Pollster show Obama lead narrowing

[Lorini]

www.pollster.com

Yesterday, Obama was shown as having 272 strong electoral votes. Today it's 259 strong electoral votes, less than what he needs to win. This article (http://www.pollster.com/blogs/daily_status_update_for_friday.php) discusses the change, but doesn't mention the fact that the 'strong' electoral votes have fallen below the threshold.

I do definitely worry about the effect of the undecideds on this election. Fivethirtyeight has a good article on the effects of race on election. McCain said yesterday that race should not be a factor in the election, and that while he acknowledged that racists existed in the country he felt they were less than 1% of the electorate. I don't know that I agree with him, but still it's interesting to have so many undecideds at this point in the campaign.

[Ben Sones]

Pollster has some weird methodology for designating whether a state is leaning or strong, though. If you look at some of the states they classify as "leaning Obama," such as VA, CO and NV, he actually has a solid lead in all of them, and Pollster's trend charts (click on the state for latest polls and a chart of the averaged trend) show all of those states moving strongly in Obama's direction. Fivethirtyeight classifies all of those as "strong Obama" states at this point, and I'd agree that it seem unlikely that McCain is going to turn any of them around in the next few days. There'd need to be a total reversal of the polling trends in those states for that to happen. Additionally, Obama would need to lose pretty much every single one of those Pollster "lean" states for McCain to have a chance. And all of the yellow states, too.

It's also worth noting that McCain's vote count on Pollster has been dropping, too, and by a lot more than Obama's. Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia were not considered to be battleground (yellow) states a week or two ago--they were solid red states. And Arizona is now only a "leaning McCain" state. If there's a trend, it's not in McCain's direction.

[Lorini]

From the empirical evidence, Pollster rates a state as strong when a candidate has at least a 51% lead, which would be accurate. None of the states you mentioned have Obama at=> 51%. What I was trying to say is that undecideds can still turn this election to McCain and that issue has become stronger in the last 24 hours. As long as Obama doesn't lead by 51% he can still lose the state to undecideds.

[jfletch]

If Obama supporters get a bit nervous and that means more of them work on the 4th to gotv or whatever... that's probably a good thing.

But just from perspective, right now according to EV.com Obama has 264 "strong" votes, while Kerry on this day in 2004 had... 95.

[Ben Sones]

From the empirical evidence, Pollster rates a state as strong when a candidate has at least a 51% lead, which would be accurate. None of the states you mentioned have Obama at=> 51%.

Actually, they do. According to Pollster's own averages, Obama has a 51.1% lead in CO, and a 51.2% lead in NM, and they classify both of those states as merely "leaning" Obama. Additionally, he's at 50.9% in VA, with no identifiable trend towards McCain in their poll averages chart, so I'd say that they are splitting hairs on that one. Obama is also above 50% in NV, with their chart showing Obama support trending steadily upwards and McCain support trending steadily downwards over the past month. In order for McCain to win any of those states, all of the undecideds would have to vote McCain, and some of the decideds would have to switch to McCain from Obama. With four days to go before the election, that sort of reversal seems pretty unlikely.

[MikeJ]

Also keep in mind that a lot of people have already voted and democrats overall are dominating early voting. This is against previous trends where Republicans had a decided early-voting advantage.

[Lorini]

I am not knowledgeable enough to know this, but does anyone know how the existing votes figure into an election projection? Ben, I didn't see that in CO thank you for pointing that out.

[triggercut]

Interestingly, the PPP poll of CO and NM that came out in the wee hours of last night shows that in Colorado and New Mexico, perhaps 2/3rds of the total votes that will be cast in those states have already been made. PPP is a Democratic pollster, but they show Obama +10 in CO and +17 in NM.

Obama goes on the air with double his commercial buy in Georgia over the weekend, and hits the airwaves in North Dakota and Arizona as well today.

[Lum]

If McCain manages to perform a stunning rally between now and Tuesday, it will merely be a decisive Obama victory instead of a landslide of historic proportions.

There is too much electoral math working against McCain. He has to sweep the board of current toss-up states *and* knock one or two solid Obama states out of his column. Obama only has to hold one or at the most two of the tossup states to win.

Also, Obama's polling lead is still so far ahead of McCain in many states that even if you grant McCain a "Bradley Effect" 7% bump, he still loses Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and New Mexico, based on the Pollster figures you cited.

Mathematically, it is virtually impossible for McCain to win at this point. If he does manage somehow to win, especially given all of the above, it will not only be a historic upset on the order of Truman's defeat of Dewey, it will probably cause massive suspicion of voter fraud.

[Andrew Mayer]

Not sure if this is the perfect place to post this comment, but I'm pretty sure any lingering Bradley Effect that there might be is going to be wiped out by the "Go with the Winner!" instinct that tends to happen with late breaking undecideds.

[Lum]

Bill Kristol on McCain/Palin, via the Daily Show:

"They're doing OK, it's not been a brilliant campaign, but... I think they'll upset - they're gonna win on Tuesday night! It's gonna be huge!"

(dramatic pause, audience boos and laughs)

"Aw, how can I resist! You know, how can I resist saying that! I hope a *few* of you took that seriously for just a *couple* of seconds!"

[nKoan]

I am not knowledgeable enough to know this, but does anyone know how the existing votes figure into an election projection? Ben, I didn't see that in CO thank you for pointing that out.

I was wondering about that too. Obama has a 6+% lead over McCain in NV, but NV went to GWB in the last two elections. McCain polled higher here than Obama too, up until maybe a month or two ago.

I feel like the state is firmly in the Obama camp (even the rural areas), but pollster keeps calling it "leaning" and I'm wondering if one of the reasons is due to the history of it being a slightly republican state.

[RepoMan]

Lum, that's awesome. If even Kristol is conceding reality, then we're really in the home stretch here.

[triggercut]

I was wondering about that too. Obama has a 6+% lead over McCain in NV, but NV went to GWB in the last two elections. McCain polled higher here than Obama too, up until maybe a month or two ago.

I feel like the state is firmly in the Obama camp (even the rural areas), but pollster keeps calling it "leaning" and I'm wondering if one of the reasons is due to the history of it being a slightly republican state.

