We have to yield to consistent polling results and move VA and CO from our toss-up status to likely Obama states. This makes the projected result 291-200 Obama, with OH and FL (47 Electoral Votes) as toss-ups.
The more detailed assessment would be: Solid McCain 163, Leaning McCain 37 (NC, MO, and IN); Solid Obama 259, Leaning Obama 32 (NV, VA, CO, and, pending more polling results, NM, which I have been somewhat surprised Obama hasn't put away already).
Of the leaning McCain states, NC may be more of a toss-up than the others, but I am unconvinced.
Those who are showing Obama with 350 or more electoral votes are giving too much value to polling results that don't even show a margin greater than the quoted error of their samples.
There is still the question of polling measurement error, whether due to false answers from polled individuals, improper weighting, or voter suppression/turnout estimation errors. This is pretty much all that McPalin can rely on, as they aren't going to provide the winning surprise, either in October or November.
The popular vote estimate seems to be converging between 51-47 Obama and 52-46. Roughly, Obama and McCain are winning 90% of their party supporters (about 40-33 Democrat) and splitting the 27% of those thoroughly unafilliated with either major party about evenly (2% going to 3rd party candidates).
This compares favorably with the 51-48 result for Bush over Kerry in 2004, and the Electoral Vote margin should also be expected to be a little wider than the 286-252 margin Bush got.
This will be my final forecast before Election Day. I may adjust it that day if there's anything new.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Going Downmarket
After Colin Powell's endorsement surprised and cheered me on Sunday's Meet the Press, I heard something from Andrea Mitchell later on in the program that disturbed me. She reported that the Obama campaign is sinking $5 million into organizing West Virginia's Get Out the Vote (GOTV).
First, I am humbled by the brilliance of Obama's campaign, almost to the point where I realize I almost dare not criticize any move they make. Quite simply, it is the best-run campaign in the history of American national elections.
Almost, anyway. This decision sounds like an over-reach to me.
It's not that GOTV in WV, in principle, does not make sense. If WV's 5 electoral votes were competitively in the same situation as NM's 5, I would say, yes, rent 1000 vehicles and snake them through the state's treacherous roads, find those supporters in the hill and mill towns and the hollows and drive them in to the polls.
They aren't, though. One could make a theoretical argument that, because of its relatively small population, GOTV could turn the state and make the difference in case CO, FL, OH, VA, and NV all fail to come through (any one of them, given IA, NM, and loss of no states Kerry won, would be sufficient). Much more likely, though, if WV were truly in play, Obama would already have most of those, plus maybe MO or NC--with polling results better for Obama than WV--and what we'd be talking about is the difference between something like 360 EV and 365. Which is no difference at all worth talking about.
Yes, West Virginia is legitimately part of a 50-state strategy, and perhaps the polls have shown the state within the margin of error, now at the peak of Obama's margin (I expect it to contract 2-4 points from here). It's not worth $5 million of his contributors' money, and I don't believe for a minute he's going to win there.
I feel particularly strongly so since there is no doubt about the Senate race in WV, either--Jay Rockefeller's ahead by 20 points or so. I'd rather the Obama campaign slipped the $5 mil to Democrat Bruce Lunsford in KY, or even put it into NC, where Obama's got just as good a chance (better) of winning the state, and where his campaign's organizational capabilities could make a difference there in an extremely close Senate race of major importance to his ability to govern effectively. Even GA would be better (and I know Obama's put a lot of effort into it).
Obama's campaign may feel they have reached saturation in all the true battleground states, but somehow I doubt that, too.
Senate Races
How many seats will the Democrats get; will they make it to 60? This is the planned sideshow in the event that, on Election Night, Obama clinches victory early (which is exactly equivalent to VA, NC, and/or FL going clearly for Obama on exit polls and early results).
The question is very much like the one that dominated Election Night in 2006 once it became clear that the Democrats would take control of the House of Representatives: would they get to 50 in the Senate?
I have to admit I was wrong about that one, though I was right that it wouldn't make that much difference if they did. 51-49 wasn't enough to be able to get anything done; however 56-43-1 and a Democratic President (my prediction; counting Bernie Sanders but not Lieberman in the majority) should be, as a little compromise will bring a couple of liberal Republicans (and/or Lieberman) along to vote for cloture.
Here are my rankings of likelihood of pickup in the Senate seats where there's a chance:
1) New Mexico--practically a sure thing at this point;
2) Virginia--Mark will keep the seat Warner.
3) Colorado--Mark Udall has pulled away toward the end and looks as though he'll join cousin Tom.
4) Alaska--Stevens still has a chance if he gains acquittal before the election; looks dubious.
5) New Hampshire--Jeanne Shaheen is the most popular home-grown politician in the state; John Sununu isn't.
6) North Carolina--I'm expecting this to be the biggest win of the night.
7) Minnesota--it's a 50-50 proposition at this point; the third-party candidate is helping Franken's chances.
8) Oregon--ditto Minnesota.
9) Mississippi--this would be a very exciting win if it happens (I'd say about 33% chance)
10) Kentucky--this would be even more significant, defeating the Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would be a total disaster for the Republican Senate morale (25% chance)
11) Georgia--this would be a huge moral victory for the Democrats (beating the guy who slimed Max Cleland in 2002), but is unlikely.
The Democrats would need to win ten for a Lieberman-proof 60-vote majority, so it's a huge longshot. My guess is they will win 1-5, and one of 6, 7, or 8. Because third-party candidates usually lose support in the last few days as people get practical, I expect the Republicans' chance to be improving in MN and OR as we go into Election Day. A six-vote gain in the Senate campaign would be a major win, particularly since it appears once again the Democrats will not lose a seat they currently hold (and, a little-reported fact, this year the Democrats had the most seats to defend).
On Rasmussen, I've split my bets between 51-55 Democrats and 56-60. The latter is by far the more popular choice these days, but I don't think all bettors are considering that Sanders and Lieberman shouldn't count toward that total. A six-seat pickup should mean 55 Democrats (from the 49 "pure" ones they have today).
I will take a stab at a House prediction before Election Day.
First, I am humbled by the brilliance of Obama's campaign, almost to the point where I realize I almost dare not criticize any move they make. Quite simply, it is the best-run campaign in the history of American national elections.
Almost, anyway. This decision sounds like an over-reach to me.
It's not that GOTV in WV, in principle, does not make sense. If WV's 5 electoral votes were competitively in the same situation as NM's 5, I would say, yes, rent 1000 vehicles and snake them through the state's treacherous roads, find those supporters in the hill and mill towns and the hollows and drive them in to the polls.
They aren't, though. One could make a theoretical argument that, because of its relatively small population, GOTV could turn the state and make the difference in case CO, FL, OH, VA, and NV all fail to come through (any one of them, given IA, NM, and loss of no states Kerry won, would be sufficient). Much more likely, though, if WV were truly in play, Obama would already have most of those, plus maybe MO or NC--with polling results better for Obama than WV--and what we'd be talking about is the difference between something like 360 EV and 365. Which is no difference at all worth talking about.
Yes, West Virginia is legitimately part of a 50-state strategy, and perhaps the polls have shown the state within the margin of error, now at the peak of Obama's margin (I expect it to contract 2-4 points from here). It's not worth $5 million of his contributors' money, and I don't believe for a minute he's going to win there.
