Comments on: Enough already. I’m calling this one for Obama.

By: JS OBrien

JS OBrien — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:32:03 +0000

Hey Bob! Good to have you back. So, you’re now officially an Obamacan, huh?

Also didn’t know that you’re a Tar Heel. We have a couple of scrogues who are Tar Heels, too, originally, and I’m from Southside Virginia.

Once again, good to see you back.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:48:15 +0000

I agree with some of Savanster’s thoughts on the DEM’s being the party closer to the center. I have never voted for anything other than a Republican before, but “wow” how that party has gone off the lunatic fringe.
I early voted yesterday and voted for Obama (as well as Kay Hagan in her race vs Dole) because I think they are the more reasonable people. Unlike eight years ago when I felt like Republicans were more reasonable. Here’s hoping to some grown up politics soon.

By: Dr. Slammy

Dr. Slammy — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:41:34 +0000

Hey Savanster – I have a question for you. Will you hit the CONTACT button above and drop me a line (I need your e-mail address).

By: fikshun

fikshun — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:05:10 +0000

Funny. I’ve been thinking about Dandy Don singing “Turn out the lights” for the last two weeks. I agree. If this one is close or if McCain manages to squeak out a victory, it’s time to form a lynch mob at the Diebold gates.

By: Savantster

Savantster — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:09:47 +0000

The Dems are centrists at this point, aren’t they? Content to ignore the rights of gays, content to leave free trade in place, tax cuts as incentives, supporting the right to bear arms..

Aren’t today’s Dems mostly yesterday’s centrist Republicans? And with how far the right has shifted to the right.. most centrists don’t seem to have a stomach for the “new face” of the right-wing.. that “real America versus the fake big city America” beast that’s rearing its ugly head.

We’ll see, though. . I just read an article that says 1 in 7 are still undecided. That’s a lot of toss up votes right there. A few lost memory cards, 10s of thousands tossed off the rolls in each state, people not wanting to wait 10 – 12 hours in line to vote.. I fear its still quite stealable.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:59:51 +0000

As long as the Dems get close to 60 I think they will be filibuster proof. With all the republicans that are endorsing Obama they will not really have a choice. As the Republican party fractures itself the Dems are going to be the only game in town.

Can you imagine McCain leading an overwhelmingly democratic house and senate? HA talk about gridlock.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:42:19 +0000

My wife and I have a nice bottle of Oregon Willamette Valley Pinot Noir (the best U.S. pinots are from Oregon – California can’t even compete) that we’re going to break out and either a) celebrate or b) drown our sorrows.

With all the boneheaded Constitutional amendments in Colorado, however, it’ll probably be a little of both.

By: Dr. Denny

Dr. Denny — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:42:02 +0000

Thanks, JS. I’m guessing Dems will pick up five seats in the Senate. We’ll see.

By: JS OBrien

JS OBrien — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:33:35 +0000

Hey Denny,

I appreciate the compliment, but I’m afraid it’s not so. Nate Silver on FiveThirtyEight.com is the best there is on the polls and polling. I do my own research on methodology, read his site and several other polling sites, and try to distill what I’ve learned here for those who aren’t following the race as closely as I am. I hope some find that useful.

I agree that the governor’s races and, even more importantly, the statehouse races are extremely important and extremely under-reported, given the gerrymandering we can expect in 2010.

I sincerely doubt the Dems will get 60 seats in the Senate UNLESS turnout overwhelmingly favors them. Right now, I have them winning seats in Virginia, North Carolina (sorry Liddy you religious bigot), New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Alaska (if Stevens doesn’t convince the state that he’s “innocent”), and probably Minnesota, though that’s iffy. They may win one in Georgia, given early turnout numbers there, but Georgia requires a runoff if the winning candidate doesn’t reach 50% of the vote, and it’s hard to imagine Saxby Chambliss losing if his opponent, Jim Martin, isn’t riding Obama’s coattails. I can’t believe that Kentucky or Mississippi will elect a Democratic Senator, so that leaves the upside at a gain of nine seats for the Dems, which would be 60 votes if you include the two independent senators, including Lieberman who is hardly popular among Democrats these days. But with an upside of 60, the odds are that the Dems will fall short.

I think the media has overplayed the 60-Senator aspect, though. It’s rare that one party can marshal every single vote to break a filibuster, or the other party doesn’t lose a single vote. No matter what, the Dems should be in a very strong position in both the Senate and House after the election.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:28:31 +0000

I agree. The state races concern me a lot more nowadays than the presidential does. Then again, I live in toss-up North Carolina, so there’s some tension hanging in the air.

By: Dr. Denny

Dr. Denny — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:10:52 +0000

Actually, the party’s just beginning. What will have me poring over election returns include:

– governors’ races: Who gains, Dems or GOP?
– control of statehouses
– did Dems get 60 seats in the Senate?

No one writes about polling as well as you, JS. The fullness of the coverage far outweights the soundbites on CNN. As a voter, I appreciate it.

By: cwmackowski

cwmackowski — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:53:55 +0000

I suspect the Bradley effect and the reverse-Bradley effect will wash each other out.

Great analysis on the poll numbers. While numbers are quick and easy to recognize (and they make for sexy headlines), it’s quite another thing to make them truly understandable. You’ve done an invaluable job at doing just that.

By: hamish

hamish — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:53:29 +0000

I agree about the “tightening” it is minimal at the most. Voting machine irregularities would seem to be the best hope for McCain. That said, there is no one like the Democrats for snatching defeat… But then as the indispensable 538 has been pointing out, Obama’s campaign is kind of Organnnisseeeeddddd!!!!!!

By: JS OBrien

JS OBrien — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:46:21 +0000

I agree about the youth vote. I’m not so sure about silent conservatives or the Bradley Effect, though.

We shall see.

And very soon.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:35:12 +0000

What about what the polls might not be showing as well, likely in Obama’s favor? The youth vote, widely believed to be underrepresented, with a small flame kindled by Dean that Kerry didn’t quite set fire to. If they come out in their potential record numbers, and highly in favor of Obama (my state’s youth mock election vacross 75 schools voted Obama 65% – McCain 35%), could that be the overe the top vote in battleground states?
Also, could there be many of what I imagined to be the silent conservatives left behind, the ones that will not admit they are going to vote Obama to a pollster, but who might just do so in the privacy of their vote? (Sort of a reversal of the mythical Bradley effect)
Next week will certainly be interesting and perhaps the unique nature of this election counters traditional polling techniques.

By: Dr. Slammy

Dr. Slammy — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:19:40 +0000

If anybody needs an illustration what the political version of your sports scenario sounds like, stay tuned to the news over the next four days. The networks have a strong financial interest in everybody believing that this is a toss-up, so they’ll flog that monkey within an inch of its life.

Bet the farm on it.