On that one you'd have to ask Pollster. What we do know about Nevada is this:

Through yesterday, about 482,000 people had either early voted or returned a mailed-in absentee ballot. That total represents 58% of the total votes cast in 2004 in the state. In Clark county (Vegas, baby, Vegas), 347,000 votes have been cast. In 2004, there were 547,000 total votes period cast there. So far in Clark, 52% of the vote has been cast by self-identified Democrats, while 30% has been cast by Republican identifiers, 17% listing no party affiliation.

That's not good news for John McCain.

[ydejin]

FWIW as of today Princeton's Sam Wang (http://election.princeton.edu/) says that Obama would have to drop 8.36% in the polls to fall to the point where McCain would have a 50/50 shot at winning the electoral vote.

[BlueJackalope]

FWIW as of today Princeton's Sam Wang (http://election.princeton.edu/) says that Obama would have to drop 8.36% in the polls to fall to the point where McCain would have a 50/50 shot at winning the electoral vote.

Sam Wang? That guys a dick.

[Jon Rowe]

I like the up to date Election poll maps on Cnn.com.

[Athryn]

I like FiveThirtyEight's take on polling, as they seem to go with more than just one poll. Right now they have Obama at 346.5 and McCain at 191.5.

[MikeJ]

The guys at 538 have been spending a couple of months touring the swing states and visiting McCain and Obama field offices almost every day. It sounds as though they can almost count the number of McCain volunteers they saw in all this time doing actual work on their fingers and toes.

When the offices are open, they have reduced hours. We can confidently plan to get evening good-light photographs of a town after we visit the local McCain office, because we know it will be closing by 5 pm, as the office in Wilmington, North Carolina was this past Sunday. The plan is, get to inevitably closed/closing McCain office, get an hour of photos near sunset, then visit the bustling local Obama office.

These ground campaigns do not bear any relationship to one another. One side has something in the neighborhood of five million volunteers all assigned to very clear and specific pieces of the operation, and the other seems to have something like a thousand volunteers scattered throughout the country.

[Papageno]

I am just praying for an utter blowout (at least in the 350 EV range). The Republicans need their comeuppance, and they need it now.

[Charles]

I hope all the news outlets report the race narrowing as much as possible, because the biggest threat right now (besides fraud), are Obama voters deciding it's in the bag and failing to vote.

[Andrew Mayer]

I hope all the news outlets report the race narrowing as much as possible, because the biggest threat right now (besides fraud), are Obama voters deciding it's in the bag and failing to vote.

On the other hand it could end up being a big party.

[LesJarvis]

I hope all the news outlets report the race narrowing as much as possible, because the biggest threat right now (besides fraud), are Obama voters deciding it's in the bag and failing to vote.

Of course, the opposite is just as liable to happen, if not more so. Several recent polls have shown that people overwhelmingly believe Obama is going to win. I think the latest CBS/NYT poll had the margin at 61-17. If Republican voters believe it's a foregone conclusion that Obama is going to win, and clearly a lot of them do, they have less incentive to show up and vote. Combined with McCain's apparently pathetic ground operation (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/big-empty.html), that could well lead to depressed, perhaps even severely depressed, Republican turnout. If Obama ends up winning in a momentous landslide, they'll probably have that to thank at least as much as their GOTV efforts for the result.

[Charles]

Yeah but correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't greater voter turnout generally favor democrats?

[LesJarvis]

Not necessarily; more people voted in the 2004 presidential election than any in US history, and we all know how that turned out...

[Sepiche]

I've seen a couple reporters comment on it, but there's always the "winning team" factor to consider. With the election looking more and more decided there's a pull for currently undecided voters to want to vote for the team they think is going to win anyway.

I still have that niggling feeling that something somehow has to go wrong for the democrats like it always seems to, but so far things are looking really good for Obama.

[Lorini]

Pollster.com is also an amalgamation of polls. Here (http://www.pollster.com/faq/map_faq.php) is an explanation of their polling data. Specifically:

What is the basis of the classification of each race?
Regardless of the number of polls, we calculate a "confidence intervals" around the trend estimate based on the average sample size for the available polls in each state. These intervals reflect the uncertainty in the estimate due to random noise in the polling data.
If a race shows a lead that is outside the 95% confidence interval, then we classify this as a "strong" lead. If the lead is between the 68% and 95% confidence intervals, then we classify it as a "lean". If the race is inside the 68% confidence interval, then we classify the race as "too close to call."

[LesJarvis]

I still have that niggling feeling that something somehow has to go wrong for the democrats like it always seems to, but so far things are looking really good for Obama.

I'm highly confident that Obama will win at this point, but there are a lot of unknown, and indeed unknowable factors that are going to determine the margin. Hypothetically things could stack up perfectly in McCain's favor, but I'd wager that most of the unknowns will ultimately benefit Obama more.

[ydejin]

I hope all the news outlets report the race narrowing as much as possible, because the biggest threat right now (besides fraud), are Obama voters deciding it's in the bag and failing to vote.
Fortunately Atlanta voters (http://thepage.time.com/long-voting-lines-in-atlanta/) haven't got the memo that it's in the bag. They've got 8-hour long lines for early voting. I can't imagine waiting that long to vote. I'm starting to be very glad I've got a absentee ballot.

[LesJarvis]

I just noticed this on Gallup: their traditional voter model, which is based on voting behavior in past elections, and has been consistently more favorable towards McCain, now shows Obama up by 8% (51-43). This is particularly significant when you consider that as recently as Monday they showed a 2 points race (49-47), which Matt Drudge of course plastered across the top of his page. This is just one data point, of course, but a fairly significant one, and it flies directly in the face of the notion that the race is tightening. (Their standard and expanded models show Obama up by 11 and 9 respectively.)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111124/Gallup-Daily-Likely-Voters-Traditional.aspx

[Andrew Mayer]

I'm still betting that Obama opens up his lead more before Tuesday as the independents break for the "winner".

[charmtrap]

Fivethirtyeight now has McCain's win percentage down to 2.5%. Narrowing my ass.

