McCain? History shows that seniors vote in high margins, and this boost for Obama is going to really hurt McCain. In addition, there is a high amount of seniors in battle ground states specifically, Florida.

On another note, Pennsylvania is almost certainly going for Obama as he double digit leads confirmed by 11 polls. As stated in early posts he should draw out of PA, but he shouldn't tell the media about it.

Line Item Veto

McCain has stated in the most recent presidential debate that if elected, he would support a line-item veto. This is a blatant political move and aside from being completely unconstitutional, it goes against the power of Congress to pass laws, inhibiting their ability to create laws with the will of the people.

A president's power to veto bills comes from this line in the Constitution:

" Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill."

A line-item veto is neither a full passage of a bill into law, or a full veto that goes back to Congress. The President using line-item veto choses parts of a bill to pass, and parts to veto. The "vetoed" sections of the bill usually go back to Congress. President Bill Clinton used it heavily with the passage of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court two years later, voted unconstitutional by a 6-3 vote.

If McCain were presented with a bill, passed by a Democratic majority, which included previsions that he didn't care for, by his standards, he could pick and chose the potions of the bill he liked. The is obviously a political move. If, in order to get the bill through the House (for example), Democrats had to add a provision for Republicans, McCain could, theoretically, veto every portion of the bill except for that from his party. But of course, he is a maverick, who "has the scars to prove" that he continually goes against his party! So! Whose decision really governs here? It is now McCain's sole responsibility to decide what laws would be good for our country. Does it scare anyone, that McCain thinks Presidential Supremacy is so high that he and only he can decide what laws should be passed in this country? Won't he have to work with Congress to get any of his proposed spending cuts, government programs or tax cuts passed? Or can he do it all by himself? Can John McCain the maverick write laws, pass laws, sign bills into law, and fix up Joe the Plumber with a nice new mortgage all by himself? Last time I checked, he only had the power to do one of those things. And he thinks even that power should be more powerful.

Ode to 'Joe The Plumber'

I would just like to point out right now at 22:45 on 10/15/08 that John McCain has placed his entire campaign onto the shoulders of Joe The Plumber as of this evening as he mentioned him no less than 20 different times in this evenings debate. It also goes without saying, but I will say it anyway, that Joe The Plumber will undoubtedly be the butt of ever so many jokes as well as probably a main feature of several Saturday Night Live episodes to come.

Mad grab for Keystone state

In recent days, both parties campaigns have sent important figures to stump for their candidates in Pennsylvania with Sarah Palin making several appearances for McCain and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan stumping for Obama in the key Bucks County district where the congressional seat is all but assured to Patrick Murphy. Pennsylvania will also be receiving visits from Hillary Clinton where she will be speaking at several rallies and townhall meetings.
Another important item to point out is the impact of new methods of reaching out to voters. Myspace and Facebook have become king in terms of reaching out to younger voters, in ways that have never been done before. They have captured the attention of major news sources as NBC News as they have sprouted the Myspace Impact project which goes out of its way to ensnare the otherwise uninterested college students. It posts the concentrated highlights of debates and important speeches by the candidates as well as the option to view them in whole so viewers who might not sit down to watch a 90 minute debate can watch a 3 minute highlight reel and at least make a somewhat informed opinion as opposed to an opinion that is based solely upon other peoples opinions.

Not giving up yet....

Looks like McCain just isn't willing to give up Pennsylvania yet. Both he and Governor Palin are scheduled for several events over the next couple of days. Since June he has been to Pennsylvania 17 times.

The recent numbers for Obama versus McCain have definitely been influenced by the half a million newly registered Democrats - but just registering to vote doesn't mean they will show up to vote. Republicans are well known to drop loads of money on getting the voters to the polls versus they Democrats strategy of getting voters to register. If all the polls show Obama leading so strongly, will the dems show up to vote? Will the Republicans ability to get out there and get people to the polls bolster McCain? If the polls are so hopeless, then why do so many political analysts think there is hope for McCain? In addition to all the analysts out on tv and in the news you know McCain has a team of experts on the matter - why do they still think he has a chance? I have a hard time believing that people who make their livelihood off of these predictions could all be completely off base. But what do they see? Is it Obama's terrible record with the working class? His tendency to insult many of the groups that exists in Pennsylvania openly when he's visiting other states? His ability to get out the vote? With so many factors at play it seems hard to tell.

But one thing we know for sure is that there is no sure thing when it comes to politics. We can only hope we will learn more as the election approaches.

Response to Gina and Kelsey

Gina- It was Michigan- a historically dem state (went for the Dems the last 4 times, and Obama has a large lead) that he pulled out of not Minnesota. However, it looks like he should also pull out of Minnesota (which seems to vote for the dems all the time). A poll just put him down by 18 points.

In response, that McCain had no chance a year and half ago isn't exactly correct. There are three reasons why McCain was able to beat the odds last time and isn't going to happen this time (in at least PA)

1)There were many staunch conservatives in the race(Jim Gilmore, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Mitt Romney, and Tom Tancredo) with only Rudy Giuliani and John McCain considered as moderates. McCain was initially down, but when Giuliani campaign collapsed (one of the worst campaigns run in US history), most of the votes went to the remaining moderate, McCain. Why was McCain able to beat the other people on the ticket- pure numbers. The cummalitive rest of the candiates had more support than McCain, however, they had similar views and therefore had to split the vote. This is why McCain has trouble with the base who did not want him.

Now there is only 2 choices. Obama or McCain- no 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th candidates to sway voters with similar ideals.

