• comment on a post Trivia Open Thread over 5 years ago

    Got them, although I couldn't think of the names of all the MA, NM, or WY reps.

    Here are the "all but one" states (exceptions in parentheses):
    Dems: MD (Bartlett), DE (Castle), WV (Capito), SD (Thune), AR (?), MT (Rehberg), OR (?)
    Gops: OK (Boren), NE (Nelson), KS (Moore), AK (Begich), ID (the guy who beat Sali)

    In addition, NY is what, 28-3 Democratic? That feels a lot more impressive than VT being 3-0.

  • comment on a post Earth Hour over 5 years ago

    Also, Mr. Erickson at Redstate isn't the "brightest" biblical scholar. Shortly after creating light, "God divided the light from darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night." (Gen 1:4-5) If God created the night to be dark, who is Erick Erickson to argue?

  • comment on a post The Lieberman Question over 5 years ago

    "He's either FOR Lieberman keeping that committee, or he's against it, or he doesn't care."

    I don't think that Obama has the option of not caring, since his administration has a seat on the Steering Committee in the person of Joe Biden. Sooner or later, Obama's position will be clear, so he may as well announce his intentions now.

  • comment on a post Palin and Clinton on SNL over 5 years ago

    When I saw this for the first time, I thought that Sarah Palin might be guest-hosting SNL for the first minute or so.

  • comment on a post GOP Convention Thread over 5 years ago

    I used to think that both Romney and Huckabee were better candidates for the Republicans than McCain, but now I see that I was wrong about Romney. A Massachusetts financier bashing the East Coast elite?

  • comment on a post McCain:Aug 29th for his VP; Obama within 96 hours over 5 years ago

    Bob Ney!

  • comment on a post How Much Dem Senators Have Given to the DSCC over 5 years ago

    Candidate committees may contribute unlimited amounts to national party committees, which include the DSCC. Their PACs may contribute $15000/year if the PAC is multicandidate (meaning that it contributes to at least five candidates), or $28500/year if the PAC is not multicandidate. See here.

  • comment on a post Ohio No Longer A Swing State? over 6 years ago

    Ohio no longer a swing state? Depends what you mean by "swing state." Different people would say that a "swing state" is defined as the answer to any of these three questions:

    1. Which states are likely to have close results in the election?
    2. If the election becomes close, then which states are likely to have close results in the election?
    3. Which states are likely to both a) matter to the result of the election and b) have close results?

    Definition 1 is probably the worst one, but I think a lot of pundits implicitly use it -- it ludicrously says that MN was a swing state in 1984, and that AR was a swing state in 1980, even though those were among the most Democratic in those elections.

    This poll suggests that OH is not a swing state according to definition 1 -- that is, OH is not a very close state. However, I believe it is still very much a swing state according to definition 2 (and probably def'n 3) because Obama is leading by roughly the same amount in OH (I estimate by 3.6) and nationally (I estimate by 4.0).

  • comment on a post Toss-up In Nevada? over 6 years ago

    There haven't been many polls in NV. In fact, even if you take all the polls that have been taken in NV and treat them as if they're all current, you get a total sample of about 5000, which is good for a margin-of-error of about 1.4%.  Now, of course most of the polls are somewhat stale, and so the most you can say just by looking at NV's polls is that NV is likely to be a very close state.

    Taking all the NV polls and other polls into account, my prediction (page not updated yet with the new poll) for election day is 51.3% with a MoE of 4.8%, which is similar to my view on OH.  FiveThirtyEight  (which tends to believe that elections are more volatile than I do) has 52.4% with an implied MoE of 18 or 19%.

    Obviously, Obama doesn't need NV for a win, but it's great that it's in play. His easiest minimal winning coalition is probably the Gore states plus CO.

  • 59th Street Bridge Song - Simon and Garfunkel
    Bad, Bad Leroy Brown - Jim Croce
    Daydream in Blue - I Monster
    Bootylicious - Destiny's Child
    My Favorite Mistake - Sheryl Crow
    Beyond the Sea - Bobby Darin
    Turn Your Lights Down Low - Lauryn Hill and Bob Marley
    Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show - Neil Diamond
    Cry Me a River - Justin Timberlake
    Why Don't You Get a Job - Offspring
  • comment on a post NJ-Sen: A Replay of 2006's Akaka-Case Primary? over 6 years ago

    So I have a question about Lautenberg. I stumbled upon the roll call vote today for Bill Clinton's landmark 1993 Budget Plan that passed the Senate on an Al Gore tiebreaker.  I noticed that Lautenberg voted against it, along with a few Dems (Shelby, Bryan, Johnston, Nunn, Boren) who tended to be conservative. Anyone know why Lautenberg opposed the Clinton budget plan?

  • To start with, Nebraska has three congressional districts, not five: The representatives are Fortenberry (R-Lincoln), Terry (R-Omaha), and Smith (R-Gering). It has five electoral votes, two of which are assigned by the at-large vote.

    In spite of the recent Survey USA poll (42-45 Obama-McCain, with a 4% margin-of-sample-error), I'd be extremely surprised if Obama won any congressional district there. Bush won the at-large vote by 33%, and all three CDs by about the same amount, so the SUSA poll implies a 30-point swing in NE. But surrounding states registered 9- to 21-point swings, which are consistent (or even somewhat more optimistic) than other polls.

    Given all polls that have come out, I'd predict the McCain wins 60-40 statewide, 57-43 in the 1st, 56-44 in the 2nd, and 68-32 in the 3rd.

    Of course, I'd be happy to be proved wrong by further polls and the official results (and I'd love for SUSA to break down their results by CD in Nebraska and Maine), but I wouldn't hang my hat on a single medium-sized outlier poll in order to argue that Obama will pick up congressional districts in Nebraska.

  • comment on a post McCain's Age Problem? over 6 years ago

    Republican candidates who win are almost as a rule older then their opponents. Democrats who win are younger than theirs.

    Those two facts further imply that Democrats who lose are usually younger than their opponents, and that Republicans who lose are usually older than their opponents. The logical conclusion is simply that Republicans are almost always older than Democrats regardless of who wins. (And this is true except for Bush-Kerry, Nixon-Humphrey, and Johnson-Goldwater, which were all similar-age pairs.) I don't see age being a strong correlate with victory for either party, except maybe that younger Dems seem to do slightly better than older Dems.

  • Having been in the district for a few days, I think 1) it's clear that Obama helped Foster by recruiting tons of E-day volunteers through his website and by cutting a commercial, 2) Obama probably helps candidates in IL, which does have some key House elections this year, and 3) this IL race doesn't shed light on whether Obama will have coattails outside Illinois. As Bill Foster, Ph.D., might say, it'll take further experiments to test the hypothesis that Obama has coattails nationally.

  • Option 3 is: Some will stay home on Election Day, and many fewer southern evangelicals will travel to FL for GOTV work.


Advertise Blogads