[Desslock]

I just noticed this on Gallup: their traditional voter model, which is based on voting behavior in past elections, and has been consistently more favorable towards McCain, now shows Obama up by 8% (51-43). This is particularly significant when you consider that as recently as Monday they showed a 2 points race (49-47), which Matt Drudge of course plastered across the top of his page.

There's still goofy numbers - Drudge now has a link to Zogby's which actually says McCain is up by 1%?!?! http://www.drudgereport.com/

Seems very unlikely that McCain is still for real- that poll came out of nowhere.

It is really disconcerting that the polling of different media has their favorite candidate represented more highly -- CBS/NYT has the race not even close at 11% or so, while Foxnews has McCain only down 3. But even reasonably independents like Zogby and Gallup are all over the map, so maybe it's just a screwy year, but it seems like there's a lot of wishful thinking depending upon who is conducting the polls.

[John Reynolds]

There's still goofy numbers - Drudge now has a link to Zogby's which actually says McCain is up by 1%?!?! http://www.drudgereport.com/

I read that and thought to myself, "Watch Drudge make that one poll the top headline." Clicked the link and sure enough.

[RepoMan]

It's going to be real interesting to see whether 538.com actually nails the election or not. They do seem to have methodological wonkiness out the ass, but they've also got a hardon for Obama that's as big as mighty Illinois, so who knows whether the one will outweigh (penetrate?) the other.

[LesJarvis]

It is really disconcerting that the polling of different media has their favorite candidate represented more highly -- CBS/NYT has the race not even close at 11% or so, while Foxnews has McCain only down 3. But even reasonably independents like Zogby and Gallup are all over the map, so maybe it's just a screwy year, but it seems like there's a lot of wishful thinking depending upon who is conducting the polls.

Despite their latest poll, Fox (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php?xml=/flashcharts/content/xml/08USPresGEMvO.xml&choices=Obama,McCain&phone=FOX&ivr=0&internet=0&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=) actually hasn't show much in the way of ideological bias this season. Their last poll had Obama up by 9, for instance. CBS/NYT (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php?xml=/flashcharts/content/xml/08USPresGEMvO.xml&choices=Obama,McCain&phone=CBS/Times&ivr=0&internet=0&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=) is on the high end of the national scale, but it's consistent with many other pollsters.

The big difference is in modeling and methodology, at least as far as I can tell. Zogby, for instance, weights party ID using the most recent presidential election. Given that Republican party ID has dropped significantly since 2004, they've correspondingly had a Republican lean this cycle by a point or two. Nate Silver did a great writeup (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/tracking-poll-primer.html) a couple weeks ago on the daily national tracking polls, and he goes over how they lean and why. RepoMan is correct that he's an Obama backer, but he's also very transparent and rigorous. That doesn't necessarily mean he's correct about everything, of course.

In the end it's hard, nay, impossible to know which method is going to produce the most accurate result until we get the actual election results, but the biggest feather in Obama's cap right now polling-wise is that no matter where you look right now he's in a position to win.

[charmtrap]

There's still goofy numbers - Drudge now has a link to Zogby's which actually says McCain is up by 1%?!?! http://www.drudgereport.com/

Seems very unlikely that McCain is still for real- that poll came out of nowhere.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/trick-or-treat.html

Thank god for fivethirtyeight. I know he's pretty high on Obama, but his analysis at least seems very plausible and his track record is very good. Hope I'm not misplacing my faith.

[Bob Cherub]

Did anyone bother to look at the data that composes the CBS/NYT poll? It's like 400 Republicans and 500 Democrats.

So when you have 20% more of one party, not a real shocker when that party is leading by 11%.

But don't panic guys, everything is fine. Don't PANIC.

[pogozorro]

When you have multiple (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans) sources (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends) all (http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx) showing Democrat self-identification up across the board, heaven forfend a poll reflect this shift.

[Bob Cherub]

Yes, I'm sure there will be a +20% turnout for Democrats over Republicans. Obama is going to win this thing 60% to 40%.

Cause wasn't a similar thing said about 2004, about huge Democrat turnout and registration? Oh yeah, guess that didn't turn out that way.

DON'T PANIC. No need to panic guys, it'll be okay.

[Jason McCullough]

There's still goofy numbers - Drudge now has a link to Zogby's which actually says McCain is up by 1%?!?! http://www.drudgereport.com/

Zogby made his reputation is low turnout elections; it's highly unlikely that's going to be the case this year. As Les said, he oddly is still using the 2004 partisan identification (roughly even) in a year when Democrats are like +10 party id over the GOP. Also the likely voter screen varies per voting outlet - "really likely to vote" screens show more of a GOP lean because the GOP has a more reliable turnout base.

[triggercut]

For Bob Cherub, I'm going to explain how math works.

You claim that the CBS/NYT poll has 500 Democrats and 400 Republicans.

Let's say then, that the sample is 900 voters, broken down by that demographic.

500 over 900 is 55.5%

400 over 900 is 44.4%

That's a difference of 11.1%, not 20.

Isn't math fun?

Just because whaling on you is fun, let's have some more.

The poll you cite gives us the Party ID of those polled:

Democrats were 37% of those polled (530 of 1439)
Republicans were 31% of those polled (448 of 1439)
Indies were 32% of those polled (461 of 1439).

That's about a 6% advantage of Democrats over Republicans, in the poll. When they weighted, you can see that they gave the Democrats 1% at the expense of indies, so the weighted sample becomes 38/31/31. That's pretty much right in line with what Gallup and Rasmussen have identified as the party ID breakdown of the American voter in 2008.

So what other stupid and unfounded contentions do you have for us to shoot full of holes?

[Robert Sharp]

Obama will take 300. Quit worrying.

[Ben Sones]

So what other stupid and unfounded contentions do you have for us to shoot full of holes?

You could always address his claim that it's foolish to think the Democrat might win because this race is just like 2004, even though polling (http://pollingreport2.com/2004track.htm) in 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/polls/index.html) had Bush holding a lead throughout October, and also had him in a much, much stronger position in state-by-state polling (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2004/state_by_state_actual_results_vs_rasmussen_reports _polls), where Bush held a solid lead in a whole bunch of states in which McCain is behind (Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Florida), and where Bush maintained a 1-2 point race many states in which Obama currently enjoys double digit leads (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire). Rasmussen's latest analysis (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) of this year's race concludes "Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections now show Obama leading 260-160. When “leaners” are included, Obama leads 313-160." But clearly, those liberal wonks at Rasmussen are just giddy with delusions of huge Democrat turnout and registration.