I feel particularly strongly so since there is no doubt about the Senate race in WV, either--Jay Rockefeller's ahead by 20 points or so. I'd rather the Obama campaign slipped the $5 mil to Democrat Bruce Lunsford in KY, or even put it into NC, where Obama's got just as good a chance (better) of winning the state, and where his campaign's organizational capabilities could make a difference there in an extremely close Senate race of major importance to his ability to govern effectively. Even GA would be better (and I know Obama's put a lot of effort into it).
Obama's campaign may feel they have reached saturation in all the true battleground states, but somehow I doubt that, too.
Senate Races
How many seats will the Democrats get; will they make it to 60? This is the planned sideshow in the event that, on Election Night, Obama clinches victory early (which is exactly equivalent to VA, NC, and/or FL going clearly for Obama on exit polls and early results).
The question is very much like the one that dominated Election Night in 2006 once it became clear that the Democrats would take control of the House of Representatives: would they get to 50 in the Senate?
I have to admit I was wrong about that one, though I was right that it wouldn't make that much difference if they did. 51-49 wasn't enough to be able to get anything done; however 56-43-1 and a Democratic President (my prediction; counting Bernie Sanders but not Lieberman in the majority) should be, as a little compromise will bring a couple of liberal Republicans (and/or Lieberman) along to vote for cloture.
Here are my rankings of likelihood of pickup in the Senate seats where there's a chance:
1) New Mexico--practically a sure thing at this point;
2) Virginia--Mark will keep the seat Warner.
3) Colorado--Mark Udall has pulled away toward the end and looks as though he'll join cousin Tom.
4) Alaska--Stevens still has a chance if he gains acquittal before the election; looks dubious.
5) New Hampshire--Jeanne Shaheen is the most popular home-grown politician in the state; John Sununu isn't.
6) North Carolina--I'm expecting this to be the biggest win of the night.
7) Minnesota--it's a 50-50 proposition at this point; the third-party candidate is helping Franken's chances.
8) Oregon--ditto Minnesota.
9) Mississippi--this would be a very exciting win if it happens (I'd say about 33% chance)
10) Kentucky--this would be even more significant, defeating the Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would be a total disaster for the Republican Senate morale (25% chance)
11) Georgia--this would be a huge moral victory for the Democrats (beating the guy who slimed Max Cleland in 2002), but is unlikely.
The Democrats would need to win ten for a Lieberman-proof 60-vote majority, so it's a huge longshot. My guess is they will win 1-5, and one of 6, 7, or 8. Because third-party candidates usually lose support in the last few days as people get practical, I expect the Republicans' chance to be improving in MN and OR as we go into Election Day. A six-vote gain in the Senate campaign would be a major win, particularly since it appears once again the Democrats will not lose a seat they currently hold (and, a little-reported fact, this year the Democrats had the most seats to defend).
On Rasmussen, I've split my bets between 51-55 Democrats and 56-60. The latter is by far the more popular choice these days, but I don't think all bettors are considering that Sanders and Lieberman shouldn't count toward that total. A six-seat pickup should mean 55 Democrats (from the 49 "pure" ones they have today).
I will take a stab at a House prediction before Election Day.
Two Good Ones
I've been lucky enough to attend two excellent rock concerts in the past 30 days. What makes them unusual is that each was considerably better than my already-high expectations.
David Byrne (Kiva Auditorium of the Albuquerque Civic Center; Sept. 28) billed his concert as playing the "songs of David Byrne and Brian Eno". Although he did pull a chestnut or two from their old album of the '80's ("My Life in the Bush of Ghosts"), and there were a couple from a new release, called "Everything That Happens Will Happen Today" (and how can one dispute that argument?), the real thrust of the concert was re-creating some of the Talking Heads' supreme performances of the '80's, "Stop Making Sense" era.
"I Zimbra" came early, signaling that Byrne & Co. (good, sizable backing band) were bringing the good stuff. "Life During Wartime" and "Crosseyed and Painless" were two more selections from that period, both performed as brilliantly as one could hope. Byrne also played a couple earlier THeads numbers that were shown in Jonathan Demme's aforementioned classic concert film, "Heaven" (not the a capella duet, though) and the original big hit single, Al Green's "Take Me to the River".
For those who caught that classic tour (I'm thinking 1983), this brought back wonderful memories. For those who missed it, you may have another chance. Byrne has ruled out reunion with the other Heads, but this is a more-than-satisfactory alternative. I hope I haven't inappropriately spilled the beans about his somewhat false billing.
The Kiva Auditorium itself was a pleasant surprise as a venue to see a performance. Maybe 1500 seats, and all of them good ones. For intimacy, though, the Conor Oberst show at KTAO's performance tent here in Taos has it far beaten.
Oberst is also known as Bright Eyes, and he has shown himself to be a bit of a shape-shifter, taking on a variety of forms and an even greater variety of sidemen. With his last Bright Eyes album, he announced that the Bright Eyes membership was permanent. So, naturally, he's thrown it overboard and recorded with a whole new group, which is called the Mystic Valley Band.
Oberst is a native of Omaha, but he spent much of the last 10 years or so in New York, playing the indie clubs and making a great name for himself while writing and recording proficiently. In "Cassadaga", his last B.E. album, he hit the road and recorded folk-influenced songs of Americana. His newest album, titled simply "Conor Oberst", follows on that track.
Oberst is often compared to Dylan, and there are many reasons why. His upbringing in the midwest, his early emergence, his love of the road and performing, his incredibly profuse output, his stinging lyrics, mastery of a variety of modern musical formats, and the list goes on. I think he also shares that love-hate relationship with fame and the crowds (such as The Band described about Dylan in "Stage Fright") which could also be called Kurt Cobain Disease.
Oberst seems to have chosen the path Dylan walked, mid-70's Rolling Thunder Review. At KTAO, he even wore a very similar brightly-colored fedora-with-a-band-and-feather, which he messed with quite alot on stage.
The songs were mostly from the new Oberst album, though there was a mysterious EP release on sale at the concert (for $20 or so; I had to pass). He also played a Dylan song, "Corinna, Corinna", and the Paul Simon rocker "Kodachrome", which set up his rousing encore finale, "I Don't Want to Die in the Hospital".
Oberst's voice has matured and no longer wavers the way it did (or, perhaps, the way he chose to make it do) on past studio albums; it was potent and dynamic. His band was thoroughly committed--a heavy Southern rock influence, but with some quality keyboards. Oberst mostly played acoustic, focusing on enunciating his rapid lyrics, and let them perform the complex instrumentals, though keeping a close, "bright" eye on it all.
I won't say that every song killed, but by the end, everyone walked away thrilled, fulfilled, and amazed at the miracle of his coming to this little town to play for a few hundred souls, in a tent with insufficient acoustics, in the back of our town's solar-powered radio station.
David Byrne (Kiva Auditorium of the Albuquerque Civic Center; Sept. 28) billed his concert as playing the "songs of David Byrne and Brian Eno". Although he did pull a chestnut or two from their old album of the '80's ("My Life in the Bush of Ghosts"), and there were a couple from a new release, called "Everything That Happens Will Happen Today" (and how can one dispute that argument?), the real thrust of the concert was re-creating some of the Talking Heads' supreme performances of the '80's, "Stop Making Sense" era.
"I Zimbra" came early, signaling that Byrne & Co. (good, sizable backing band) were bringing the good stuff. "Life During Wartime" and "Crosseyed and Painless" were two more selections from that period, both performed as brilliantly as one could hope. Byrne also played a couple earlier THeads numbers that were shown in Jonathan Demme's aforementioned classic concert film, "Heaven" (not the a capella duet, though) and the original big hit single, Al Green's "Take Me to the River".
