10.27.08

Stevens found guilty by jury

Posted in Uncategorized at 3:27 pm by Elliot

Or so says CNN:

The jury found Stevens guilty of “knowingly and willfully” scheming to conceal on Senate disclosure forms more than $250,000 in home renovations and other gifts from an Alaska-based oil industry contractor.

Based on this, I’ll be updating my projection for AK-Sen, obviously. Hope you enjoy the prison food, Sen. Stevens.

10.26.08

Final Electoral College projection coming soon

Posted in Uncategorized at 6:14 pm by Elliot

Alright, I haven’t really updated my map in a little while, and even though I could do a new post now to give the battlegrounds, toss-ups and final projections, I decided that the best thing to do would be to just hold off for a few days and just give 1) a final projection for where the electoral college will turn and 2) which states could give some surprises. Right now, it would appear that Obama is on track to win well over 300 electoral votes (he’s already effectively locked in an electoral college victory with strong leads in Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Virginia) but the question is, what will the final outcome be and what will some of the margins be? We’ll look at that plus I’ll give a final projection for the Senate and give it a go with an educated guess for the House.

10.25.08

Most insane conspiracy theory ever…

Posted in Uncategorized tagged , at 4:25 pm by Elliot

Wow…

But I’m talking about a resounding popular victory, one that would clearly show the intent of the nation, being overturned by the electoral vote system. Could it happen? Yes. Will it happen this year? Probably not. McCain is not likely to take Pennsylvania. But the danger is there, and I fear for this country should a president get elected even though he (or she) is soundly defeated in the popular vote. The world will have a heydey with this. The nation will be in disarray. There will be a very strong movement to impeach the unpopular president from day 1. And I would be very surprised if there weren’t some sort of revolt.

Are you thinking, “But that’s totally hypothetical, there’s only been three times (1876, 1888, and 2000) that the electoral victor didn’t win the popular vote and even then, it was a very close, even contested popular vote. If it hasn’t happened yet, it’s not likely to happen in the future.” That’s what I thought until today when I stumbled upon a course of action that would cause a major discrepancy between electoral and popular votes. This is not a science fiction scenario. This is a very real possibility. If I could think of it, why wouldn’t some of the wealthiest Republican individuals and corporations think of it???

Here’s the scenario. What if about one year ago, Republicans had started funding an effort to relocate Republican voters from solidly blue and red states like California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, Texas, Georgia and Alabama to borderline states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Florida? Seem far-fetched? Not to me. There are enough Republican-run corporations to easily temporarily transfer thousands of employees from state to state. There is also plenty of money to help fund these efforts. Do you think that people wouldn’t want to leave their home state? Well, check out the Residency Requirements for Voting. Establishing legal residency for the purposes of registering to vote is not difficult. It might require getting a driver’s license in the state which you can do in Ohio by proving employment there. So, it might only require a committment of two or three months from the individuals being relocated. Apparently, this is already going on to some degree in Ohio.

You know, I’ve heard some idiotic conspiracy theories before, but this one takes the cake. Where to begin… well first of all, that story this guy links to which proves that “this is already going on to some degree” tells of 13 people. Now, it is true that many states are decided by comparably slim margins (1-2 points), but in states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, a percentage point equals anywhere from 50,000-75,000 people. For example, in Pennsylvania, John Kerry won by a scant 2% points, but in terms of actual voters that would be 140,000. To put this in perspective, right now ExxonMobil has, world-wide, about 100,000 employees. That’s assuming that you’re only talking about Pennsylvania, because in a landslide year of that magnitude, you’d probably be dealing with a map like this:

Even in a close election, this is a ridiculous theory, but somehow there is supposed to be a way to move, literally MILLIONS of voters around the country to battleground states.