So yeah, this election is just like 2004, if you ignore the fact that it totally isn't.

Alternately, you could just say "Why bother?" Bob ignores any information that doesn't agree with what he's already decided to believe, so you'd likely be wasting your time.

[rhinohelix]

I think there could be some Reagan-80's/Gore 2000, undecided-breaking McCain going on right now. Obama is basically the incumbent. If you have not been bled-out-the-eyes inured in Obama-mania at this point, you never are. So in lots of places where you have 8-10% undecided, ALL of that is going/going to go McCain. So places that were previously out of reach polling-wise are going to come into reach for McCain and perhaps places Obama thought safe are going to get close if not turn.

Obama is having a last-minute breakdown like nobody's business, too. "Selfishness", throwing media off the plane, etc. Obama is playing into the radical stereotype with his front-runner status, thinking he has it in the bag. People still remember the hard-left turn Clinton did after he was elected. The difference with Obama is that he never said anything to indicate otherwise. I think that is giving people pause. An "Are we really going to elect this guy?" fear of morning after regret syndrome could have far reaching effects.

If you have Ayers, the LA Times tape, and Joe the plumber coming together with the forces of uncertainty, this could make for a every interesting election night.

I am admittedly a die-hard conservative partisan, so this could all very well be wishful thinking, so grain of salt and all that.

At this point, though, the contrarian, more than the conservative, in me wants to see the biggest Dewey-beats-Truman QQ moment in recorded history.

[Talisker]

Obama is basically the incumbent.
what

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, seriously. I think people are also underestimating the chances that a rogue asteroid will strike and kill Obama before Tuesday, because the chances of that happening are not zero. McCain is clearly in a better position than people think!

The rhetoric coming out of the McCain campaign at this point is just as wacky. Rick Davis released a memo last night explaining why it's bad for Obama that Arizona has now become a battleground state. Funny stuff.

[Charles]

Apparently Rick Davis doesn't know what battleground state means.

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, it's some pretty crazy Kool Aid (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/a_mccain_campaign_memo_1.php).

Expanding the Field: Obama is running out of states if you follow out a traditional model. Today, he expanded his buy into North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona in an attempt to widen the playing field and find his 270 Electoral Votes. This is a very tall order and trying to expand into new states in the final hours shows he doesn't have the votes to win.

Yeah, the fact that Obama has expanded his ad buys into states like Arizona--where McCain had an averaged lead of 21 points a month ago, down to 2 points today--is clearly a sign that Obama is desperate. I think Davis is the real desperate one here--desperately hoping that nobody realizes that McCain has also been "trying to expand into new states in the final hours" this week (albeit with less success).

When Bizarro-world rationalization doesn't work, he falls back on good old-fashioned lying:

no candidate has gotten to the White House without Ohio

That's not true. Dewey won Ohio, for instance. And Kennedy lost it. It is very rare for a president to not win Ohio, though. Unfortunately for McCain, he's currently behind there by about five points in the polling averages.

Our numbers in Iowa have seen a tremendous surge in the past 10 days. We took Obama's lead from the double digits to a very close race.

Uhm, no. Rasmussen has McCain 8 points behind in Iowa, which is unchanged for the past month. All the rest of the polls give Obama a double-digit lead there., and most of them have the lead widening a bit in the past week.

It is no secret that Republican candidates in the Southwest have to focus on winning over enough Latino and Hispanic voters in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado to carry them to victory... John McCain is now winning enough voters to perform within the margin of error - putting these states within reach.

The margin of error is seven points? That's the closest of any of those races. Obama has a double-digit lead in NM, and he's over 51% in all three of those states.

However, after our visit early this week, we saw a tremendous rebound in our poll position, and Colorado is back on the map.

Obama is polling at 51.3% in CO. Even if Davis' (and rhinohelix's) highly unlikely scenario of all the undecideds going Republican happens, McCain is still losing in CO.

[triggercut]

"Obama is basically the incumbent" might be one of the most ridiculously hilarious things I've ever read.

[JeffL]

Re: "No candidate has won the presidency without winning Ohio" sounds better than the actual fact: "No Republican has won the presidency without winning Ohio."

Re: "Obama is the incumbent" - I actually understand the intent of that comment. Some commentators have noted that Obama is now the "default" winner of this race - he's being declared the winner by all of the media pundits, all the headlines are declaring him the easy winner, etc. Incumbent is not the right word, but I think that's the intent.

I suspect that undecideds are going to go for McCain in higher numbers than Obama. I can't imagine how anyone could truly be undecided at this point, and my suspicion is that if you say you're undecided it's because you just aren't sure for some reason you can vote for Obama.

[madkevin]

There's a reason why "incumbent" isn't the right word.

[Talisker]

if you say you're undecided it's because you just aren't sure for some reason you can vote for Obama.
That can work just as easily the other direction, though.

[Robert Sharp]

My only fear is that Obama supporters will think they don't have to vote because Obama already has it in the bag.

Ironically, this desperate attempt to twist the polls a bit plays in Obama's favor, as it will make sure that Obama supporters go out and vote.

[JeffL]

That can work just as easily the other direction, though.

Oh, of course it could. Just my guess that there are more people who are undecided because they're not quite sure of Obama and who he really is and what he will do than people that are not quite sure of who McCain is. I.e. it is easier for me to imagine someone thinking, Hmmm, I don't know, I'm just not sure about Obama, I'll just vote for McCain than an undecided thinking, Hmmm, I kinda like McCain, but I'm just not real sure, I guess I'll just vote for Obama.

So, based purely on gut feel, my prediction is that the majority of the undecideds are going to swing to McCain. Purely gut feel.

[RepoMan]

Obama is basically the incumbent.
...
Obama is playing into the radical stereotype with his front-runner status, thinking he has it in the bag.
Yeah, how dare that guy, who is so far in the lead that he's "basically the incumbent," actually act like he has "front-runner status"!