For those who caught that classic tour (I'm thinking 1983), this brought back wonderful memories. For those who missed it, you may have another chance. Byrne has ruled out reunion with the other Heads, but this is a more-than-satisfactory alternative. I hope I haven't inappropriately spilled the beans about his somewhat false billing.
The Kiva Auditorium itself was a pleasant surprise as a venue to see a performance. Maybe 1500 seats, and all of them good ones. For intimacy, though, the Conor Oberst show at KTAO's performance tent here in Taos has it far beaten.
Oberst is also known as Bright Eyes, and he has shown himself to be a bit of a shape-shifter, taking on a variety of forms and an even greater variety of sidemen. With his last Bright Eyes album, he announced that the Bright Eyes membership was permanent. So, naturally, he's thrown it overboard and recorded with a whole new group, which is called the Mystic Valley Band.
Oberst is a native of Omaha, but he spent much of the last 10 years or so in New York, playing the indie clubs and making a great name for himself while writing and recording proficiently. In "Cassadaga", his last B.E. album, he hit the road and recorded folk-influenced songs of Americana. His newest album, titled simply "Conor Oberst", follows on that track.
Oberst is often compared to Dylan, and there are many reasons why. His upbringing in the midwest, his early emergence, his love of the road and performing, his incredibly profuse output, his stinging lyrics, mastery of a variety of modern musical formats, and the list goes on. I think he also shares that love-hate relationship with fame and the crowds (such as The Band described about Dylan in "Stage Fright") which could also be called Kurt Cobain Disease.
Oberst seems to have chosen the path Dylan walked, mid-70's Rolling Thunder Review. At KTAO, he even wore a very similar brightly-colored fedora-with-a-band-and-feather, which he messed with quite alot on stage.
The songs were mostly from the new Oberst album, though there was a mysterious EP release on sale at the concert (for $20 or so; I had to pass). He also played a Dylan song, "Corinna, Corinna", and the Paul Simon rocker "Kodachrome", which set up his rousing encore finale, "I Don't Want to Die in the Hospital".
Oberst's voice has matured and no longer wavers the way it did (or, perhaps, the way he chose to make it do) on past studio albums; it was potent and dynamic. His band was thoroughly committed--a heavy Southern rock influence, but with some quality keyboards. Oberst mostly played acoustic, focusing on enunciating his rapid lyrics, and let them perform the complex instrumentals, though keeping a close, "bright" eye on it all.
I won't say that every song killed, but by the end, everyone walked away thrilled, fulfilled, and amazed at the miracle of his coming to this little town to play for a few hundred souls, in a tent with insufficient acoustics, in the back of our town's solar-powered radio station.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Proposed Rasmussen Markets(TM) Contracts for Tonight's Debate
Over-under on the number of minutes into the debate when the first reference occurs to William Ayres--either by name, or directly to him.
Odds (0-100 scale) on a candidate showing his fist to the other: McCain/Obama/Both/Neither
Over-under on how many minutes before McCain allows some sort of eye contact (including never).
Warning: Extended Boxing Metaphor
Who will get in the nastiest hit? McCain/Obama/"Field" (includes moderator Schieffer)
This last one goes all the way from the rhetorical, through the psychological, all the way to actual fisticuffs. It is interesting and indeed possible to consider the hypothetical boxing matchup between Barack "Ali" Obama and "Smokin'" John McCain. I would think McCain is one of those guys who goes in with both arms flailing, not heeding the jab-jab-jab or even the telling combinations Obama might throw. Of course, McCain'd be set up for the right cross, Ali's famous hidden blow that felled Sonny Liston in their rematch in Maine.
The political version of a right cross would be.....
This is the third round of a three-rounder. In the first, Obama came out swinging, McPalin countering with some surprising footwork and a hard right. Round even.
In the second round, McPalin came out cocky but got hammered steadily. They feebly tried a few low blows but didn't throw Ali Obama off his stride. More than once, they were flat on their backs looking up at the bright lights. Another half-minute and the ref would surely have called it.
In the third round, Obama has a massive lead in points. He can easily dance and dodge, jabbing just enough to keep McCain from scoring any body blows. The temptation will be to put him down when he comes charging in, but he must resist a move that shows a vulnerability: so far McCain's barely laid a glove on him.
Odds (0-100 scale) on a candidate showing his fist to the other: McCain/Obama/Both/Neither
Over-under on how many minutes before McCain allows some sort of eye contact (including never).
Warning: Extended Boxing Metaphor
Who will get in the nastiest hit? McCain/Obama/"Field" (includes moderator Schieffer)
This last one goes all the way from the rhetorical, through the psychological, all the way to actual fisticuffs. It is interesting and indeed possible to consider the hypothetical boxing matchup between Barack "Ali" Obama and "Smokin'" John McCain. I would think McCain is one of those guys who goes in with both arms flailing, not heeding the jab-jab-jab or even the telling combinations Obama might throw. Of course, McCain'd be set up for the right cross, Ali's famous hidden blow that felled Sonny Liston in their rematch in Maine.
The political version of a right cross would be.....
This is the third round of a three-rounder. In the first, Obama came out swinging, McPalin countering with some surprising footwork and a hard right. Round even.
In the second round, McPalin came out cocky but got hammered steadily. They feebly tried a few low blows but didn't throw Ali Obama off his stride. More than once, they were flat on their backs looking up at the bright lights. Another half-minute and the ref would surely have called it.
In the third round, Obama has a massive lead in points. He can easily dance and dodge, jabbing just enough to keep McCain from scoring any body blows. The temptation will be to put him down when he comes charging in, but he must resist a move that shows a vulnerability: so far McCain's barely laid a glove on him.
Let's Get the Jack of Diamonds
That would be Mitch McConnell. Apart from Condi, he's the only face card in the original Bushite deck still around and actually able to pull some weight.
I know it's a long-ish shot, but it would mean so much.
The big question is whether Obama should get actively involved, or whether to let the Democratic candidate, Bruce Lunsford, try to run it as a strictly local affair. Best probably would be if Obama campaign throws a little money his way but mostly keeps out of it.
In my favorite card game, Sadistic Whist, the J of D is the only card that gives "good points". McConnell is a wily, committed, pragmatic hardcore opponent that it will be essential to take out in order to fracture the Republican party into little bitty pieces. Which is what we are after.
I know it's a long-ish shot, but it would mean so much.
The big question is whether Obama should get actively involved, or whether to let the Democratic candidate, Bruce Lunsford, try to run it as a strictly local affair. Best probably would be if Obama campaign throws a little money his way but mostly keeps out of it.
In my favorite card game, Sadistic Whist, the J of D is the only card that gives "good points". McConnell is a wily, committed, pragmatic hardcore opponent that it will be essential to take out in order to fracture the Republican party into little bitty pieces. Which is what we are after.
Ranking Likelihood of Change: Rasmussen Markets
Here are the top 10 states, in terms of Rasmussen Markets' likelihood of a change in control vs. 2004:
| IA | 87 | 13 |
| NM | 85 | 16 |
| CO | 83 | 17 |
| NV | 74 | 31 |
| VA | 73 | 26 |
| FL | 72 | 27 |
| OH | 69 | 31 |
| MO | 61 | 39 |
| NC | 53 | 45 |
| IN | 46 | 55 |
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Electoral Map Update
We project no change in the ultimate electoral college tally going into Election Day:
Obama 269, McCain 200, 69 up for grabs.
