Hell, even Colin Powell may vote for a democrat!

People are disgusted, and I don’t see any way the republicans can win this one. McCain is warming up to Rove, though.

you want the short answer

george bush sucks

george bush sucks really bad

and America’s voters KNOW THIS

the repuglitards are about to learn a vicious lesson in politics

once you’re dead, you stay dead

mccain isn’t enjoying a “revitalization”

he’s pulling the rest of his party down tyo his own FLATLINING level

I think the mystery is why McCain is polling so high nationally, given the wild enthusiasm for both candidates among Dem partisans and the chilliness toward McCain among Repugs. One possible reason may be that the national polls are using an outdated sampling model, undercounting the young people and women turning out in such large numbers in the primaries. Of course, when one Dem candidate inevitably loses, the disappointed demographic may not turn out in such great numbers in November.

Another possibility for McCain’s national competitiveness could be just plain ol’ racism and sexism, which certainly still exists as a strong undercurrent in this country (See this from the Rude Pundit).

Personally, I have great distrust for the methodology used in these nation-wide polls.

Almost all of the polls shown in the above link use either Registered Voters (RV) or Likely Voters (LV). That means they do not reflect any of the great masses of folks who have shown up for the 1st time at the caucas or primary votes.

Secondly, and coupled with the first point, the national polls use exceedingly small samples of people (RV and LV) for their “predictiveness”.

I have little trust in polls that use such small numbers of people, that use only RV or LV folks for their samples, and finally, that cannot or will not explain the methods used to select their sample “voters”.

Given the consistent failure of these pollsters to accurately predict/poll the outcome of numerous causus/primary votes this election season, I can confidently predict:

- that the pollsters are wrong wrt to the national polls,
- that they underestimate the antipathy towards the Repugs nationally
- and that the MSM will continue to believe and promote these inaccurate polls until the MSM is proved “astonishingly” wrong once again come November 2008.

mccain is overpolling because the polling companies are OVERESTIMATING the number of repuglitards in the world

you have to be really stubborn and morally bankrupt to be a repuglitard these days

I watched them come in to my garage

democrats walked in proudly and asked for their ballots

repuglitards mostly crept in quietly, and whispered their ballot choice

at least the more intelligent repuglitards did

You raise a good point about the accuracy of the polling… I’ve been wondering how much of an effect Caller ID has on the polling sample? I screen my calls because I got tired of the incessant interruptions by: “unknown caller”, “out-of-area”, “private caller”, and numbers that just come up as 800 or 866 numbers. If a company doesn’t tell me who they are, I don’t pick up. I wonder how polling companies identify themselves and whether people getting the calls don’t pick up.

Stolen from cinnamonape, the evangelicals might go for Obama.

Maybe NPR has finally gotten a dose of antiseptic sunshine?

There was an interesting report on “Morning Edition” about how evangelicals are “not following their leaders” and may actually turn around and vote for Obama rather than McCain because the “litmus test” issues have sudeenly become less important than fiscal responsibility, the economy, antagonism against the war in Iraq, outrage against torture, etc.

And I wish I could spell caucus correctly. *g*

I wonder how the GOP is reacting or not reacting to these turnout numbers? If Karl takes them seriously then he has to steal more votes or declare martial law for the GOP to win. Or Karl could be looking at the ”math ” again and be in denial.
A few changes in voting percentages in the right states and we will have a landslide.
The growing perception that their is no way in hell the GOP can win will keep GOPers home on election day.

I’ve been wondering how much of an effect Caller ID has on the polling sample?

cell phones have an even greater effect

I got friends who have never had a hard-wired phone, and they have Never participated in a phone poll

between the people who never get polled,and the people who screen their calls (I don’t bother to) modern phone polls are about as useless as an internets poll

I can’t understand why people still care about polls

other than measuring how wrong the media is, polls serve no purpose

wanna see something that DOES serve a purpose ???

go nchech the comparative voter totals in that list

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri

think about that

I dunno; but since we are talking in wild arsed guesses, here are my impressions. I don’t think it is advertising and the money spent on it, by any of the parties or entities; at least not much and not to date. I don’t think it is the effect of the cable news horserace horse manure. I think that we junkies give that a lot more focus than it really may be entitled in the greater whole. Those are things that I don’t think are big factors.