Wait, what? Obama is about the least incumbent-like candidate in American election history.
I am admittedly a die-hard conservative partisan, so this could all very well be wishful thinking....
Ah. You think?

I tend to agree that many undecideds will swing to McCain. However, all of them would have to swing for McCain to win nationally, and that I don't think will happen. It'll be close, but not close enough for McCain.

[Chris Nahr]

People still remember the hard-left turn Clinton did after he was elected.

He did?

[RepoMan]

I guess rhino is comparing Clinton to Bush Sr., like all the other conservatives did at the time.

OMG Shock! A Democrat did Democratic things! SOCIALIST COMMUNIST AAAAAAAGH

[Matthew Gallant]

OMG Shock!
http://www.truemeaningoflife.com/images/mccain_wow.gif

[triggercut]

Gallup says: Fuck you John Zogby.

52-42 expanded LV model,

52-42 traditional LV model,

52-41 RV model.

That's excellent news for McCain, as it shows that he has Obama right in his sights.

[Hugin]

I think there could be some Reagan-80's/Gore 2000, undecided-breaking McCain going on right now. Obama is basically the incumbent. If you have not been bled-out-the-eyes inured in Obama-mania at this point, you never are. So in lots of places where you have 8-10% undecided, ALL of that is going/going to go McCain. So places that were previously out of reach polling-wise are going to come into reach for McCain and perhaps places Obama thought safe are going to get close if not turn.

Most pollsters think the undecideds are going to either split or go mildly McCain, not overwhelmingly so. I think you're looking at this through excessively conservative colored glasses.


Obama is having a last-minute breakdown like nobody's business, too.

You mean the way we're hearing reports every day of dissent inside the campaign? And the way states that should be totally safe for him are instead neck and neck, forcing him to campaign "on his own turf" in the final days? And the way every day more members of his own party publicly endorse the other guy? And the way his campaign had to cut the budget for GOTV in the crucial last few days in order to afford a few last TV commercials? Is that the breakdown you mean?


"Selfishness", throwing media off the plane, etc.

I have no idea what "selfishness" means, campaign news wise. I don't think anyone outside the papers that got bumped from the plane care about the papers that got bumped, and the readers of those papers were never going to support Obama anyway.


People still remember the hard-left turn Clinton did after he was elected.

Here's where your analysis really runs off the rails. Bill Clinton was a lot of things, but "hard left" was not one of them. Clinton, the budget balancer and deficit killer? Bill Clinton, who signed off on Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA? He's the poster boy for the centrist DLC, a group that drives the actual "hard left" of the Democratic party crazy.


If you have Ayers

The polling has shown clearly that McCain's relentless pursuit of irrelevant, negative attacks has hurt his popularity more than Obama's.

the LA Times tape

Seriously? The same guy that got 400K from a group McCain chaired at the time? You realize Obama is leading McCain with Jewish voters right now?


I am admittedly a die-hard conservative partisan, so this could all very well be wishful thinking, so grain of salt and all that.

We'll see Tuesday.

[rhinohelix]

Here's where your analysis really runs off the rails. Bill Clinton was a lot of things, but "hard left" was not one of them. Clinton, the budget balancer and deficit killer? Bill Clinton, who signed off on Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA? He's the poster boy for the centrist DLC, a group that drives the actual "hard left" of the Democratic party crazy.

I don't mean to take this off the rails, and can continue this in another read, PM, or not at all, as you prefer but you are obviously thinking of post-reconstruction rose-colored glasses Clinton. That Clinton is an invention of, well, Clinton. I am talking about the 1992-94 Clinton that ran on on DLC middle-class taxes cuts, etc. and then banned "assault" weapons, raised taxes ("contributions", in another Obama flashback moment), and tried to nationalize 1/7th of the nation's economy in backdoor planning sessions lead by his wife. He governed much further to the Left than he ran. The Clinton administration never balanced any budget or killed any deficit willingly. In his last budget before the 1994 Republican revolution, his administration forecast $200b deficits as far as the eye could see.

Getting shellacked in the 1994 elections is what drove Clinton to the center. Republican reforms (capital gains tax cuts, etc.) is what drove budget reform. He spent the last 6 years staunching the bleeding and attacking poor Republican strategic communication, which of course makes him more centrist than the true Radical Left wanted. That was the one thing I didn't mind so much about Clinton: while he had his own tenets, he wasn't married to any of them. He was more concerned with his popularity than ideological purity, so he was maleable for the good of the country. Bush couldn't give a damn about his popularity such that he was willing to cede the entire intellectual and political battleground. What scares me about Obama is his belief in his own hype, his conviction that he really does know better than we do.

My apologies for the derail. Please keep this one on track and PM or start another thread to allow for Gestalt-mind flamings.

As to the rest, you are certainly right, we will see on Tuesday.

[Hugin]

I don't mean to take this off the rails, and can continue this in another read, PM, or not at all, as you prefer but you are obviously thinking of post-reconstruction rose-colored glasses Clinton. That Clinton is an invention of, well, Clinton. I am talking about the Clinton that ran on on DLC middle-class taxes cuts, etc. and then banned "assault" weapons, raised taxes ("contributions", in another Obama flashback moment), and tried to nationalize 1/7th of the nation's economy in backdoor planning sessions lead by his wife. The Clinton administration never balanced any budget or killed any deficit willingly. In his last budget before the 1994 Republican revolution, his administration forecast $200b deficits as far as the eye could see.

Getting shellacked in the 1994 elections is what drove Clinton to the center. Republican reforms (capital gains tax cuts, etc.) is what drove budget reform.

As to the rest, you are certainly right, we will see on Tuesday.

The only part of that I'll agree with was the healthcare reform initiative, which was 1. pretty legitimately left-ish and 2. something Hillary Clinton really shouldn't have been running, and 3. ultimately an abject failure.

[Jason McCullough]

The 1993-1994 Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#First_term.2C_1993.E2.80.931997) was a center-left politician.

