How McCain could still win

So, a new article at Salon i confident because McCain could still win. Here's why...

Salon has a new article up where its author (a republican) argues that unless Obama is above 50% in a state, he will likely not win that state. He contends that undecideds will break for McCain, not Obama:

There's an old rule in politics that an incumbent candidate is always in danger when he dips under 50 percent, even if he is leading his opponent in the polls. It's all about the undecideds. In a race with an incumbent candidate and a challenger, on Election Day the undecideds tend to break for the challenger, at rates as high as 4 to 1. If an incumbent is polling at, say, 47 to 45 percent with 8 percent undecided, there's a good chance he's going to wind up losing 49 to 51. As it's sometimes expressed, if you're an incumbent, what you see is what you get.

The same pattern seems to be true for African-American candidates in much of the country. If you're a black candidate running against a white candidate, what you see is what you get. And it doesn't matter whether you're an incumbent or a challenger. If you're not polling above 50 percent, you should be worried. As of this writing, Barack Obama is not polling consistently above 50 percent in a number of electoral-vote-rich swing states, including Ohio and Florida. He should be worried.

...

As you look at the polling data in the homestretch of this election, pay close attention whenever you see any numbers, be they statewide or national, where Sen. Obama is below 50 percent. So long as there are more than a handful of voters describing themselves as undecided, I will maintain that Sen. McCain is very much in the race. Even if Sen. Obama were to open a larger lead, my basis for analyzing things would remain the same. Are there enough undecided voters in crucial states to bridge whatever gap exists in the head-to-head? If so, don't be shocked if on Election Day, Sen. McCain is your winner.

As of right now, if I take that argument as true and start plugging in the numbers from the RCP state polling averages as of today, I get:

Obama 286 EV
McCain 252 EV

Obama wins: VA, CO, NM, MN, IA, NH, PA
McCain wins just about every other battleground: FL, OH, IN, NC, GA, NV

If McCain flips PA - which, remember has NO early voting, then he wins the election. This could explain why McCain is spending so much time this week in PA and Obama is going there on tuesday.

If McCain can't flip PA, then he can try and flip VA and NH for the win.

Looking at Nate Silver's averages over at 538.com makes it even scarier:

Obama is < 50 % in CO, VA and NH So, using 538's averages, McCain wins 278 EV to 260 EV Cross-Posted at Late Night Pundit

I am not a concern troll. Let me make some points below:

First, read the Salon article. Yes the guy is a republican. Maybe he has an agenda to show some way McCain can win. You can either credit it as worthy or not. That's not really my point. My point is he could be right and then to do an analysis to see what would happen if he is.

The Salon article uses stats from other elections to prove his argument. Some of the elections he uses I have a problem with (the Blackwell one for example). But, I also know 3 things:

First, in most of the battlegrounds where Obama is ahead, he is not over 50% in the averages. Yes, the averages include crap polls from Zogby, but this is more a what if analysis so I am going to accept them. It might be worthwhile to come back and revisit it later this week.

Second, there are still pockets of racism in this country. Thank god they seem to be fewer and further between than they were 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the evidence points to the fact that they exist in many of there battleground states. And I don't see the Salon article as arguing for the Bradley effect. Nate Silver convinced me it does not exist with his analysis. I see this as something different, as does (I think) Nate:

It's also clear that there were some patterns in the way that undecided white voters behaved. Number one, a majority of them -- probably somewhere between 60 and 65 percent -- wound up voting for Clinton. This is perhaps not so remarkable, considering that about 60 percent of white voters in the primaries voted for Clinton period. But, this figure was higher in regions like the Appalachians, and among groups like Catholics, and lower in places where you had a lot of WASPy, educated voters. So whether or not you label this a Bradley Effect, I don't know -- but the behavior of undecided voters has been predictable to a certain extent.