2)If you look at the undecided vote, during the primary there was a very large percentage of undecided votes. However, most people have made up their mind recent polls show. As of now, only 2% of remaining voters remain undecided. With a 10% lead there is little you can do.

3)Historically candidates in presidential  races this far down almost always lose. There is three recent comeback elections. The most recent has to be Gore/Lieberman who came back 6 points nationally in the final month only to lose. Ford/Dole came back 20 points in the last 2 months only to you know what ... lose. The only one to surprise America and win was Truman/Barkley who beat Dewey by 4 points.  How did this happen, Dewey became so far ahead, they stopped polling. Today polls come out every day from every media source, so this isn't going to happen this time. (The media actually so badly called this election, that the Tribune declared Dewey the winner, after the votes had been counted.) Looking back at previous elections the chance of him winning the state is 10% at best. Is it worth spending millions which might only give him another 20% chance on winning on the cost of loosing in must win states. Absolutely not. If these battle ground states remain even, I can assure you that Barack Obama will win. I don't think people understand that McCain must win all 8 states that Bush won in '04. Right now there is a 50-50 chance (rather generous since Obama is leading in 6 of the 8 states) that McCain will win those states. Using those odds there is only 0.39% chance of McCain sweeping all those states. If McCain runs a broad campaign these chance will remain. However, if McCain focuses on 'the Bush 8' states, he'll increase his odds of winning dramatically. In other words, campaign in states where you don't have a huge handicap to overcome.

In Response

In response to the post below, McCain's problem seems to be pulling out of markets before he should. Yes, his numbers are falling in Pennsylvania, but it is the failure of McCain to fight for states in which his constituency is present that makes the voters who WOULD vote for McCain angry and apathetic. Such is the case in Minnesota, where McCain has recently pulled his ads and sent his campaign staff to other states. There are reports coming out of that state that this has ruined any chances McCain had because he has "abandoned" his voters. However, this seems like the smart political decision because of McCain's low funds, even if it alienates his base.

RealClearPolitics gives a Obama a 'solid' lead in Penn

The race is just about over for McCain in PA. He should send off the troops, where it is likely going to be competitive. Obama leads McCain, by an average of 10 points, with some polls have him up considerably more. McCain should be looking on trying to keep the states that were won by George Bush in '04 i.e Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Colorado, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Nevada. Since Obama is comfortably up in Iowa and New Mexico (won by Bush in '04), he can't lose a single other state won by Bush. I still think it is possible for McCain to sweep all these states, but it is not going to be easy if he is spending all his money on expensive media markets in PA, especially since he is down in six out of the eight states.

Anyway the PA presidential race is all but sealed for Obama.

VP Debates

The Vice Presidential debates that took place last night turned out to be one of the most watched debates in history - an unusual occurrence for an unusual election. Once of the most amusing aspects of this race was that decided voters on each side seem to largely have tuned in to watch the other side fall flat on their face. Palin has been under heavy fire lately due to some poor interviews, namely that with Katie Couric - an interview so awful that even some in her own party began to think McCain should take her off of the ticket - and many Democrats tuned in with glee to hopefully see her continue to seem like she doesn't know what's going on. Similarly, Biden has become known for saying unfortunate comments that are in some way offensive or insensitive. So what happened? Neither side had a serious blunder, and in the day-after fall out it seems agreed to be a tie - those who already leaned toward Obama-Biden thought Biden won, and those who leaned towards McCain-Palin thought Palin won, and undecideds really had nothing new to really change their mind. However, many critics are arguing that a tie is a win for Palin after her recent disasters, and that contrary to expectations she was able to hold her own both on foreign policy and the economy against a seasoned politician. Being able to talk straight to the people in a more free form than a direct interview definitely seems to benefit Palin - and she was articulate and had something to say on every issue. Biden also did pretty well - but since that is what was more expected of him it really didn't gain anything for him.

So that's two debates now where it seems that almost no one changed their mind, which makes sense given the ridiculously long election season we've had. How much more can Obama or McCain say without getting into the details of policy that never seem to resonate well with the audience (and tends to lead to a decent amount of snoring...). Most Americans seem to have a good idea of what both candidates stand far as much as one expects to in any election - so what does this mean for November? And why then have the polls jumped all over the place over the last month? I would suggest that it is more the fickleness of the human mind, where we care the most about what is currently bothering us now. Obama has painted himself as strong on the economy, whereas McCain is more well known for being strong on foreign policy. And, coincidentally (or is it?), every time the economy takes another dive, Obama rises in the polls. And every time things seem to be looking better domestically and people again begin to focus abroad, McCain rises in the polls. Yet neither has revealed anything new about their policies in this time. With how close elections tend to run in the United States, this could mean that who is sworn into office next year has more to do with what domestic and international events occur in the next month than any actual policy or debate of the candidates.

And there's nothing more comforting than knowing our next President is going to be a result of chance as much as of merit.

Democrat voter registration gap widens

In PA there are now about 1.1 Million more registered democrats than republicans. The question is, of course, how many of them will actually vote this November. Many registered before the primaries because of the contentious running of Clinton and Obama. Will they once again come out in droves?

It seems the democrats have at least the polls on their side. Most polls seem to have Obama over McCain now between 1% and 8%. Not exactly a landslide -- but reassuring for them at least. And with more voters, all they need to do it get them all to pull the lever. Harder done, for sure.

Sources: Pennsylvania Polls: Keystone Staters Want Obama
Dem registration gap in Pa. widens to 1.1M