Those 69 are in only four states: FL, OH, CO, and VA.
163 Electoral Votes for McCain and 264 for Obama project to safe wins of 6 or more points (ranging 53-47 to 51-45 or better, depending on the third party votes). These today have margins a couple points better than the 95% confidence level today, or more, in most of the polls and thus would be difficult to reverse.
We get from those 427 to 538 with 69 tossups in four states, as above, three states with 37 votes leaning to McCain (IN, NC, and MO), and one state with five leaning to Obama (NV).
It looks to be a good night for watching and celebrating. The early focus will be on VA, FL, and OH--if any of them go early for Obama the game will be called soon. More likely, they will be close, and tense, which will bring the Western states' importance forward (as the late-night did in 2004, though they didn't ultimately fall for Kerry). Still, Obama should have a clear lead throughout.
None of the states with the 264 Electoral Votes clearly favoring Obama looks particularly weak. NH, PA, WI, MN, and MI have all firmed up. NM and IA are both on winning arcs for takeovers.
Correcting for DDE and Other Effects
Far as I can tell, the David Duke Effect is different from the alleged Bradley effect, in which white people would tell black pollsters they were undecided when they actually planned to vote against Tom Bradley (LA mayoral election, 198?). What I'm thinking of is people who say they will vote for Obama but will actually vote for McCain, minus those who say they will vote for McCain but will vote for Obama. My reference is to David Duke in the LA governor's race--a primary?
I would argue that the net effect in the national election is not zero, and that it is almost surely positive (DDE>0) in most states. I would suggest it is in the range of 1-3%, and 2% nationally.
3% is big. It turns a 51-47 Obama lead into a 50-48 loss. So states with margins like that and high potential for DDE can not be considered secure for Obama.
Another way to put it is inertia vs. demographic change. The Western states (the clear examples are NM, NV, and CO) are changing toward younger and more inter-racial societies, so we can expect progress over time toward the Democrats. Additionally, African-American populations in these states are relatively small, and not carrying so much historical baggage as in the East. Otherwise, you have to start with the edge to the side defending from the last two elections and make the challenger prove they can win.
Either way, at this point in time (Nixonite Ron Ziegler's memorable "atpit") I choose to disbelieve these small leads for states such as MO, NC, and even VA and FL, the last two of which, if you go purely by the polls, have close-to-statistically significant leads for Obama today.
I believe CO and OH to be states that are winnable for Obama going into Election Day, but he hasn't proved he's won them yet, as he is close to doing for ones like NM, NH and WI.
Ranking Likelihood of Change
The rank order statistic is one of the most stable measures out there. Excuse me, it is the most stable; for example, one can use it to do a much better job than trying to establish the center-point of an unknown distribution. So, it's very clear which states are the most likely to change over.
At one end, this is totally not interesting. Who cares whether Utah, Idaho, Massachusetts, or California is the least likely state to change over (after the territorial entity known as the District of Columbia, of course)?
The key point with regard to this election is not the most likely to change--clearly Iowa. The focus is after Iowa and New Mexico. My argument is that it is Nevada, followed by the quartet of FLOHCOVA (pick your order, but this one reads best). One could argue #8-15 of the Most Likely to Change (some of which are former Kerry states Obama must hold) until Nov. 3, but those are not the ones that will end up making the difference. It's 3-7, and how they fall.
Particularly because McPalin is challenging so little in the blue states, the difference among most electoral estimates for this election--whether the person is objective or partisan, or whether his/her model is sensitive to fluctuations or somehow "sticky"--boils down to how deeply we will go down the ranking of likelihood to change. If Obama only gets his top two, he's five short. His top three, he's got to survive white knuckles. Four or five, a clear win, and six or more, a decisive one (300+). If middle-range North Carolina or Indiana or Missouri go for Obama (I'm expecting each to end up for McCain by 1-5 points), it's a wipeout.
Obama 269, McCain 200, 69 up for grabs.
Those 69 are in only four states: FL, OH, CO, and VA.
163 Electoral Votes for McCain and 264 for Obama project to safe wins of 6 or more points (ranging 53-47 to 51-45 or better, depending on the third party votes). These today have margins a couple points better than the 95% confidence level today, or more, in most of the polls and thus would be difficult to reverse.
We get from those 427 to 538 with 69 tossups in four states, as above, three states with 37 votes leaning to McCain (IN, NC, and MO), and one state with five leaning to Obama (NV).
It looks to be a good night for watching and celebrating. The early focus will be on VA, FL, and OH--if any of them go early for Obama the game will be called soon. More likely, they will be close, and tense, which will bring the Western states' importance forward (as the late-night did in 2004, though they didn't ultimately fall for Kerry). Still, Obama should have a clear lead throughout.
None of the states with the 264 Electoral Votes clearly favoring Obama looks particularly weak. NH, PA, WI, MN, and MI have all firmed up. NM and IA are both on winning arcs for takeovers.
Correcting for DDE and Other Effects
Far as I can tell, the David Duke Effect is different from the alleged Bradley effect, in which white people would tell black pollsters they were undecided when they actually planned to vote against Tom Bradley (LA mayoral election, 198?). What I'm thinking of is people who say they will vote for Obama but will actually vote for McCain, minus those who say they will vote for McCain but will vote for Obama. My reference is to David Duke in the LA governor's race--a primary?
I would argue that the net effect in the national election is not zero, and that it is almost surely positive (DDE>0) in most states. I would suggest it is in the range of 1-3%, and 2% nationally.
3% is big. It turns a 51-47 Obama lead into a 50-48 loss. So states with margins like that and high potential for DDE can not be considered secure for Obama.
Another way to put it is inertia vs. demographic change. The Western states (the clear examples are NM, NV, and CO) are changing toward younger and more inter-racial societies, so we can expect progress over time toward the Democrats. Additionally, African-American populations in these states are relatively small, and not carrying so much historical baggage as in the East. Otherwise, you have to start with the edge to the side defending from the last two elections and make the challenger prove they can win.
Either way, at this point in time (Nixonite Ron Ziegler's memorable "atpit") I choose to disbelieve these small leads for states such as MO, NC, and even VA and FL, the last two of which, if you go purely by the polls, have close-to-statistically significant leads for Obama today.
I believe CO and OH to be states that are winnable for Obama going into Election Day, but he hasn't proved he's won them yet, as he is close to doing for ones like NM, NH and WI.
Ranking Likelihood of Change
The rank order statistic is one of the most stable measures out there. Excuse me, it is the most stable; for example, one can use it to do a much better job than trying to establish the center-point of an unknown distribution. So, it's very clear which states are the most likely to change over.
At one end, this is totally not interesting. Who cares whether Utah, Idaho, Massachusetts, or California is the least likely state to change over (after the territorial entity known as the District of Columbia, of course)?
The key point with regard to this election is not the most likely to change--clearly Iowa. The focus is after Iowa and New Mexico. My argument is that it is Nevada, followed by the quartet of FLOHCOVA (pick your order, but this one reads best). One could argue #8-15 of the Most Likely to Change (some of which are former Kerry states Obama must hold) until Nov. 3, but those are not the ones that will end up making the difference. It's 3-7, and how they fall.