State of the Senate (10/25/2008)

Posted in Senate, analysis tagged , , , , , , , , , at 11:49 am by Elliot

Solid Democratic (Pick-up) (1)

  • Virginia (Warner)

Solid Democratic (Retention)(10)

  • Kerry (Massachusetts)
  • Durbin (Illinois)
  • Baucus (Montana)
  • Johnson (South Dakota)
  • Levin (Michigan)
  • Harkin (Iowa)
  • Biden (Delaware)
  • Reed (Rhode Island)
  • Pryor (Arkansas) *No challenger
  • Rockefeller (West Virginia)

Likely Democratic (Pick-up) (1)

  • New Mexico (Domenici)

Possible Darkhorse races (Democratic Incumbent) (2)

  • Lautenberg (New Jersey)
  • Landrieu (Lousiana)

Leans Democratic (4)

  • Sununu (New Hampshire)
  • Colorado (Allard)
  • Dole (North Carolina)
  • Smith (Oregon)

Toss-up (3)

  • Stevens (Alaska)
  • Coleman (Minnesota)
  • Wicker (Mississippi-B)

Leans Republican (2)

  • McConnell (Kentucky)
  • Chambliss (Georgia)

Likely Republican (Open Seat retention) (1)

  • Idaho (Craig)

Possible Darkhorse Races (Republican Incumbent) (2)

  • Collins (Maine)
  • Graham (South Carolina)

Solid Republican (Retention) (9)

  • Enzi (Wyoming-A)
  • Barrasso (Wyoming-B)
  • Sessions (Alabama)
  • Cochran (Mississippi-A)
  • Alexander (Tennessee)
  • Nebraska (Hagel)
  • Cornyn (Texas)
  • Inhofe (Oklahoma)
  • Roberts (Kansas)

As it stands right now, Election Inspection projects that Democrats will hold at least 51 seats (55 seats with leaners), Republicans will hold 38 seats (40 with leaners), 2 seats will be held by independents (at least one caucusing with the Democrats), and 3 seats are considered toss-ups.

As you might notice, I’ve done some major house-keeping since the last ratings, I’m no longer convinced that Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas have the potential to be competitive, so I just moved those back to Solid Republican. In addition, because the fate of Ted Stevens seems to be up in the air, and because it’s looking like he might be acquitted, I’ve moved AK-Sen to Toss-up (and, even though I believe it does help his re-election bid to be acquitted I’m probably in a minority when I say that I don’t think Stevens would automatically be favored to win re-election). That’s the good news for Republicans, the good news for Democrats is that I’ve moved MS-B from Leans Republican to Toss-up (based on some tightening polls, plus on my own hunch that increased African American turnout has the potential to put Musgrove over the edge). I’ve also moved NC-Sen and OR-Sen from “Toss-up” to “Leans Democratic” based on strong polling for Hagan and Merkley (and due to the collapsing campaigns of Smith and Dole).

10.17.08

Powell To Endorse Obama? I Doubt It.

Posted in Uncategorized at 10:19 am by xstryker

Colin Powell will be on Meet The Press this weekend, and speculation’s running wild that he will be endorsing Obama. As for me, I have an uneasy feeling we’ve been had.

I think Powell will endorse McCain. He telegraphed this move by supporting Senator Ted Stevens in court last week in his corrpution trial. This is McCain’s latest game-changer, as Powell will fit the “reluctant warrior” image that McCain so desperately want to project to independent voters. Powell would then have a good shot at a second chance to clear his reputation as McCain’s Secretary of State. Powell would not be offered SoS in an Obama administration because Powell’s Iraq-War supporting speech before the UN – it would ruin the credibility that Obama wants to establish. This mixed message will not be a problem for McCain, who strives to mix up his messages as much as possible; he wants conservatives to think about Palin and independents to think about his buddy Joe Lieberman. If one thing is certain, McCain needs a game-changer than will win back independent and moderate votes, and securing a Colin Powell endorsement – he’s moderate, he’s black, he’s battled with Bush/Cheney – is exactly what McCain is looking for.

Powell donated the maximum amount to McCain in the summer of 2007. If Powell doesn’t see the corruption in Ted Stevens, he won’t see it in his good friend John McCain either. This Sunday, prepare for disappointment.