Health care: he ran and got elected on it. Not sure how this can be far left; it's not like he sprung it on people. Popular with everyone but conservatives, until he fucked it up, at which point it become unpopular with everyone.
Assault weapons ban: Popular with everyone but conservatives.
Raising taxes on the rich: Popular with everyone but conservatives.
Brady bill: Popular with everyone but conservatives.
EITC: Popular with everyone including conservatives.
NAFTA: Dead-even polling, without a consistent partisan profile to who liked it or didn't. Certainly wasn't a "left" position.

Near as I can tell, gays in the military was the only thing he tried that was "hard left". Characteristically of the period, he messed that up too, with a final change that made no one happy.

1994 was a debacle for a variety of reasons, but they aren't really left/right reasons:
* Health care pissed off everyone. The left was mad it didn't pass, the right that he wanted to do it, and independents that the proposal was a mess.
* The economy was still not doing so hot.
* The various (trumped-up, in my partisan opinion) scandals.
* The time bomb of all those southern democrats in what were really now "natural Republican" seats. They were going to lose their seats eventually, the only question was when.
* The foreign policy messes in Haiti and Somalia.
* Terribly handled nominations that didn't satisfy the left and made the right mad, just like everything else in this period.

To some extent Clinton was like Eisenhower - a president who made some minor adjustments but didn't really interrupt the general dominance by the other party and ideology.

[Papageno]

From what I've read, the failure of the Clinton health care proposal was at least partly due to a bunch of Dem congresspeople who didn't get on board with it and picked it to death. If the party had stuck together it would have become law. Certainly the pants-on-fire Harry and Louise ads didn't help, though.

[RepoMan]

Gallup says: Fuck you John Zogby.

52-42 expanded LV model,

52-42 traditional LV model,

52-41 RV model.

That's excellent news for McCain, as it shows that he has Obama right in his sights.
Holy shit, you're right.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/npjelacg3kotj222dcubgw.gif

Damn, look at that spread open back up. This is the exact voter model that Drudge was trumpeting about only, what, four days ago? How the hell did this voter model go from Obama +2 to Obama +10 in just four days?

Their other models are way more stable:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rq8wqg3agky_6egme-raow.gif


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n1lyfkxztkg7ktsa1xq5vg.gif

Tends to make me have more faith in the other models for that reason alone, given the lack of big poll-moving events lately.

[strategy]

Just my guess that there are more people who are undecided because they're not quite sure of Obama and who he really is and what he will do than people that are not quite sure of who McCain is. I.e. it is easier for me to imagine someone thinking, Hmmm, I don't know, I'm just not sure about Obama, I'll just vote for McCain than an undecided thinking, Hmmm, I kinda like McCain, but I'm just not real sure, I guess I'll just vote for Obama.

You forgot the third (and IMO most likely) outcome. Hmm, I'm just not sure what I'll vote. Oops, is it November 5 already?

[Anaxagoras]

The Clinton administration never balanced any budget or killed any deficit willingly. In his last budget before the 1994 Republican revolution, his administration forecast $200b deficits as far as the eye could see.


This is flat-out false. In Greenspan's recent book he spoke very highly of Clinton & said that he was an excellent President to work with regarding the economy. Clinton was always very conscientous (sp?) of the budget, and demonstrated admirable fiscal restraint throughout his presidency. This coming from Greenspan, who is hardly a card-carrying Democrat.

[Qenan]

To some extent Clinton was like Eisenhower - a president who made some minor adjustments but didn't really interrupt the general dominance by the other party and ideology.

Hadn't seen that before, but I like the analogy. Thanks.

[rhinohelix]

This is flat-out false. In Greenspan's recent book he spoke very highly of Clinton & said that he was an excellent President to work with regarding the economy. Clinton was always very conscientous (sp?) of the budget, and demonstrated admirable fiscal restraint throughout his presidency. This coming from Greenspan, who is hardly a card-carrying Democrat.

Really? Why don't you look at Clinton's 1994 budget and tell me what the projections for the upcoming years' deficits? Clinton had no interest in balancing the budget. It was only the Republicans stopping new spending and the rising tax receipts from the upswing in the economy that did that. "Admirable fiscal restraint" is easy when you have an opposition party with a stated aim of balancing the budget and control of the purse springs to keep you in line.

[Anaxagoras]

Really? Why don't you look at Clinton's 1994 budget and tell me what the projections for the upcoming years' deficits?

Why don't you read Greenspan's book? I think he might know a little more about the federal budget than you do.

Greenspan made it very clear that Clinton was conscientious about the budget from day 1. The Republican leaning Chairman of the Fed has a lot more credibility on this issue than a right wing hack spouting talking points does.

[RepoMan]

"Admirable fiscal restraint" is easy when you have an opposition party with a stated aim of balancing the budget and control of the purse springs to keep you in line.
Yeah, and it's hell when you're the majority party and you throw all pretense of balancing the budget out the window, ain't it?

What the fuck happened to you Republicans after 2000, anyway?

[rhinohelix]

The 1993-1994 Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#First_term.2C_1993.E2.80.931997) was a center-left politician.

Health care: he ran and got elected on it. Not sure how this can be far left; it's not like he sprung it on people. Popular with everyone but conservatives, until he fucked it up, at which point it become unpopular with everyone.
Assault weapons ban: Popular with everyone but conservatives.
Raising taxes on the rich: Popular with everyone but conservatives.
Brady bill: Popular with everyone but conservatives.
EITC: Popular with everyone including conservatives.
NAFTA: Dead-even polling, without a consistent partisan profile to who liked it or didn't. Certainly wasn't a "left" position.

Near as I can tell, gays in the military was the only thing he tried that was "hard left". Characteristically of the period, he messed that up too, with a final change that made no one happy.

1994 was a debacle for a variety of reasons, but they aren't really left/right reasons:
* Health care pissed off everyone. The left was mad it didn't pass, the right that he wanted to do it, and independents that the proposal was a mess.
* The economy was still not doing so hot.
* The various (trumped-up, in my partisan opinion) scandals.
* The time bomb of all those southern democrats in what were really now "natural Republican" seats. They were going to lose their seats eventually, the only question was when.
* The foreign policy messes in Haiti and Somalia.
* Terribly handled nominations that didn't satisfy the left and made the right mad, just like everything else in this period.

To some extent Clinton was like Eisenhower - a president who made some minor adjustments but didn't really interrupt the general dominance by the other party and ideology.