Particularly because McPalin is challenging so little in the blue states, the difference among most electoral estimates for this election--whether the person is objective or partisan, or whether his/her model is sensitive to fluctuations or somehow "sticky"--boils down to how deeply we will go down the ranking of likelihood to change. If Obama only gets his top two, he's five short. His top three, he's got to survive white knuckles. Four or five, a clear win, and six or more, a decisive one (300+). If middle-range North Carolina or Indiana or Missouri go for Obama (I'm expecting each to end up for McCain by 1-5 points), it's a wipeout.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Who Will Defend Us from Star Wars?
There are not many policy issues on which I fundamentally disagree with Sen. Obama's positions, but one of them is missile defense. In the first debate, Obama agreed with Sen. McCain that he would go ahead and deploy missile defense in Poland or Czech Republic as an example of things to do to contain resurgent Russian militarist ambitions.
I understand the need to look tough for the voters, and that Russia needs to be confronted at times in order to make it refrain from aggressing against its neighbors. I am just hoping that, once the electoral circus folds its big tent and the near-impossible task of governing this mess begins, President Obama (and, of course, I pray that becomes so) will take a second look at this wasteful notion. And then go further.
The reaction of the Putinites to our plans to deploy missile defense in Poland/Czech lands to dissuade Russian aggression would be...barely concealed laughter. It may not be called the Red Army anymore, but the Russian military would seem to have plenty of ways to knock over those states without launching missiles at them. Like, perhaps, a military invasion, which we would certainly be unable to do anything about.
Back in still-recent days, but before the Georgia conflict, we tried what I'd call "crypto-containment". We had the same nonsensical missile defense program proposal, but with our rationale being to protect Western Europe from Iranian missile attacks, Poland and the Czech Republic didn't want any part of it. Russia suggested we deploy instead in a friendly (to Russia) state that actually does border on Iran, Azerbaijan (they were mocking us). We didn't get the joke.
That one might have made sense, if Iran had any serious deliverable warheads to load on serious missiles (no on both of those) or any reason to attack Western Europe (once again, no).
Or, most importantly, if our missile defense systems actually worked.
Reagan's quaint notion that "it would be nice if we had some defense against nuclear missiles" is really the only active though still driving this colossal boondoggle (except the self-sustaining logic of the expenses themselves). Yeah, maybe it would be. But we don't. It doesn't work.
Even if it did work (i.e., if we could somehow shoot down a missile in flight), it wouldn't work (against a large quantity of missiles, which would be the way Russia would do it). A missile defense system that shot down half of the missiles launched toward us would be a terrific technological achievement--and one that would be totally worthless. Even if our system could work flawlessly in the hugely complex mission of shooting down all the missiles launched, and if we could somehow prove it, deploying it wouldn't work strategically--that would just destabilize the global deterrent system.
So, it's a good thing--in a way--that it doesn't work. We can pretend that it's something serious, and the Russians can pretend they care. So far (since the Georgian affair), it looks as though the right-wing Polish government is willing to pretend it wants missile defense, which must mean it serves some obscure domestic political agenda of theirs.
Fine. Let's install something there that looks like a fancy laser or anti-ballistic missile launcher--we don't actually have to put anything inside the hollow shells that would gleam (verifiably for spy satellites) inside the secure facility. I presume that the whole thing will just be a cover for some covert program, one of actual importance, that requires funds and deniability. If that's what it is, Senator Obama (and I know you're now getting the secret briefings), O.K. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink--let's do it!
Our missile defense program is a government expense area which seems to have no purpose, yet no one blocks it. According to an excellent New York Times investigative report published today and written by Eric Lipton, the U.S. has spent $110 billion on Star Wars since President Reagan (zap!) started it, and today it is "the Pentagon's single biggest procurement program".
Lipton's article told a remarkable story. A couple of mid-level Defense engineers generated hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure that the Pentagon actually didn't want. When generals tried to point that out, these operatives would sic home-state-pork-protecting Senators on them and resistance would melt away.
Generally, this is the kind of stuff that we need to stop doing. Specifically, this is one program that needs to be killed entirely. When we get some confirmed reports of UFO's with both interstellar capability and really slow missiles, I'll reconsider.
I understand the need to look tough for the voters, and that Russia needs to be confronted at times in order to make it refrain from aggressing against its neighbors. I am just hoping that, once the electoral circus folds its big tent and the near-impossible task of governing this mess begins, President Obama (and, of course, I pray that becomes so) will take a second look at this wasteful notion. And then go further.
The reaction of the Putinites to our plans to deploy missile defense in Poland/Czech lands to dissuade Russian aggression would be...barely concealed laughter. It may not be called the Red Army anymore, but the Russian military would seem to have plenty of ways to knock over those states without launching missiles at them. Like, perhaps, a military invasion, which we would certainly be unable to do anything about.
Back in still-recent days, but before the Georgia conflict, we tried what I'd call "crypto-containment". We had the same nonsensical missile defense program proposal, but with our rationale being to protect Western Europe from Iranian missile attacks, Poland and the Czech Republic didn't want any part of it. Russia suggested we deploy instead in a friendly (to Russia) state that actually does border on Iran, Azerbaijan (they were mocking us). We didn't get the joke.
That one might have made sense, if Iran had any serious deliverable warheads to load on serious missiles (no on both of those) or any reason to attack Western Europe (once again, no).
Or, most importantly, if our missile defense systems actually worked.
Reagan's quaint notion that "it would be nice if we had some defense against nuclear missiles" is really the only active though still driving this colossal boondoggle (except the self-sustaining logic of the expenses themselves). Yeah, maybe it would be. But we don't. It doesn't work.
Even if it did work (i.e., if we could somehow shoot down a missile in flight), it wouldn't work (against a large quantity of missiles, which would be the way Russia would do it). A missile defense system that shot down half of the missiles launched toward us would be a terrific technological achievement--and one that would be totally worthless. Even if our system could work flawlessly in the hugely complex mission of shooting down all the missiles launched, and if we could somehow prove it, deploying it wouldn't work strategically--that would just destabilize the global deterrent system.
So, it's a good thing--in a way--that it doesn't work. We can pretend that it's something serious, and the Russians can pretend they care. So far (since the Georgian affair), it looks as though the right-wing Polish government is willing to pretend it wants missile defense, which must mean it serves some obscure domestic political agenda of theirs.
Fine. Let's install something there that looks like a fancy laser or anti-ballistic missile launcher--we don't actually have to put anything inside the hollow shells that would gleam (verifiably for spy satellites) inside the secure facility. I presume that the whole thing will just be a cover for some covert program, one of actual importance, that requires funds and deniability. If that's what it is, Senator Obama (and I know you're now getting the secret briefings), O.K. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink--let's do it!
Our missile defense program is a government expense area which seems to have no purpose, yet no one blocks it. According to an excellent New York Times investigative report published today and written by Eric Lipton, the U.S. has spent $110 billion on Star Wars since President Reagan (zap!) started it, and today it is "the Pentagon's single biggest procurement program".
Lipton's article told a remarkable story. A couple of mid-level Defense engineers generated hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure that the Pentagon actually didn't want. When generals tried to point that out, these operatives would sic home-state-pork-protecting Senators on them and resistance would melt away.
Generally, this is the kind of stuff that we need to stop doing. Specifically, this is one program that needs to be killed entirely. When we get some confirmed reports of UFO's with both interstellar capability and really slow missiles, I'll reconsider.