Now, it does not necessarily follow that the patterns exhibited by undecided voters in the primaries will match those in the general election. But based both on my research and on what I've been hearing from people on the ground, it's apparent that the public polling in general is not terrific, and that if we have an instinct about where the polls are more likely to come in high or low, we probably ought to follow it.

The 538.com prediction model was updated to account for this:

Take a state like West Virginia, where the polling has been reasonably close but where there are also high numbers of undecided voters. Those undecideds aren't the type of undecideds who are liable to side with Barack Obama when pushed to a decision, and so the state is not quite as promising for him as it looks on paper. There are also a fairly high number of undecideds in Ohio, a state where we think the undecided vote is liable to break slightly for John McCain. On the other hand, a state like Virginia, where Obama overperformed his polls during the primaries and where some polling has had a relatively generous (and probably false) number of African-American votes going to John McCain, might be just a smidgen stronger for Obama than it appears.

So, unless I am way off base, I think 538.com sees the same effect that that Salon author does (Hopefully 538.com will address this Salon article).

Finally, I believe in the old adage that undecides break for the challenger. Except in this election, there is no incumbant. I could make an argument that McCain is the incumbant, being so tied to Bush. I could also make an argument that Obama is the incumbant since everybody and their brother thinks he's gonna win. But I do know that based on the polls in the battlegrounds, undecideds could tip them one way or another.

Do I think this guy is wrong? I do, but until those last votes are cast on Nov. 4 I am not going to count any chickens.

13 Seconds that may change the world

Well, not really 13 seconds, but 13 seconds of video are all that exist. Here they are:


On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama gave this speech to a Chicago anti-war rally. Here is the text of entire speech.

With just over a week until the election, it is important to note that this speech, assuming nothing goes horribly wrong in the last 8 days, probably will win Barack Obama the Presidency. A speech given by a little known Illinois Democratic State Senator (who was probably going to run for the United States Senate in 2004, although nobody outside of Illinois knew it) taking a position against the Iraq war that was, at the time, not only terribly unpopular in the country as a whole, but even unpopular within his own party.

Now, I know Obama was not the only politician who believed the Iraq war was dumb, I suspect many who voted for the war thought so too, but he was one of the very few to publicly take a stand. And, yes, he would give the universally praised Democratic Convention keynote address in 2004. But, it was this speech, this judgement, this act of courage, that Obama wielded against Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic contenders in Iowa.

A lot has changed since then. Of course, Obama ran a brilliant primary campaign and put forth a message, not only about the war but about all the issues, that seems to have resonated with the voters. And although our attention has shifted, right or wrong, to the economy, with 8 days left I thought it was important to take a moment to remember these 13 seconds.

Did McCain Forfeit the Election with Palin Pick?

There has been a lot of talk about the disaster that is the Presidential Campaign of John McCain, but that's the nature of disasters - they get your attention - which brings me to the subject of this post.

Before the conventions, the conventional wisdom among the professional pundit class was: if John McCain can make the election about Barack Obama, then he had a shot at winning. Assuming that this was a correct assessment, 3 big factors occurred that derailed this strategy for McCain, only one of which McCain had any control over: Sarah Palin, the financial crisis and Barack Obama.

At the end of August, the media narrative was all on Obama, arguably to the detriment of McCain who seemed to be struggling to get a message across. Of course, we now know McCain really had no message besides warmed over 1980's deregulation and tax cuts and "winning" in Iraq, all of which had been (Iraq) or was about to be seriously exposed to even the casual observer as fatally flawed. Nevertheless, the media obsessed over one question: could Obama bring in the Hillary hold outs? Even after a highly successful Democratic Convention, the answer media gave was not yes, but a skeptical maybe.

The focus of the media and the public then turned to McCain (for the first time in months) thanks to the Republican Convention and he made the worse possible decision he could. Lets assume for a moment that Sarah Palin was actually qualified to be Vice President (pardon me while I gag at the thought of actually writing that). Palin was a bad pick for the sheer fact that she took the focus off Obama and put it on McCain, well actually on Palin herself, but the effect was the same. That McCain and his advisors did not anticipate this is simply political malpractice.