I won't disagree with that too much; in ideological terms I was incorrect in calling him "hard left". I would have been better served to say that he seemed to govern further to the left than how he ran, at least as I recall it. I was actually unconcerned as a Republican when he was elected, although as I recall I preferred Tsongas on the Democratic side that year.

[rhinohelix]

Why don't you read Greenspan's book? I think he might know a little more about the federal budget than you do.

Why don't you answer my question with another question? Oh wai... I don't see how Greenspan's combined recollections after all eight years of the Clinton Presidency have anything to do with Clinton's efforts to balance the budget before the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 but feel free to continue to provide a textbook definition of appeal to authority. Say what you will but there was no plan for a balanced budget before the Republicans took over. Nationalizing health care would have only made this more impossible under Clinton.

While not exact, (CBO rather than OMB) this is a taste of where we were in 1994:

http://www.archive.org/stream/economicbudgetou00unit/economicbudgetou00unit_djvu.txt

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION



FEBRUARY 2, 1994
...
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert D. Reischauer, Director, Congressional

Budget Office

Chairman Sabo, Congressman Kasich, and Members of the Committee, I am
pleased to be with you this morning to review the state of the economy and the
budget. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last Thursday released a report,
The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1995-1999, that describes our cur-
rent views in detail. My testimony summarizes that report.

The economic and budget outlook has not changed substantially since last Sep-
tember, but the deficit picture is significantly brighter than it appeared one year
ago when the Congressional Budget Office projected that the deficit would soar
above $350 billion by fiscal year 1998. CBO now projects that the federal budget
deficit will fall from $223 billion in the current fiscal year to below $170 billion in
1996, then creep up to around $200 billion in 1999.

[triggercut]

Damn, look at that spread open back up. This is the exact voter model that Drudge was trumpeting about only, what, four days ago? How the hell did this voter model go from Obama +2 to Obama +10 in just four days?


Josh Marshall had a theory on this which even he says is just conjecture on his part. He wonders if we're seeing "convergance" in the Expanded LV and Traditional LV models because more and more of the Gallup tracker's contact of registered voters is hitting early voters who've already cast a ballot in this election. Thus the "traditional" model has moved rapidly towards the "expanded" model because sporadic or first-time voters who've already voted seem to justify the existence of that expanded sample.

[Jason McCullough]

Rhino, check out this site (http://traxel.com/deficit/). Note the deficit as percentage of GDP started dropping in 1993 according to the third graph. It'd be interesting to see this business cycle adjusted, but I'm not sure where to get that.

I'd stack rank credit for the 1990s deficit reduction as:

1. The 1990s productivity boom leading to unexpected revenues.
2. Clinton forcing Congress into raising taxes. The 1993 budget passed by a single vote. Not a single Republican voted for it.
3. Bush I having the balls to raise taxes. Guess who didn't like that?
4. The GOP congress holding down spending. Note that if they'd had their way they would have cut taxes far more and opened the deficit back up.

[jeffd]

That was part of it - the bill was crafted entirely away from Congress's purview. Some Congressman (can't remember who) proposed another bill, which caused a lot of problems for Clinton.

Additionally, Clinton spent a lot of good will on stuff like NAFTA, which Democrats knew would hurt them. By the time his healthcare plan came up for a vote they weren't inclined to stick their necks out yet again.

From what I've read, the failure of the Clinton health care proposal was at least partly due to a bunch of Dem congresspeople who didn't get on board with it and picked it to death. If the party had stuck together it would have become law. Certainly the pants-on-fire Harry and Louise ads didn't help, though.

[Bahimiron]

538 went from a 3.8 percent McCain victory to a 6.3 overnight. Still not a big chance, but it's a little scary. The electorate map is also not looking pretty. Florida and Virginia are white, whereas all last week they were light blue. Missouri is now pink, whereas last week it was white.

Pennsylvania remains dark blue while Ohio, Colorado and Nevada are all varying shades of lighter blue.

God, I just wish it was over already. Well. Over and with my guy as the winner, that is.

Edit: I'm being reactionary. He explains his numbers (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/todays-polls-112-afternoon-edition.html) in a blog post. Though I'm still a little disheartened to see Missouri go red again. I mean, it's not too surprising, but being a KC native, I was hopeful. No chance of seeing Kansas go blue, but I can hope for my former neighbors across the river.

[malphigian]

538 went from a 3.8 percent McCain victory to a 6.3 overnight. Still not a big chance, but it's a little scary. The electorate map is also not looking pretty. Florida and Virginia are white, whereas all last week they were light blue. Missouri is now pink, whereas last week it was white.

I think you are mixing up Virginia and North Carolina. Obama has a significant lead in all polls in Virginia. North Carolina is a very slight blue.

The tightened polling situation happens every time, but it's worth noting there hasn't been any candidate leading this much in the polls since Clinton in 1996. Neither Bush election did Bush have this much of a lead.

[Bahimiron]

I think you are mixing up Virginia and North Carolina.

Good fucking god.

I swear, I got a 148 on that cool geography quiz (http://www.lizardpoint.com/fun/geoquiz/usaquiz.html) and I never had an issue finding Virginia. I have no idea what I was thinking. WHAT A GAFFE!

Edit: Just took it again and got a 150. Damn it!

[JeffL]

Here's a cool little election night guide:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11022008/photos/news004a.jpg

[Qenan]

That guide shows Colorado solid red, when by all indications it's leading pretty solidly toward Obama.

[jeffd]

Seriously some of you guys really need to stop reading the internets until Wednesday. :)

[JeffL]

I still have an odd feeling that this is going to be way closer than everyone is predicting. Since I have nothing at all to back that up other than gut feel, and EVERYONE is predicting an easy Obama landslide, you guys can do a group "told you so" Weds. morning. ;)

[triggercut]

I still have an odd feeling that this is going to be way closer than everyone is predicting. Since I have nothing at all to back that up other than gut feel, and EVERYONE is predicting an easy Obama landslide, you guys can do a group "told you so" Weds. morning. ;)

I've been trying to get people's expectations in the right framework for the last week. Of *course* it'll be closer. No way in fuck was McCain going to only get 43% of the vote.

