The Women's Vote

I was looking at the women's vote in the 2008 election. And came across this:

Women's votes were a significant factor in Senator Barack Obama's victory, with a sizable gender gap evident in the election results....Women strongly preferred Obama to Senator John McCain (56 percent for Obama, 43 percent for McCain), unlike men, who split their votes about evenly for the two presidential candidates (49 percent for Obama, 48 percent for McCain).

The Republicans have their work cut out for them.

Take my own mate. I was telling her before the election that Obama would be a communist disaster. She voted for Obama anyway. When I asked her why, she said she didn't like Palin. Not because of Palin's policy positions. Nope. She didn't like the way Palin talked. Ugh.

BTW the mate now agrees with me that Obama is a disaster. And we voted in Illinois which went solidly for Obama. So two canceled votes. Not important. What is important is the attitude.

Sometimes I despair that we ever gave women the vote. Just kidding honey. Well, maybe not. (I'm in the dog house now - if she reads this).

Cross Posted at Classical Values

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

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

Obama Wins It

Damn

I guess Plumbers, PUMAs, and Palin were not enough. Oh, well. We are in for a rough 4 years.

Reports from Boyztown

I believe Boyztown in Chicago is the Belmont/Halsted area. HillBuzz has the report.

You can tell the Obama supporters on the street, though. They look really worried. Word’s spreading fast here that Obama’s going to lose — the big Reifenstahl-styled rally Obama planned for Grant Park has been downgraded, according to police we know. Instead of one million people coming out to hear his concession speech tonight, the city is now expecting only “tens of thousands”. The world’s biggest celebrity doesn’t seem to be drawing the crowd he hoped.

More later when we get the chance — back to our stations — another four hours or so until polls close here.

If turnout and excitement for Obama are as dismal in the rest of the city as they are in Boystown, this could be a VERY bad night for Dear Leader.

Let us hope so.

I Just Voted

In Rockford, Illinois. No long lines. Very well organized.

You know where I stand. Let us see what happens.

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

Don't Give It To Him - Make Him Steal It

I had twenty topics ready for blog posts today, but I'm just not into it: maybe later. No retreat - get out and vote. And bring a friend. Every vote counts - if even just a as show of support. If McCain wins this - and I'm optimistic - the popular vote totals will be just as important to grant him legitimacy over and above an Electoral College win. Vote. Every bit of support counts.

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

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

USA, USA, USA, USA, USA

H/T Ace of Spades Hq. which has the usual moronic discussion in copious quantities.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

The Real Margin Of Error

I was over visiting The Volokh Conspiracy's discussion of the polls. And I Said something like:

America is not a predominately socialist/communist country.

As to why the polls are wrong: the pollsters are cooking the books. Operation Chaos screwed voter ID numbers. Republicans don't like being polled. PUMAs are being seriously under counted.

Commenter LM came back at me and said that saying that America is not a socialist/communist country was a veiled smear. Well that set me off for another round. And this is what I said (revised and extended):

LM,

Interesting - saying America is not a "share the wealth" country is a smear. OKy doake.

Second,

How about all the predictions of Obama wins in the primaries that saw 10, 20, 30, and in some cases 40 point swings (polls vs reality) in Clinton vs Obama.

Big Obama Win Predicted.

Of course the pollsters have gotten all that fixed and now their predictions of a big Obama win are right on the mark. Why take Pennsylvania for instance. Despite a big Obama loss in the primaries, Obama has converted all those Clinton voters and Republicans and is now poised for a big win there.

Sure it is possible. What are the odds?

The polls this year are GARBAGE. Let me spell it out for you: G. A. R. B. A. G. E.

Their connection to reality is tenuous at best. They called a bunch of people. They got answers to questions. They then adjusted the numbers to match their proposed model of reality. Which is all good if their model is correct.