I am still aghast at how they thought that choosing an unknown female governor was not going to draw attention from Obama. Palin's "newness" (and being a woman) turned her into the biggest political celebrity in the country (and made Obama look almost boring for a time). How the McCain brain trust could have possibly thought this was a good thing after a summer's worth of "celebrity" attacks on Obama is beyond me. Remember the media narrative was whether Obama was ready to be President and whether the country was ready for him. By picking Palin, McCain completely changed that narrative.

Yes, Palin's meager experience seriously undermined McCain's experience argument. But that is not the point. Nobody knew who she was! Nobody (well maybe Kristol and a few political junkies) - not even some of McCain's own staff, as we learned from the New York Times this week. At the time, it made no sense to me (it still doesn't) for two reasons: first, the professional political pundits and media (McCain's "base") don't like to appear to be surprised (which I suspect they interpret as being "shown up") and second, the voters, no matter how much they gripe about the political process and vetting of the primaries and general election, nevertheless accept it as they way it is done.

If you are running for President or Vice President there are certain hoops you have to jump through - experience as a leading corporate executive or as a state executive or senior legislator (i.e. U.S. Senator or Congressperson), "X" number appearances on Sunday morning shows (and yes, nobody watches them but they are still an informal institution), "X" number of appearances supporting the presumptive nominee, "X" number of news interviews, etc (and there are some short cuts - you can always be a failed aspirant for your party's nomination but even then, you have probably jumped through the hoops during the primaries). But, with Palin there was none of this. Governor Bobby Jindal had jumped through many of these hoops, so did Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina - all three very little known outside political junkies and professional pundits - and all three would have been considered "surprise" picks.

Palin, on the other hand, was in a category so far out of the ballpark it still boggles my mind. It was such a risky move that it required a near perfect political performance - all before she even opened her mouth in public to accept the selection. If they really wanted Palin, she should have been out doing appearances in support of John McCain the entire summer. This would have, at a minimum, given the press and the public the opportunity to get to know her and attempted to satisfy the requisite "hoops" required. If she had done this, it may have helped blunt some of the disasters that came after her selection (well...maybe not - she still is totally unqualified). Instead, she was plucked from obscurity from some Alaskan backwater.

Of course, she and McCain blew it so bad I have begun to seriously consider possibility that McCain wanted to lose the election. The obvious lack of serious vetting, the spur of the moment selection, the teenage pregnancy, the flagrant abuse of power as Governor of Alaska to further a personal vendetta against Palin's ex-brother in law, the refusal to have a news conference, the shockingly awful Catie Couric interview, the lack of any serious thinking or policy positions on national issues, the $150,000 wardrobe, the $28,000 make up artist. Not to mention the horrid and vile manner in which she has campaigned. All told, proof positive of two things: Palin is totally unqualified to be the Governor of the least populous state in the union, let alone Vice President, and John McCain's judgement is seriously flawed.

In any event, lets assume that Palin is not the disaster she has proven to be and in some fantasy world passed the minimum threshold "qualified to be vice president" (i.e. the Dan Quayle Threshold - stupid but not scary stupid). The next big factor McCain ran up against was the financial crisis.

In hindsight, it is obvious that McCain blew the response to the financial crisis. Yes, his economic philosophy is warmed over Reganism, which is now proven to be disastrous in large doses. Yes, McCain did not help himself with the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" speech. Yes, he has a hero complex and, like superman wanted to swoop into Washington to save the day.

But, the campaign suspension and the White House conference with House Republicans might have worked. McCain could have done one of two things at that White House meeting - either opened his mouth and actually engaged Obama and the House Republicans to try and get something done or, kept his mouth shut, walked out of the White House into a herd of TV cameras and denounced the bailout as a flawed giveaway to wall street and that he was with the House Republicans and would work to defeat it to get something better.