Monday, October 06, 2008
The Health Issue Is An Insurance Issue
When we consider the complaints about our health care system, they generally all get round to the point before long: it's our health insurance system that's the problem, not our health care system. Like our Congressperson, we all like our own doctor, if not the class of people in general.
Nobody is arguing that we need to radically change the standard of health care available in the U.S., though there is a lot of bickering about access to it (and there will always be so, at least until uniform immortality is available at no cost).
Instead, these are the problems we see and hear about: the uninsured because they have no choice, the uninsured by choice, the cost of insurance in general, and for specific groups of people and their families, the sharp upward movement in deductibles and disallowed expenses, the treatment of uninsured.
Some pundits have announced the death of health care reform due to the bailout expense. I say: wrong! The federal government has just acquired the necessary infrastructure to allow it to implement President Obama's health plan, and it did so at a bargain-basement price. It's called AIG.
I may be wrong, but I don't think AIG is a big name in medical insurance today. That doesn't matter, because it clearly has a superior distribution system (sales, licenses, correspondent relationships) for insurance products. If I'm right, the critical ingredient needed to be added to that is medical claims expertise. Certainly something they could hire, but a large part of what they would need to figure out in terms of coverage standards has been done already for the Congressional health plan, which is what Sen. Obama has promised us.
The key things that need to be accomplished in the time between now and Jan. 20 are the following:
1) don't break up AIG! Keep its assets together. Sure, the Board of Directors and such might want to sell off assets to get money to buy down the government share. The Feds should use the voting power of their 80% to make sure that don't happen. Just sell off "non-strategic" assets--and perhaps recover some cash from East Asia by selling those (huge) businesses to investors over there.
2) Transfer AIG's executive oversight from Treasury to Health and Human Services--actually, that can wait until Jan. 20. A good first-day executive order.
There is one more component needed, actually: a health insurance marketing division. AIG and HHS (and whoever is the government's advertising agency!?) will need to work together a lot on how to present the economic argument for their new product to the American people so it looks and feels like a real commercial health insurance product. Only better.
And you know what? It's going to make money. When that happens, a lot of people's long-term gloom-and-doom social models are going to look quite different. There will be a lot of complaining from the competition, but they will adapt or die, as they should.
There will also be some public payoff (utility, and earnings) in such things as flood insurance, and guarantees for infrastructure development projects. 21st-century Government has been forced to stick itself inside the tent (whether one or Glass-Steagalled into two) of the de-regulated insurance and banking industries, and they're in to stay, now.
Nobody is arguing that we need to radically change the standard of health care available in the U.S., though there is a lot of bickering about access to it (and there will always be so, at least until uniform immortality is available at no cost).
Instead, these are the problems we see and hear about: the uninsured because they have no choice, the uninsured by choice, the cost of insurance in general, and for specific groups of people and their families, the sharp upward movement in deductibles and disallowed expenses, the treatment of uninsured.
Some pundits have announced the death of health care reform due to the bailout expense. I say: wrong! The federal government has just acquired the necessary infrastructure to allow it to implement President Obama's health plan, and it did so at a bargain-basement price. It's called AIG.
I may be wrong, but I don't think AIG is a big name in medical insurance today. That doesn't matter, because it clearly has a superior distribution system (sales, licenses, correspondent relationships) for insurance products. If I'm right, the critical ingredient needed to be added to that is medical claims expertise. Certainly something they could hire, but a large part of what they would need to figure out in terms of coverage standards has been done already for the Congressional health plan, which is what Sen. Obama has promised us.
The key things that need to be accomplished in the time between now and Jan. 20 are the following:
1) don't break up AIG! Keep its assets together. Sure, the Board of Directors and such might want to sell off assets to get money to buy down the government share. The Feds should use the voting power of their 80% to make sure that don't happen. Just sell off "non-strategic" assets--and perhaps recover some cash from East Asia by selling those (huge) businesses to investors over there.
2) Transfer AIG's executive oversight from Treasury to Health and Human Services--actually, that can wait until Jan. 20. A good first-day executive order.
There is one more component needed, actually: a health insurance marketing division. AIG and HHS (and whoever is the government's advertising agency!?) will need to work together a lot on how to present the economic argument for their new product to the American people so it looks and feels like a real commercial health insurance product. Only better.
And you know what? It's going to make money. When that happens, a lot of people's long-term gloom-and-doom social models are going to look quite different. There will be a lot of complaining from the competition, but they will adapt or die, as they should.
There will also be some public payoff (utility, and earnings) in such things as flood insurance, and guarantees for infrastructure development projects. 21st-century Government has been forced to stick itself inside the tent (whether one or Glass-Steagalled into two) of the de-regulated insurance and banking industries, and they're in to stay, now.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Anxious in NM
Times are tough in this post-bailout universe, for me as for so many others on Main Street, which for me is just a quarter-mile away (here its formal name is "Paseo del Pueblo", but it's widely referred to as "the Main Drag").
I find consolation in consideration of the electoral map.
Probably the single most fascinating piece of analysis I've read out there on that specific topic was Sean Quinn's interview (to be found on 538.com) with the Obama field guy working Omaha, Nebraska, with its analysis of its implications.
Omaha is a serious part of Obama's 50-state strategy, though the argument for its utility is somewhat farfetched. It starts with a fact that it is not impossible for the Democrats to win the Presidential vote within the Congressional district centered on Omaha. This would actually garner Obama one Electoral Vote under Nebraska state law. (There is a similar, potentially-counteracting situation in Maine with one of its Congressional districts, which could go for McCain though the state as a whole might go for Obama).
The possibility that single vote could be decisive was sufficiently interesting to the thorough (to put it mildly) Obama campaign that the result of the triage analysis for each and every state came out clearly--if misspoken--from Chicago for this one: send someone to Ohama! That's "Omaha", not "Ohama", Obama. (sorry--I couldn't resist!)
In terms of secondary implications, one should note the increase in permutational complexity, and of difficulty in limiting oneself to a small set of plausible electoral vote tie outcomes. Aaugh!
We will now proceed to a review of whether various predictive Electoral Maps are Tootsie Pop, Epoxy, or two very different forms of terra non firma: Swamp Mud or Hot Pots.
I now praise those who recognize uncertainty, but also those willing to make a decision.
You: Rubber; Me: Epoxy!
The visualization of my electoral map is a huge structure which changes shape slowly, with some few discrete shifts in the building blocks but the overall picture resulting to be relatively inert. Think of a stone golem--a beast trampling all before it, with giant, unstoppable movements of mass. The structure holding it together is based on all the sludge: the state polls, pseudo-market indications, national polls, big picture, etc. Not so much on the latest news item, though; that mostly doesn't get through to the underlying infrastructure itself.
Rasmussen has, to his credit, a file one can access to view each change in state grouping since he started it at the beginning of the year. There's about forty of them. I can do better--here's the complete summary of changes up to now I've made in mine:
1) My initial detailed prediction and strategy analysis was on June 14 and I called it "The Wisdom of 245". Obama's strategy should be to find the shortest identifiable route (highest probability states) to 270--plus Ohio, as insurance. (It was Kerry + IA + NM+ CO=273 at the time). Ohio's a state we can win, and winning it would protect against a miscalculation in a smaller state. The Wisdom of 245? We need to contain Election-Day winnable states for McCain to the 245 which remain, or less. Challenge them everywhere and find weaknesses, keep them on defense.