I predicted last Sunday 51-48, and I still think that's about what we'll see. No need to be chicken little, though. Obama seems to have things well in hand.

[Andrew Mayer]

If we're playing that game, I'll say 54-46.

[Brian Rucker]

I'm feeling the same way as Jeff. I think this is going to be very close in the final analysis. Of course, I'm probably just saying that so I can be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong and not terribly upset if I end up being right. Got no real facts to back that up.

[Jason McCullough]

538 is only projecting 4.5% as of today.

[Bahimiron]

538 is only projecting 4.5% as of today.

4.5% what?

[JeffL]

I was trying to figure out why I have this gut feel that it's going to be a lot closer, and the best I can come up with is I still have a feeling that far more declared undecideds are going to go McCain than anyone is projecting.

There have also been some speculation that a lot of the younger voters who did so much for Obama in the primaries may not actually be very dependable in terms of showing up for the vote Tuesday. That one would surprise me.

Again, popular vote doesn't mean so much in and of itself, since this isn't a national election, it's 51 local ones. While the pundits are predicting FL and OH to be Obama, I wouldn't be shocked if McCain surprised everyone and won FL, and was much closer in OH than most people are predicting.

[jeffd]

Ezra Klein basically addresses all this. (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2008&base_name=the_racist_vote)

So instead, the model seems to be that a substantial slice of the electorate are prankster racists who have spent the campaign deceiving pollsters so that, come election day, they can trigger a McCain upset, destroying the credibility of random statistical sampling and really putting one over on liberals who thought this country would turn out for a black guy named Hussein. I guess that's possible, but it doesn't seem very likely.

[Jason McCullough]

Popular vote margin, bahimiron. Personally I'm surprised it's that low, but that's what the polls say.

[triggercut]

The big bombshell I've been waiting for has been the NBC/WSJ poll. Just came out about 15 minutes ago: Obama 51, McCain 43. This poll is terrific because:

1. It's a voter sample from Saturday/Sunday
2. It includes cell phones
3. It has a reputation for being very sensitive to trends in the electorate
4. The poll is helmed by a Republican and a Democrat, so there's no hidden partisan lean.

One more thing worth thinking about: I think that Survey USA, PPP, and Rasmussen had their state polling numbers screwed up by conducting surveys on Friday. All the state-pollers are landline-only pollsters, and any pollster getting usable survey data from likely voters by landline on Halloween Friday was likely to be getting it from older, more conservative voters. Remember, the Friday sample is what got Hannity and Drudge peeing down their legs when Zogby found a 48-47 McCain lead. Just saying, but I think perhaps that Friday survey data may have affected state polls we're seeing from yesterday and today by a point or two in McCain's favor.

[Calistas]

There's a great piece on 538 today about cell phone voters. Worth heading over to view. The short summary of the discussion is that what ^ said is about right! ;)

[triggercut]

All the state pollsters (except Pew) use only landlines. The national surveys by Gallup/USA Today, Gallup (tracker), NBC/WSJ, and WashPo/ABC use cellphone-only respondents.

An observer will then note that there's a much bigger spread between the nationwide numbers and the numbers we're seeing in PA and OH (especially the latter), even though these two states tend to vote pretty closely to whatever the national vote total is.

Conclusion: OH and PA may not be as close as they seem. I dunno. 40 hours from now we'll have some answers.

[Robert Sharp]

Living in OH near an election really sucks. I get, like 5 calls a day telling me to vote for Obama. I don't think I've gotten any McCain calls, oddly enough. Of course, now when I see certain prefixes, I just pick up and hang up immediately.

[Bahimiron]

...and in fact after 538's early morning poll updates, we've seen the shift go back toward a 3.7% chance for McCain (lower than Saturday) with North Carolina and Missouri seemingly back in white, Florida a pale blue and Obama leading the popular vote with a 5.8% lead.

[strummer]

Living in OH near an election really sucks. I get, like 5 calls a day telling me to vote for Obama. I don't think I've gotten any McCain calls, oddly enough. Of course, now when I see certain prefixes, I just pick up and hang up immediately.


I'm in OH and my experience, interestingly, is almost teh exact oppisite. I haven't received any Obama calls recently that I am aware of. A few weeks ago I had a person from the local Obama office call me to follow up since I had downloaded a voter registration form from the Vote for Change website in order to complete a change of address. When they called, my wife told them I had filed the form and also voted early. So perhaps I have been taken off their list as I have already voted.

The McCain campaign, however, is inundating me with recorded messages and I get a ton of mailers. The calls though seem to be from the RNC rather than the McCain campaign, for what it's worth.

[triggercut]

It isn't the best of predictors, but Intrade for the first time has Obama elected President trading above 90.

[triggercut]

Here's some big polling news:

The "Ohio Poll" (University of Cincinnati) has their final poll up:

Obama 51.5, McCain 45.7. Combine their track record for accuracy combined with a slight GOP-ward lean along with Quinnipiac's 50-43 Ohio poll which also hit this morning and Ohio is looking like it might--just might--actually really honestly kind of sort of go blue this time. Maybe.

[Angie Gallant]

I'm in OH and my experience, interestingly, is almost teh exact oppisite. I haven't received any Obama calls recently that I am aware of. A few weeks ago I had a person from the local Obama office call me to follow up since I had downloaded a voter registration form from the Vote for Change website in order to complete a change of address. When they called, my wife told them I had filed the form and also voted early. So perhaps I have been taken off their list as I have already voted.


Yep, if you tell an Obama volunteer that you have already voted, that goes on their call sheet and when it gets entered into the system your number will no longer come up for calls. Also, if the state reports that you have voted then you are pulled from the call list. It makes people happy to not get repeated calls after they've voted, and it makes the campaign happy to only target people who are still persuadable.

[Andrew Mayer]

According to this morning's polling McCain isn't going to get Pennsylvania.

[Papageno]

According to this morning's polling McCain isn't going to get Pennsylvania.

From your mouth (err, keyboard) to God's ears.

[docvego]

McCain isn't going to get Pennsylvania.

Word, I'm bring munchies a folding chair and the ipod touch to my PA polling line. I'll be there all night if required.