Would either of these actually helped solve the financial crisis? Thats not the point. Politically, one or the other action could have shown McCain to be either someone willing to work to help get things done or, the maverick who bucks the President from his own party on principle. Either of these would have drawn a line in the sand that Obama would have to answer. McCain's suspension gambit could have worked. But, he essentially did nothing and ended up looking erratic and, in the end, causing more harm than good as the financial bailout was stalled by his actions (and the Republican House) for several days.

As an aside, and I suspect the Obama campaign would never want to tout this as a political accomplishment, but their whole strategy with respect to McCain and the financial crisis was masterful. With some help from McCain's inaction and unwillingness to either take a stand or work to pass the bailout, they were able to essentially lay the blame for the loss of billions of dollars when the stock market tanked on McCain's erratic behavior. Of course, they never really came out and put it in those terms, but that was clearly the message they were pushing.

Finally, that brings us to the one factor McCain had no control over: Barack Obama and really the point of this (apologetically long) post. Because, despite the totally unqualified Vice Presidential pick and her litany of disasters, despite the erratic nature of John McCain's decision making, the conventional wisdom from mid summer is still true: this election is still about Barack Obama and he has come through with flying colors. If John McCain had picked a qualified VP, if his campaign suspension had actually accomplished something - he still could not have overcome "the strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand" of Barack Obama and his juggernaut of a campaign.

After Obama's string of primary wins, when it became apparent to most rational people (sorry for the dig) that he would be the nominee, I argued to those who would listen that this election, because of the disaster of the last eight years and the demographic advantage democrats now have, would be very similar to the Reagan - Carter election in 1980. For those not around, Reagan had a similar hurdle to overcome - he had to convince the voters he was not a total lunatic and would be a responsible choice for President. In 1980, Reagan didn't do this until the (only) Presidential debate in late October. But after that debate, what was up to that point a close election, became a rout.

Like Reagan in 1980, Obama passed the threshold after the debates and with 10 days to go, it is looking like it might be an Electoral College rout. Today Obama has an 8 point average national lead in the polls, he's competive in every battleground left on the map (all of which are states that voted for Bush in 2004) and some red states that nobody would have thought as battlegrounds and, check out these numbers from this week's New York Times/CBS poll:

Do you think Barack Obama has the right kind of temperament and personality to be a good president, or not?
Yes: 75%
No: 19%

Now, this poll had Obama beating McCain, 52% to 39%, which means a significant percentage of people who said they were going to vote for McCain believe Barack Obama has the right temperament and personality to be a good President (By the way, McCain's numbers on the temperament were 50 % Yes, 45% No).

What this all means is that this election has been about Barack Obama. While the voters were unsure of his temperament, it was a close election. Many of the professional pundits (and some democrats) spent the summer worrying about why, if this was such good year for Democrats, Obama was not up by 10 in the polls. Well, since the first couple of debates, Obama has essentially been up by 10 and its remained that way for the past few weeks. It is looking more and more like the election of 1980.

Now, there are still 10 days to go. Something could happen to change everything. People could get complacent and not vote (note to all you McCain supports: I'd be quite happy if you stayed home on November 4) or external events could make people re-think their comfort with Obama. But, I think the conventional wisdom (and the McCain campaign) is coming around to the fact that Obama will be the next President.

So, my answer to the question posed in the title of this post is No, John McCain did not forfeit the election with his pick of Sarah Palin. Barack Obama is going to win because of who he is. What is left to do is to make it happen on November 4.

McCain Behind the Scenes

Today's essential reading. This article already has the pundits buzzing. The NYT Magazine will publish the whole story this Sunday.

Shock AP poll: Tied

Well, today's shock poll comes from the AP and shows that the race is essentially tied among "likely voters":

Obama 44
McCain 33
margin of error +/- 3.5

I have to assume this is an outlier as all the other polls have Obama up at least 6 (NBC has it at 10, and even Fox news has Obama up 9).