But suppose most of the D surge in registrations was Operation Chaos people? Those should be shifted from D to R. Or perhaps their view of defecting Democrats is about 20% of Hillary voters and it is actually 40%. Obviously if you get "too many" of them in a sample you have to scale it back 60% or 70% of that demographic.

And how about the 80% that won't answer the pollsters. Does their demographics match the 20% that do answer?

With those kind of response rates you have a self selecting sample. A no no in statistics. Not random. All opinions don't have an equal chance of being sampled. So what is the weighting for that? Well you sample the people that don't want to be sampled and adjust your samples to match the total pool. But how do you randomly sample people that don't want to be sampled to find out what the bias is?

But it is worse. All these numbers are shifting all the time and from place to place. And sample demographics vary from day to day. How many church goers are you going to sample from 9AM to 1 PM on Sunday? How many employed people will you get from 8 AM to 5 PM on workdays? If you sample in the evenings how many 2nd shift workers do you get? How many long haul truckers do you get on any day?

In Hillary vs Obama the polls at least about 1/2 the time weren't even close. No where near the "margin of error". All we know is the statistical margin of error given the sample size. We know nothing about the real margin of error.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Obama Wants To Privatize Public Housing

Warren Throckmorton looks at some of the insider public housing deals going on in Obama's Chicago.

The same Sun-Time article adds,

The tenants there had no heat from Dec. 27, 1996, until at least Feb. 3, 1997, when the city of Chicago sued to turn the heat on. The case was settled later that month with a $100 fine.

It was during that time that the area’s new state senator, Barack Obama, got a $1,000 campaign donation from Rezmar. The date: Jan. 14, 1997.

When asked about the incident, Senator Obama said he “never had a conversation with Mr. Rezko about the matter.” The Boston Globe later probed for more about these events, but the Obama campaign did not answer their specific questions.

I asked Ms. Turner if she was aware of an occasion when Obama publicly confronted those managing the properties in decline about the worsening conditions. She was unaware of any such confrontation, saying that Obama “was for privatizing of public housings,” and added:

Just take a look at who all signed on to privatizing public housing, as well as who received the managing contracts as well as who benefited from these moves.

When asked specifically, who Ms. Turner referred to, she said,

Valerie Jarrett and, Daley and William Moorehead, Reverend Brazier, and Reverend Leon Finley were his friends they received contracts for managing CHA properties, some were indicted such as Moorehead.

How about a look at some of those properties?
Doug Ross has more photos and a discussion of Obama campaign donations from developers.

It is amazing that this crook from Chicago has even the smallest chance to be President of the United States. Help reduce his odds and show your support for McCain/Palin by voting Tuesday. Remember:

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

Obama: We Will Bankrupt You

He is talking about how he will bankrupt any investment in new coal power plants. I think that is just the start.

BTW Obama's State, Illinois, has a significant coal mining industry.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Something To Play With

An interactive electoral map. Change states from blue to red and see what the Electoral College numbers look like.

Here is another map some people like better. And it is not CNN.

Racing Towards Riots

Erica Jong predicts that if Obama loses there will be a second civil war in America. One wag at the site linked (Hot Air) had this to say:

If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me.

The sad part is that this is starting to sound like a good idea.

RedWinged Blackbird on November 1, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Now let me see if I can figure out the order of battle. One side believes in gun control and the other side believes in the right to keep and bear arms. You know it is a tough call, but I'm betting on the side with more firearms training and firearms in their possession.

My ugly prediction? About 22 cities with disturbances that last more than a day and 15 with major arson. About 27 dead unless the arsonists manage to torch buildings full of people. My number one city on the list is Chicago. Obama already has Grant Park staked out. Just like '68. Number two? Detroit. And you know what? For once I hope my prediction is totally over wrought. Here is one case where I would love to be proved wrong. Totally.

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

Wrong On Wright

Mr. Obama tells what a wonderful man Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright is. "The best of what the black church has to offer", says Obama. No doubt Obama was sleeping through the sermons.

H/T Pal2Pal