As to what I do think it is. It seems to me that almost every person in the country, irrespective of their party or other stripes, has figured out that this country is in a world of hurt. It may be the war, it may be the economy, it may be privacy, it may be education; it may be all of the above, or none of the above specifically but as an amorphous whole. But they have a sense that things are bad and something needs to be done, even if they don’t really know why or what. And, at least for the time being, young people are interested and participating. I think part of it is the internet; but not the way we think it is. We think of the internet in terms of the netroots and blogosphere; but, believe it or not, we are effective primarily as lobbyists, not as the participatory home and voice of the masses. When I say internet here, I am talking more about the ability of the average person to get many different sources of news in general. A person in Arizona doesn’t have to rely on the local paper and local news, they have access to the New York Times, Washington Post, teh Google, etc. and every site they go to have freaking Google ads that they subliminally see at a minimum. All of this is starting to feed into political ground games, although it is a bit scattershot yet.

I think the much discussed “caucus effect” is pretty much attributable to two things: young people crashing the party and expensive and organized operations by the well funded candidates; for this reason i tend to discount them as a true barometer somewhat as opposed to the good old who and how many are showing up at the polls factor. As to the last question in the post; yes, I think it will carry over to November, because I don’t think all of our problems are going to fix themselves in between now and then. Make no mistake however, once people feel okay again, they will disappear back into the woodwork unless some major shift in things occurs.

Freepatriot @2 - Good to see you; don’t be such a stranger. Where has Neil been lately?

The growing perception that their is no way in hell the GOP can win will keep GOPers home on election day.

I’ve heard even better news

the repuglitards are supposedly SO PISSED about mccain’s nomination that they’re going to stay home in November to PURPOSELY punish their own party

I don’t believe a fucking word that a repuglitard says, so I’m not counting on this happening

and we’re gonna bury these criminal fuckers even if it isn’t true

Does Marcy ever sleep?

Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy should receive at least a little credit,
especially in the red states.

Good point about cell phones, I hadn’t thought of that. That’s going to skew the polling sample to an older age bracket. I suspect us “screeners” probably also skew the sample to an older age bracket. I wonder, if one looks at the poll numbers for the over 50 set (just as an example, no idea what the age threshold for cells and screeners would be), if those numbers are similar to the “national” polls.

hi bmaz

I’m not sure I could be any stranger …

how bout them GNTS (you guys really know how to have a superbowl n stuff)

between the script problems I have on my computer, an the constant rain we had for amonth, an the election,an the springtime weather that just broke out here, I ain’t been in the tubes much lately

but I got the laptop back, so the script problems are avoidable for a while, the rain stopped (I can’t get phone service when it rains, go figure), and these people are really LATE (damn relatives), so I got a little time

so free patriotis back on the innertubes

and those turnout numbers have put a permenant smile on my face lately

HI everybody

Does Marcy ever sleep?

the M R C newshound doesn’tsleep

but we do have tooil her once amonth

That’s part of why I wanted to see the turnout numbers compared to past performance. If we’re consistently outperforming 5% regardless of money spent (which is what I’m positing here), then it suggests the national screen for likely voter may not be taking into account the women and youth who are turning out this year.

There’s another wrinkle in this mix. What states may have had ballot initiatives at the same time as the primary? Florida had a tax initiative, for example, suggesting to me that Dem turn-out might have been worse and more like MI’s clusterfuck had there not been a ballot initiative.

Besides Florida, are you folks aware of any other states with ballot initiatives on the primary ballot?

Cells are a HUGE factor in this polling discussion. The polling firms can’t deal with them within their constructs yet and there is the issue of not being able to just ring people up out of the blue on them, because it may cost the person money for the call. Monkeywrenches all kinds of stuff I should think. I have a land line, but can go weeks without using it other than the fax machine. People who want or need me call my cell. Even if the land line phone is right by my hand, there is no way I answer any call on it, from anybody, much less “unknown”, unless I specifically see some reason to. So the cell phone phenomenon is not just with young people, because I sure as hell, and quite unfortunately, am not young anymore.

I think a big part of the increase is simply due to the fact that primary season isn’t over by the time it hit in a whole bunch of states. I don’t ever remember voting in a primary when my vote or the results in Tennessee mattered. I think this is especially important in caucus states, where a few votes really matter. Look at the turnout in Alaska: 8600 for the good guys. A couple of hundred more or less could make a real difference. That may be the internet margin, all by itself.

And look, bmaz, how fortunate you are to get the chance to be not young anymore.

And yes, I think it’s the women-youth factor that is making a difference — in no small part because of cell phones as mentioned up thread.

More than a year ago, the installed base of cell phones globally exceeded computer ownership on a 1.25-to-1.00 ratio; how much organization now targets users who do not consume internet or news on a PC, but on their cell phone? It’s also much, much cheaper to do this kind of organizing, too.

If we assume we get 5% more than in 2004, that would give us the following additional states: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. Which would, indeed, be a blowout.

I think that’s particularly doable since in CO and VA we’ll have the winning Senator on our ticket. Arkansas, obviously, is more likely if Hillary is the nominee.