(Update from Elliot) Well, turns out Stryker was wrong, Powell did endorse Obama (as I thought he would in the comments). Don’t worry Stryker, you were right about North Carolina way back when so you get a freebie ;)

Update by X Stryker: Well, suffice to say, I’m happy to be wrong. I’m still troubled by Powell’s support of Ted Stevens, of course. Mainly, I’m guilty of level-setting – so many people were so certain that Powell would endorse Obama that I began to perceive a possible head-fake in the works where there was none.

In the eyes of America, Powell’s endorsement helps Obama; for those of us already sure of Obama, it is Powell that is being redeemed.

10.10.08

State of the Senate (10/10/2008)

Posted in Senate, analysis tagged , , , , , , , at 5:48 pm by Elliot

Solid Democratic (Pick-up) (1)

  • Virginia (Warner)

Solid Democratic (Retention)(10)

  • Kerry (Massachusetts)
  • Durbin (Illinois)
  • Baucus (Montana)
  • Johnson (South Dakota)
  • Levin (Michigan)
  • Harkin (Iowa)
  • Biden (Delaware)
  • Reed (Rhode Island)
  • Pryor (Arkansas) *No challenger
  • Rockefeller (West Virginia)

Likely Democratic (Pick-up) (1)

  • New Mexico (Domenici)

Possible Darkhorse races (Democratic Incumbent) (2)

  • Lautenberg (New Jersey)
  • Landrieu (Lousiana)

Leans Democratic (3)

  • Sununu (New Hampshire)
  • Colorado (Allard)
  • Stevens (Alaska)

Toss-up (3)

  • Dole (North Carolina)
  • Smith (Oregon)
  • Coleman (Minnesota)

Leans Republican (3)

  • Wicker (Mississippi-B)
  • McConnell (Kentucky)
  • Chambliss (Georgia)

Likely Republican (Open Seat retention) (1)

  • Idaho (Craig)

Possible Darkhorse Races (Republican Incumbent) (5)

  • Cornyn (Texas)
  • Inhofe (Oklahoma)
  • Roberts (Kansas)
  • Collins (Maine)
  • Graham (South Carolina)

Solid Republican (Retention) (6)

  • Enzi (Wyoming-A)
  • Barrasso (Wyoming-B)
  • Sessions (Alabama)
  • Cochran (Mississippi-A)
  • Alexander (Tennessee)
  • Nebraska (Hagel)

As it stands right now, Election Inspection projects that the 111th Senate will have at least 51 Democrats (54 with leaners) 38 Republicans (41 with leaners) 2 Independents (at least one who caucuses with the Democrats) and three seats are considered to be toss-ups. I’d also like to add that I’m quite close to moving North Carolina to Leans Democratic, as the polling has been moving pretty much in Hagan’s favor (in fact, I suspect that Gordon Smith and Norm Coleman will ultimately lose their seats, this would leave Democrats two seats short of a filibuster proof majority (this assumes that Bernie Sanders caucuses with the Democrats while Joe Lieberman does not). The Democrats now have a fighting chance at getting the magic 60 seat number. I’d also like to add that in the next week or so I’ll be posting an initial look at which races could end up competitive or not in 2010 (I’ll also start looking at the gubenatorial races as well).

State of the Electoral College (10/10/2008)

Posted in Electoral College Projection, analysis, commentary tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 5:13 pm by Elliot

(Previous versions can be found here and here)

This is the third version of Election Inspection’s electoral college projection:

Map One: The Battlegrounds (All states in grey are either toss-up or leaning towards one of the candidates)

Changes from previous version: Move Georgia from McCain state to Battleground (McCain -15, Battleground +15)

Notes on Map: Moving Georgia to the battleground is something which seems controversial, but if you read Nate Silver’s excellent article on voter registration in the state, you’ll see why I’ve given Georgia battleground status.

Map Two: the Toss-ups (all states in grey should be considered true toss-ups)

 

Changes from previous version: Move Missouri from Leans McCain to Toss-up (McCain -11, toss-up +11), move Virginia and New Hampshire from Toss-up to Leans Obama (Obama +17, toss-up -17)

Notes on Map: My reason for moving Virginia from toss-up to Leans Democratic is based on the fact that three of the four most recent polls of Virginia have Obama leading in the state by at least 8 points. Even though I still feel that New Hampshire is a screwy state that is difficult to poll, the fact is that the polling as of late has given Obama pretty sizeable margins, so it’s difficult to say that the state is anything but Leaning Obama.