The shocker of McCain pulling back in Michigan now is just the most recent confirmation that this strategy, or something like it, is working. Thanks be to Obama & Co.
2) September 6--McPalin and the Electoral Map--Palin gave the ticket a shot of youth, something like hope for the desperate and disaffected of the party's supporters. The number self-identifying as Republican shot up (but, alas, wound back down when the Economic Crisis burst).
The net effect of the McPalin Surge was to clarify the hold on most of the states for expected winners and narrow the plausible state winner changes to a few. Three shifts in my state assignments, defined as predictions for Election Day morning expectations: move CO and OH to toss-up; move NV to Obama. Now 269-240 with 29 toss-up.
3) Today--The Wisdom of 245, Pt. II--Obama wins the Issues debate, both domestically and from a subjective measure of leadership quality demonstrated. He firms up his claim on all states in which he's leading. As a bonus, Obama regains a favorable trend in several large states. I accept the reality of strong trend performance and move VA and FL from McCain states to toss-up (along with CO and OH, which I expect to remain that way until the end).
I expect the focus of Election Night to be on those four (usually combined as COVAFLOH), all of considerable star power, and not on the results in a variety of dinky states like NH and NM. At some point in the mid-to-late evening (depending on your time zone) Obama will be in a position to clinch the needed majority if he can win Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or Colorado, and likely to hit just about 269 if he ends up with none of them. At this point, I can't see how these four cards will fall--But still.
That's where Omaha comes in. If it looks at the end that they'll get just exactly 269. (Also Nevada could then figure, if the night is trending in McCain's favor.)
In our view, Obama-Biden is threatening to break it open but has clinched nothing yet. There have been so many rapid shifts through this election season, and one would expect some firming of Republican support between now and then end. But just this shift of those two states--FL and VA--makes it look pretty lopsided, though. The new call is 269-200, with 69 toss-up.
Have to look more at those two rogue CD--in NE and in ME.
CNN: Tootsie Pop
Jon King's wise approach is to have a fairly large set of states stuck in the middle--the caramel part (colored yellow on his map). If you have enough in there already, the shift in or out of one or two never draws much attention or controversy. He had 120+ in their before; he has slimmed down the goo to 99 Electoral votes now--the same 69 as I, but also WI, MO, NH, and NV. Interesting, though a bit wuss.
OK, maybe not a Tootsie Pop but some sort of candy-coated, sweet-and-gooey-in-the-center blob on a stick. You tell me.
Swamp Mud--Rasmussen's approach is like mine, only it's sticky toward the past election results. He's very slow to move any state from the status quo ante, version 2004. He's only moved two states across from one side to the other: Iowa in the medium-strong category for Obama and New Mexico in the leaning-Obama. Like 538, he's got three shades of blue and red (though he really only uses needs two, except as a hedge).
He calls it the "Balance of Power Calculator", and clearly he's calculated to keep it balanced (Oregon in the weak-Obama category? Connecticut in the moderately-strong one?)
CQ is like Rasmussen's--slow to change. IA and NM are both in the lightest of three Obama colors, with no other states changing from Kerry-Bush, unless to toss-up. He does come up with 260-200, with 78 on the fence, which is pretty impeccable (NV and NH to Toss-up; hard to argue).
Real Clear Politics, 538.com: Hot Pots
The numbers just bubble up and come out in the map, without much filtering. Very typical is that the tossup states for them were MO, IN, and NC when I started this post--now NC is over to Obama. Please!
Right now 538 has it 344-194 as the average (mean, I'd think) of their simulation results. In terms of straight calls, they've now got 269 (including CO!) for Obama in their deepest shade of blue, and 71 more in lighter shades (FL, NH, OH, NC, NV). 340 leaning or solid to Obama, and only 22--MO and IN--as toss-ups.
These guys will have to get out their palettes and change colors soon, I think, as their color schemes are too unstable. 538 had McCain up by 20 or so electoral votes just a couple weeks ago. I give it credit, though: 538's already changed its map to show NE and ME's individual CD's, after I razzed Nate Silver that he hadn't been including the probabilities of those unusual outcomes in his simulations. (For the record, he now says he has included them all along!)
Here's a poll I put out on kos: (I'll have to do better at calling attention to it to get more votes)
I put them roughly in decreasing order of likelihood as I saw it (and didn't include IA and NM, which are not surprises, nor the possibility McCain could win a Kerry state--it's real, but wouldn't be popular on kos). The plurality for FL is reasonable--it would be a "big" surprise in terms of electoral votes, and impact--and current polls make it plausible, though I don't really buy it (or any of those below it). My vote was for OH, part of a win for Obama in the range of 285-298 electoral votes (depending on CO and NH).
As a bonus, note that on 538.com--click on title above--an O.F.O.--an Obama Field Operative--shared some rather confidential, accurate-seeming internal estimates of currently-projected electoral day margins in key states.
I find consolation in consideration of the electoral map.
Probably the single most fascinating piece of analysis I've read out there on that specific topic was Sean Quinn's interview (to be found on 538.com) with the Obama field guy working Omaha, Nebraska, with its analysis of its implications.
Omaha is a serious part of Obama's 50-state strategy, though the argument for its utility is somewhat farfetched. It starts with a fact that it is not impossible for the Democrats to win the Presidential vote within the Congressional district centered on Omaha. This would actually garner Obama one Electoral Vote under Nebraska state law. (There is a similar, potentially-counteracting situation in Maine with one of its Congressional districts, which could go for McCain though the state as a whole might go for Obama).
The possibility that single vote could be decisive was sufficiently interesting to the thorough (to put it mildly) Obama campaign that the result of the triage analysis for each and every state came out clearly--if misspoken--from Chicago for this one: send someone to Ohama! That's "Omaha", not "Ohama", Obama. (sorry--I couldn't resist!)
In terms of secondary implications, one should note the increase in permutational complexity, and of difficulty in limiting oneself to a small set of plausible electoral vote tie outcomes. Aaugh!
We will now proceed to a review of whether various predictive Electoral Maps are Tootsie Pop, Epoxy, or two very different forms of terra non firma: Swamp Mud or Hot Pots.
I now praise those who recognize uncertainty, but also those willing to make a decision.
You: Rubber; Me: Epoxy!
The visualization of my electoral map is a huge structure which changes shape slowly, with some few discrete shifts in the building blocks but the overall picture resulting to be relatively inert. Think of a stone golem--a beast trampling all before it, with giant, unstoppable movements of mass. The structure holding it together is based on all the sludge: the state polls, pseudo-market indications, national polls, big picture, etc. Not so much on the latest news item, though; that mostly doesn't get through to the underlying infrastructure itself.
Rasmussen has, to his credit, a file one can access to view each change in state grouping since he started it at the beginning of the year. There's about forty of them. I can do better--here's the complete summary of changes up to now I've made in mine:
1) My initial detailed prediction and strategy analysis was on June 14 and I called it "The Wisdom of 245". Obama's strategy should be to find the shortest identifiable route (highest probability states) to 270--plus Ohio, as insurance. (It was Kerry + IA + NM+ CO=273 at the time). Ohio's a state we can win, and winning it would protect against a miscalculation in a smaller state. The Wisdom of 245? We need to contain Election-Day winnable states for McCain to the 245 which remain, or less. Challenge them everywhere and find weaknesses, keep them on defense.
The shocker of McCain pulling back in Michigan now is just the most recent confirmation that this strategy, or something like it, is working. Thanks be to Obama & Co.