I took a peak at the crosstabs and there has to be something wrong with AP's likely voter screen. The AP shows Obama with a 10 point lead (Obama 46, McCain 37) before they apply their likely voter model. I am sure Nate Silver will figure all this out over at fivethirtyeight.com.

Palin's $150,000 Wardrobe

The news that seems to be getting all the attention today is the McCain campaign buying it's VP candidate $150,000 worth of clothing.

Personally, even though this spending by the McCain campaign might be illegal, I still think it's a stupid story. One point though: Under the Obama tax plan, Palin's $150K wardrobe would get a tax break. LOL.

The bigger story today is that the state of the race is still pretty stable. Obama is still leading in the polls by 5 or 6 (and may have gained a point or two over the last couple of days), early voting is still going great for Obama, and McCain is still flailing away trying to get any positive traction (and I don't think that al-Qaeda endorsement of McCain for president counts).

With 13 days left until election day, and not counting chickens, things are looking good.

A Must Read For Polling Junkies

I try not to obsess over polls. Unfortunately, I tend to forget that. Luckily, Nate Silver's wonderful fivethirtyeight.com is around to satisfy my poll cravings.

Nate has an absolute must read on tracking polls today. He breaks down each tracking poll, noting the time released, the poll's track record, strengths and weaknesses.

If your reading my blog, I am sure your are reading his. If not, you should be.

McCain: Realistic or Delusional?

So, they finally have given up on Iowa and also Colorado?

What's that leave? Pennsylvania!

Good God. Just go back to Arizona and campaign there the next 14 days Senator McCain. javascript:void(0)

Republican Election Spending

A quick thought. Last week, at the height of the Obama lead in the polls, there was some talk here and there among pundits that the Republicans should divert money from McCain to some of the closer US Senate races - a la Bob Dole in 1996.

Now, there have been cases reported of Republicans redistributing resources (e.g. Michigan, some cut back on McCain joint ads with the RNC) but, from what I have seen so far, there has not yet been a wholesale flight of money from McCain to Republican Senators in tight races.

If it is going to happen, my guess is that it will happen this week. It will be very instructive to see what the RNC ad buys are for this coming weekend and next week. If you see a lot of cash to try and prop up Republican Senators, then you can probably assume that the big shots in the Republican party have wriiten off John McCain.

Also, look to see where McCain spends his time next week. If he does a lot of appearences in states where the Republican Senator is in trouble, the race for the White House us probably over (of course, given how bad McCain/Palin is doing in the polls, they could be told to stay away from those states too).

Finally, what kind of cool aid is the McCain campaign drinking? On a conference call today, Rick Davis from the McCain campaign said that McCain's polling shows a tight race in Iowa. Unless something had drastically changed on the ground, Iowa has not been in play for weeks. Obama has been up big for weeks in all the polls in Iowa. Yet, for some reason McCain continues to think that he has a shot there. In fact, as I recall, McCain made a visit to Iowa recently and the pundits were all asking why. Has the McCain campaign left the reality based community or do they know something that nobody else does? This is puzzling and worrying at the same time, on a variety of levels.

Vote Early, part 2

An excellent resource:

Vote Early

With 15 days to go, the national polls seem to have tightened a bit. What was an average Obama lead of 7 or 8 points is now down to 5 or 6. But, the polls of the battleground states are still looking good for Obama. Of course, battleground polls have been lagging behind the national numbers all fall. Something to keep an eye on.

So the first big story on early voting trends came out today. Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio early voters are predominantly democrats. Republicans hold an edge on early voters in Florida and it looks to be about even in Indiana.

McCain needs all these states so the democratic advantage in Ohio and North Carolina is hopeful for Obama. Florida is a concern, especially since I am afraid the Obama campaign may be falling into the "Florida trap" by spending a lot of time and effort there in what may be a lost cause. Maybe it's the ghost of 2000 but I just don't trust the polls out of Florida showing that Obama is ahead.