Map Three: Projected Outcome (Obama wins popular vote by 5 points)

Changes from previous version: Move Florida and Indiana from McCain to Obama (Obama +38, McCain -38)

Notes on Map: For those who remember my hypothetical 5-point Obama win, this probably looks familiar, the only real difference between this map and the previous one is my giving McCain Missouri instead of Obama.

10.09.08

ARG is still a bad pollster

Posted in Uncategorized at 5:41 pm by Elliot

Trust me, I’ve seen the ARG poll which puts Obama ahead in West Virginia by 8 points, and I don’t know if I buy it. Now, I grant that a lot of Obama’s increase in poll numbers in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina have come from the same sort of Appalachia areas that characterizes West Virginia, but I simply don’t trust ARG (with a track record like theirs, can you blame me?) now, if we get similar polling from more reliable pollsters (Rasmussen, SUSA, PPP, or Quinnipiac) then I’ll believe it, but until then, I don’t believe anything coming from ARG.

10.08.08

This presidential race is not a toss-up

Posted in analysis, commentary tagged , , , , , , at 10:49 am by Elliot

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Listening to the way news broadcasters and several political analysists tell the story, it sounds like the race is completely in the air, that predicting who will win the presidential election right now would be folly (does this remind anybody of the Democratic primaries?) But is it really appropriate to call this race a true toss-up when the polls are showing Obama with an 5.5 point lead against McCain? Of course, some people would argue “but Elliot, only a few weeks ago, McCain held an average lead of 2-3 points over Obama, which shows movement of at least 10 points in the same period of time as the presidential elections, surely this means that the polls are extremely unstable and could turn on a dime”, but this view ignores a little bit of context. Something which has been ignored in this view is that the shift in the poll numbers started happening about a week after the Republican convention. Looking at Gallup’s daily tracking poll, you can see that while Obama really jumped up in the polls after the financial crisis, McCain’s numbers were steadily dropping (as Obama’s were steadly rising) before the financial crisis but quite a while after the Republican convention (which means that the bounce McCain had gotten from his convention and from picking Palin as his running mate were likely to revert back to either a tie or to Obama leading by 1-2 points). Now, obviously I can’t say this definitively since that is mere speculation about other possible events, but if we assume that the “natural” state of the race (before both conventions) was Obama leading by 1-3 points (which is about where it stood) then this movement because of the financial crisis is closer to being 5-7 points in Obama’s favor than being 8-10 points, meaning that even if the whole financial mess somehow is completely removed, Obama is still ahead (albeit only slightly).

Now then, on the state level, it may seem like it should be characterized as a toss-up, after all neither candidate is favored outright to win at least 270 votes and that almost all of the true toss-ups are in states that went for Bush in 2004 (which should suggest that McCain even has a slight edge). Charlie Cook, of the Cook Political Report, still seems to believe the presidential race can be accurately characterized as a toss-up, but is this a reasonable way to look at the map? Now, obviously I see the race as leaning towards Obama, as my latest projection pushing lean states (which will have fully updated maps tonight, I promise) shows Obama already at 286 electoral votes (a full 16 more than the required 270 votes). Now, I’m not really critizing Cook for having the states that he has as toss-ups, indeed I’m still a bit uneasy calling Colorado and Virginia leaning Obama (recent polling notwithstanding), but even though Obama doesn’t have the necessary electoral votes locked up now (that are either leaning towards him or has effectively locked up) it would still be a fallacy to call the race a toss-up.