2) September 6--McPalin and the Electoral Map--Palin gave the ticket a shot of youth, something like hope for the desperate and disaffected of the party's supporters. The number self-identifying as Republican shot up (but, alas, wound back down when the Economic Crisis burst).
The net effect of the McPalin Surge was to clarify the hold on most of the states for expected winners and narrow the plausible state winner changes to a few. Three shifts in my state assignments, defined as predictions for Election Day morning expectations: move CO and OH to toss-up; move NV to Obama. Now 269-240 with 29 toss-up.
3) Today--The Wisdom of 245, Pt. II--Obama wins the Issues debate, both domestically and from a subjective measure of leadership quality demonstrated. He firms up his claim on all states in which he's leading. As a bonus, Obama regains a favorable trend in several large states. I accept the reality of strong trend performance and move VA and FL from McCain states to toss-up (along with CO and OH, which I expect to remain that way until the end).
I expect the focus of Election Night to be on those four (usually combined as COVAFLOH), all of considerable star power, and not on the results in a variety of dinky states like NH and NM. At some point in the mid-to-late evening (depending on your time zone) Obama will be in a position to clinch the needed majority if he can win Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or Colorado, and likely to hit just about 269 if he ends up with none of them. At this point, I can't see how these four cards will fall--But still.
That's where Omaha comes in. If it looks at the end that they'll get just exactly 269. (Also Nevada could then figure, if the night is trending in McCain's favor.)
In our view, Obama-Biden is threatening to break it open but has clinched nothing yet. There have been so many rapid shifts through this election season, and one would expect some firming of Republican support between now and then end. But just this shift of those two states--FL and VA--makes it look pretty lopsided, though. The new call is 269-200, with 69 toss-up.
Have to look more at those two rogue CD--in NE and in ME.
CNN: Tootsie Pop
Jon King's wise approach is to have a fairly large set of states stuck in the middle--the caramel part (colored yellow on his map). If you have enough in there already, the shift in or out of one or two never draws much attention or controversy. He had 120+ in their before; he has slimmed down the goo to 99 Electoral votes now--the same 69 as I, but also WI, MO, NH, and NV. Interesting, though a bit wuss.
OK, maybe not a Tootsie Pop but some sort of candy-coated, sweet-and-gooey-in-the-center blob on a stick. You tell me.
Swamp Mud--Rasmussen's approach is like mine, only it's sticky toward the past election results. He's very slow to move any state from the status quo ante, version 2004. He's only moved two states across from one side to the other: Iowa in the medium-strong category for Obama and New Mexico in the leaning-Obama. Like 538, he's got three shades of blue and red (though he really only uses needs two, except as a hedge).
He calls it the "Balance of Power Calculator", and clearly he's calculated to keep it balanced (Oregon in the weak-Obama category? Connecticut in the moderately-strong one?)
CQ is like Rasmussen's--slow to change. IA and NM are both in the lightest of three Obama colors, with no other states changing from Kerry-Bush, unless to toss-up. He does come up with 260-200, with 78 on the fence, which is pretty impeccable (NV and NH to Toss-up; hard to argue).
Real Clear Politics, 538.com: Hot Pots
The numbers just bubble up and come out in the map, without much filtering. Very typical is that the tossup states for them were MO, IN, and NC when I started this post--now NC is over to Obama. Please!
Right now 538 has it 344-194 as the average (mean, I'd think) of their simulation results. In terms of straight calls, they've now got 269 (including CO!) for Obama in their deepest shade of blue, and 71 more in lighter shades (FL, NH, OH, NC, NV). 340 leaning or solid to Obama, and only 22--MO and IN--as toss-ups.
These guys will have to get out their palettes and change colors soon, I think, as their color schemes are too unstable. 538 had McCain up by 20 or so electoral votes just a couple weeks ago. I give it credit, though: 538's already changed its map to show NE and ME's individual CD's, after I razzed Nate Silver that he hadn't been including the probabilities of those unusual outcomes in his simulations. (For the record, he now says he has included them all along!)
Here's a poll I put out on kos: (I'll have to do better at calling attention to it to get more votes)
I put them roughly in decreasing order of likelihood as I saw it (and didn't include IA and NM, which are not surprises, nor the possibility McCain could win a Kerry state--it's real, but wouldn't be popular on kos). The plurality for FL is reasonable--it would be a "big" surprise in terms of electoral votes, and impact--and current polls make it plausible, though I don't really buy it (or any of those below it). My vote was for OH, part of a win for Obama in the range of 285-298 electoral votes (depending on CO and NH).
As a bonus, note that on 538.com--click on title above--an O.F.O.--an Obama Field Operative--shared some rather confidential, accurate-seeming internal estimates of currently-projected electoral day margins in key states.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Cleanin' Up
Under cover of the bailout, there are huge transfers of wealth going on right now. Anyone sitting flush on a pile of cash is buying up distressed properties at enormously-discounted prices. Or should be--maybe they're holding out for opportunities coming in Phase IV of the Creative Destruction.
Basically, I go to the "Wall-E" metaphor: there are humongous mounds of valuable rubble out there just waiting to be processed and recycled. Our government, bless their minuscule little heart, is taking a foremost role among those opening their giant intake maws to gobble up this raw material. We little, mobile individual-types also have our opportunity to flit about, searching for tasty morsels which meet the criteria of our simple machine-programmed compatibility DNA.
Now, Warren Buffett is threatening to gobble up my father's contribution to his grandchildren's educational funds. Normally, the news that Warren-Gets-In is great for a company's shareholders: he tends to be a patient investor, and his stamp of approval is usually good for a couple bil in market cap right off the bat. In the case of the GE investment, though, I think not: Berkshire Hathaway is getting special rights and a guaranteed 10% dividend for his trouble. The shares which have been held since Jack Welch applied the Neutron Bomb to my father's plant back in the '80's are suddenly hurtling southward toward their cost basis.
The logical move would be to anticipate the flow of money from GE to Berkshire Hathaway: sell the GE stock, take the capital gains (who cares? I'm still carrying losses from the dot-com bust!) and buy some fraction of a share of Berkshire with the proceeds. Maybe I separate the two steps, if there's an optimal time to have both, or neither.
Basically, I go to the "Wall-E" metaphor: there are humongous mounds of valuable rubble out there just waiting to be processed and recycled. Our government, bless their minuscule little heart, is taking a foremost role among those opening their giant intake maws to gobble up this raw material. We little, mobile individual-types also have our opportunity to flit about, searching for tasty morsels which meet the criteria of our simple machine-programmed compatibility DNA.
Now, Warren Buffett is threatening to gobble up my father's contribution to his grandchildren's educational funds. Normally, the news that Warren-Gets-In is great for a company's shareholders: he tends to be a patient investor, and his stamp of approval is usually good for a couple bil in market cap right off the bat. In the case of the GE investment, though, I think not: Berkshire Hathaway is getting special rights and a guaranteed 10% dividend for his trouble. The shares which have been held since Jack Welch applied the Neutron Bomb to my father's plant back in the '80's are suddenly hurtling southward toward their cost basis.
The logical move would be to anticipate the flow of money from GE to Berkshire Hathaway: sell the GE stock, take the capital gains (who cares? I'm still carrying losses from the dot-com bust!) and buy some fraction of a share of Berkshire with the proceeds. Maybe I separate the two steps, if there's an optimal time to have both, or neither.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