Arizona would be close, but not with McCain on the ballot. And North Carolina is close, though we don’t yet have a top tier candidate running against Liddy Dole.

Agreed; and Hispanics and blacks it appears to me are unusually engaged this year and I am not sure that the polling models are dealing with this effectively yet either.

FP @ 12:

I think the evangelical turn-out will be determined by 1) who the Dems nominate for prez; and 2) who the Goopers nominate for VP (assuming McCain goes on to win the prez nomination. As I see it the least optimistic scenario for the Dems pits Clinton/some-other-white-northern-whoever against McCain/Huckabee.

Agree–and that may well be why the caucus numbers are so huge. Though I expect we’ll really see the benefit of the 50 state strategy in the down-ticket races.

That’s why I should have chosen a higher age limit. As an anecdotal example, when I made some phone calls for MoveOn leading up to the 2006 elections, most of the people who actually picked up the phone were elderly (so I should have used a cut off maybe of 70 or 75). I know for a fact my folks do not screen their calls (and don’t have cell phones). So I wonder whether national polls have an age bias.

Well, except the good pollsters at the state levels and SUSA are still able to call this.

The biggest exception is that the Field poll did very poorly in CA, when it usually polls right on the money. But SUSA remains able to poll with great accuracy.

Sure. But that doesn’t explain why the turnout would be greater than in a Presidential. For the really Republican states, I guess, you coudl say that the turnout is so much bigger because a Democratic vote in this year’s SC primary, to take one example, is going to be much more valuable than a Dem vote in this year’s presidential (since the state will go to the GOP).

But that doesn’t explain the greater turnout for MO or CO or WA or MN, where votes always count to try to win a purple state.

I question the notion that the huge increases in turnout are incompatible with the national poll numbers. The national polls ask a meaningless hypothetical question in an attempt to gauge the state of the electorate. Most of the people covered by the national polls (likely voters or registered voters) aren’t actually confronted with a meaningful decision. The depth of the opinion expressed is quite shallow. In general, people have a favorable opinion of John McCain (due mostly to the fawning press he has earned by working the press corps for years). His performance in current national polls bears little relationship to the eventual outcome of the election (even if he gets the same result, it won’t be because everybody’s opinion has stayed the same). Answering a pollster’s question is a low effort exercise with corresponding low value.

Primary voters, on the other hand, are making a real choice with consequences. It’s not surprising that the results vary. The contrast with caucus-goers is even more striking. Participating in a caucus takes a much deeper commitment than answering a phone call in your own home.

In the end, the national election result will not look anything like any of the above. Rather, it will be the result of a complex interplay of the campaign.

No doubt spending the money helps but then you need to ask yourself - where is all the money coming from and why. I beleive Democrats across the spectrum are so angry why Bush and his cronies, his policies(especially the war) and the results of those policies, that they were paying attention all along. And given the fact the the race is wide open then and now, and really good people running, and candidates talking about issues that matter in an adult way they are ready to participate. Advertising is secondary. People know campaigning takes money and they are willing to fund Dems as long as they believe they can win the White House.

this has been an interest of mine all week, as just the basic NUMBERS of votes coming across the TV screens were pretty impressive, in many cases dems 3X the repug turnout.

but narrowing down the meaning/s of that observation is a good exercise.

first, i’d be careful how much consideration i put into money spent cf. votes achieved, as romney and rudy clearly showed us. on the dem side, however, the money spent and votes achieved appears to be somewhat reflected in the percentages of votes cast, at least in the top three. so that’s of some interest. i’d add here that the percentages edwards got, when considering the near complete media diss he got, are pretty impressive.

second, associated with the first consideration, it appears repugs outspent dems in total dollars and campaigns, and their turnout STILL does not compare in the overall numbers.

third, one thing to keep in mind with regard to NH is that, no matter how much money has been spent there by whomever, there is simply a shift in the political profile of that state, a very real and palpable increase in dems that is at least in part of spillover moves from MA. this is my stomping grounds, and i can tell you, this is very much the case; the old libertarian NH diehard is becoming something of a relic.

fourth, underperformance in FL and MI, to the extent that it was that, was almost certainly affected by the decision not to seat those delegates. i mean, why vote the primary if it won’t matter at the convention? the FL tax initiative i’m sure affected that, so there are mitigating factors, but the delegate seating thing should not be underestimated as an influence.

fifth, just a brief point to loohoo on the evangelical vote, i agree this could easily swing toward the left in a significant way, especially for the latino voters. moyers interviewed a very charismatic evangelical latino pastor the other night (damn, cannot recall his name), who made a compelling argument for the power of this demographic. his strongest point was that, despite the ‘values’ issues of abortion and gay marriage, there remain the other real values issues of war and poverty, not to mention immigration, which the repugs have just failed miserably on in every way.