Taking on a really weird assumption of Mickey Kaus, Daniel Koffler of the American Conservatives writes

Here is what Kaus is missing. His two assumptions are (1) that state-by-state elections are independent events, insensitive to national trends, and (2) that to win the election, Obama has to win one of eight “decidedly iffy states” (in an update, he adds Nevada to the list). Let’s take this very, very slowly and deliberately; Mickey, get your No. 2 pencil and paper out. Suppose each candidate is 50:50 to win each of the crucial states — an assumption that is probably overly generous to John McCain, given that Barack Obama leads the polling average in the majority of those states. If McCain had to run the table in two 50:50 states, his odds would be (1/2) x (1/2), or 25 percent — not very good. The odds of running the table in eight 50:50 states are (1/2)8, or 1/256, or less than one half of one percent. Consequently, by Kaus’s assumptions and a generous assessment of McCain’s prospects in each of the states Kaus mentions, Obama’s odds of winning are 99.6 percent. I have a feeling most Obama fans would be willing to take those odds. But Kaus thinks they are reason for Democrats to panic.

As Koffler mentions, these weird assumptions that because the toss-ups are “iffy states” and because there are enough toss-ups to keep Obama from guaranteeing that he wins at least 270 votes means that both McCain and Obama have anywhere near an equal chance of winning the election is laughable. Of course, I’m not arguing that it is impossible for McCain to run the table in the toss-ups, but his odds of doing it are so low that the election still has to be seen, at a minimum, as leaning towards Obama.

Now, for those of you out there who think I’m counting my chickens before they hatch, this is not meant to say that you can relax, on the contrary, we should be doing as Kos suggests, and pressing our advantages. And as Al Giordano writes, we need to shore up our firewalls and move those toss-ups to the Obama category. So if you haven’t gone to the Obama website and donated a few bucks to the Obama campaign, then now is the time to do it, remember, only three weeks and six days left to election day.

UPDATE: I’d like to make something extremely clear, this is not a strategy post, so my (immediate) concern with this post is not to detail what would give us a strategic edge, this is to post a reasonably objective look at the state of the presidential election, this is something that we do with Senate races, and you don’t hear complaints like “oh, but if you call a race Leans Democratic, then we’ll all get complacent” or “well, the average polls only show a 6 point lead, with the margin of error that could only be 2 points which means it’s really a toss-up” or “well, anything can happen” or some other weird blather like that. I’m coming at this, not as a partisan Obama supporter (which I gladly admit I am) but as a serious analysist who is attempting to make a serious attempt at political analysis. If you disagree with my analysis, that’s fine, but unless you’ve got a specific reason why my analysis is incorrect that doesn’t involve the infinitely small possibilty that Obama, in some fit of temporary insanity, names Joseph Stalin as his hero, don’t waste my time.

UPDATE II: Larry Sabato of the Center for Politics seems to agree with my analysis.

UPDATE III: Even though Cook hasn’t moved anything, it would appear that he’s willing to at least say that this race favors Obama:

Since early September this race has shifted rather dramatically in Obama’s favor. As long as the focus is almost exclusively on the economy, this race is almost unwinnable for McCain. It would take a major external event, the proverbial October Surprise, to shift the spotlight to national security or some other subject that would allow McCain to highlight his strengths. At this stage, the most relevant question would seem to be: “How big will the train wreck be for the Republican Party up and down the ballot in November.” Obama currently has a 260 to 163 Electoral vote edge, with 115 Electoral votes in the Toss Up column. 270 are needed to win.

10.07.08

Note on the Electoral College Projection

Posted in Uncategorized at 11:19 am by Elliot

I’m going to say right now my electoral college chart needs to be updated a bit, but because I have a bit of a screwy day ahead, I won’t be able to quite do it, but I did want to give an updated look:

Expected change for Map One (Battlegrounds)

Move Georgia from McCain to Battleground (new electoral college projection: Obama 218, McCain 147, Toss-up/Leans 173)

Expected change for Map Two (Toss-ups)

Move Missouri from Leans McCain to Toss-up, move Virginia and New Hampshire from Toss-up to Leans Obama (new electoral college projection: Obama 286, McCain 162, Toss-up 90)

Expected change for Map Three (Projected outcome)

Move Florida and Indiana from Tilts McCain to Tilts Obama (Obama 364 McCain 174)

I’ll try to update the maps and give my reasoning later today (hopefully before this evening) but for right now, Election Inspection can declare that the presidential race is Leaning Obama.

Next page