Finally Fall

Fall officially started several weeks ago but, here in New Jersey it has been unseasonably warm. Until today. There's a chill in the air and, despite my spending a lot of money to remove two large trees a couple of years ago, leaves all over my yard, seemly overnight.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

I don't think endorsements mean too much, but this one could push some rational republicans over the fence.

Been busy

Well I have been busy for the past several weeks. Since my last post, a lot has happened in the Presidential race. I won't rehash it all, but with 16 days to go, it looks like Barak Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.

Of course, 16 days is an lifetime in politics. Remember that just over 16 days ago, this race was tied, so anything can happen between now and November 4.

I've been asked to help out the Obama campaign in PA for the last 3 days of the election so that should be interesting. In the meantime, I hope to have this blog updated more frequently. One of the things that I find is I have a hard time trying to find the time to sit down and write posts. But, I may have found a solution. I have never been a big fan of email posts, but I think I might have stumbled upon a great little app for my iPhone that will let me post more frequently. Well see.

An Audacious Head Fake?

So, as everyone knows John McCain has decided to engage is gutter politics and will probably throw the Kitchen Sink at Obama the next 3 weeks.

Obama's obviously got a 3 tier response - first, talk about the economy; second, run positive biography Ads; and third, hit right back (e.g. Keating Five). But, come the end of Tuesday's debate Obama could have a fourth tack: take John McCain aside and say "lay off or I am coming after Arizona".

What! Arizona? McCain's home state? Am I crazy? Maybe not....

I try not to look at Karl Rove's election analysis but this caught my eye yesterday:

http://www.rove.com/images/0000/0088...

So I was looking for the remaining red states where it might behoove the Obama campaign to out some token money into and maybe have a rally. I was looking for red states where McCain's lead was < 10 pts. Here's the list:

Arkansas (McCain +9)
Georgia (McCain +8)
and...drumroll please:
Arizona where Rove puts McCain at +8

Now, if you have been following the election at all, you probably have heard that Georgia is an Obama "wish state" - they have put up a bit of an effort there to try and see if increase voter registration and youth and african american turn out could put the state in play. The last I heard (any please comment below if you know different), that doesn't look like it will pan out. But, Arizona is McCain's home state and he's only up 8? Obama is up 17 in Illinois. McCain should be way ahead of that. So I did more digging:

Pollster's got Arizona at 51.4% McCain to 38.9% Obama. But look at the polls that make up that aggregate:

Rassumussen on 9/29: McCain 59, Obama 38
ASU on 9/28: McCain McCain 45, Obama 38, Undecided 15
ARG on 9/14: McCain 56, Obama 39

OK. Not looking too good but two things jump out: first the polls are kind of getting long in the tooth on October 8, could the massive shift Obama has seen in the last week have played out in Arizona? Second, that ASU undecided number of 15...

So over to Nate Silver and what does he say about Arizona? Well, his model has got McCain winning 94% of the time (he's got Obama winning IL 100% of the time). The 538 projection for Arizona has it at McCain 54.4% and Obama 43.1% with a Margin of Error of +or- 7.7%.

SO...

Now you are saying - OK..McCain's a virtual lock on Arizona - what's your point? Well the points are the following:

First, McCain is not Mr. Popularity or Mr. Congeniality in Arizona. As late as June, the McCain campaign was projecting Arizona as a possible swing state.

Second, Obama probably (and this needs to be confirmed) has zero investment in Arizona.

So the play is this:

Throw a little ad buy in Arizona and, drop in for a rally on the way to Colorado or Nevada and see what the internal polls show.

If there is movement, lay it out for McCain: lay off the gutter attacks or be forced to spend money and campaign in your home state. If there is no movement, reap the publicity of actually campaigning (even for a couple of hours) in McCain's home state.

Now look, the only way McCain looses his home state is a 400 plus electoral vote landslide for Obama (and maybe not even then). But, what an audacious head fake this would be.

Thoughts?