sixth, i am likewise shocked that marcy missed the DEAN strategy influence AND the net influence. not at all trivial, either one of them.

and last, but not least, the polling issue. on that count, i have several comments. first, please, i beg everyone, do NOT fall into the rove/repug trap of trashing polls because they have erred in the past. this is most definitely a ploy, you can see the history of it emerging since the late 90s, and it has everything to do with the conscious intent of these demons to destroy THE most reliable means - the world over - of spotting a rigged election. exit polls are of course different than these daily predictive polls, but most people don’t make that distinction, and we need to be very careful that we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

that being said, there are most definitely certain statistical problems associated with these annoying daily polls. many of those problems have been touched on already in these comments. first and foremost is the phones; cell phones, caller id, the donotcall list, call blocking, all these narrow the polled populations down to the older generation of voters, which are often more conservative.

this narrowing is repeated with the whole business of weighting for likely and registered voters, especially the likely voters. many of the folks who showed up to make the dems numbers look so damn good have NEVER voted in their lives. that’s why the youth vote is THE most likely demographic to upset any predictive polls.

and it’s why, i think, that mccain is polling so well in these particular national polls. none of those polls can in any way account for the HUGE youth and first-time voter effect.

an aside on the youth point, i find it fascinating that so many youth are showing up for the caucuses, as these do not offer the ease and anonymous trappings of the polling booth. which bodes well for commitment on the part of these participants (which is nowhere to be found on the repug side of this observation).

so, in sum, i’m just chuckling snarkfully in anticipation of rove’s references this election cycle to THE math. it worked so well for him last time, doncha thin’?

Well, that shoots my theory in the ass. Or at least survey data from March 2006 tears it.

Interesting that more men are willing to go cell only.

Agreed on all counts.

Though at this point, pollsters are polling a majority of people who have already had an oppotunity to make a meaningful. And in some states, primary turnout almost approaches what we can expect from the general.

Explaining away the MI and FL turnout to clusterfuck status doesn’t work.

MI matched turnout statewide this year with 2000’s turnout. It was a fairly equivalent year in that the Dem contest was already decided but it was McCain’s last stand against Bush. BUt there was a substantial turnout of cross-over Dem voting for McCain.

And Florida’s turnout was actually 10% higher than its 2000 and 2004 primaries.

So it’s not that people stayed home–even in the biggest clusterfuck of all, this was a good turnout year and in FL it was a great turnout year. Yes, FL had a very important initiative on the ballot so the state party did a lot of GOTV. But still–these are still impressive turnout numbers; it’s just that the GOP got more of them (and FWIW, remember that the GOP has taken half of MI’s and FL’s delegates away).

erm, rayne, that survey is almost TWO years old, and the increase of cell phones since then is close to astronomical.

so your theory about the cell phone problem, i think, still holds.

i actually had some exchange with zogby on a couple of these issues in 04, and he said then they were working on a way to obtain reliability and validity from internet polls. clearly that has not been an easy problem to solve; i don’t think it can, as you just will not get a random sample. but then, you aren’t now, either.

on the zogby exchange, i was stunned at his response to my query about weighting exit poll results with ‘real’ vote count results; “oh, it’s been done that way for years.” he never gave me anything that resembled a good statistical justification. and i’m still not convinced that this is the way election polling for UN observations are done around the world.

this is a media contamination, and it needs to be stopped, just as this poisoning of the public’s impression of exit polls needs to be stopped.

empty wheel, your going to like reading this over at think progress, former navy airman;

Waterboarding has, unfortunately, become a household word. Back then, we didn’t call it waterboarding — we called it “water torture.”

and that is the mistake democrats have made, I pointed out we have to stop using the phrase “water boarding”, it’s too benign

it’s drowning a person and reviving them,it’s giving them the fear of death over and over again

it’s NOT “water boarding”, it’s water torture, plain and simple

have a read

Bmaz, have you recovered from your election day ordeal? What will happen to the provisional votes? Has there been a public reaction? Will any good come of this beside your getting an new license? Can AZ get the F**ing law changed; after all some of the turned away who own the foreign import cars may actually have wanted to vote Republican.

One of the reasons I looked at 2007 year end money (aside from its ready availability) was to separate out IA and NH spending from what came afterward. That is, to separate out the states where Romney and McCain, at least, were matching or exceeding Dem spending, with those where they almost certainly weren’t. So when you say this:

second, associated with the first consideration, it appears repugs outspent dems in total dollars and campaigns, and their turnout STILL does not compare in the overall numbers.

Remember that that’s only really true in IA, not in subsequent states.

And as for forgetting Dean, I didn’t so much forget as not look at ways to measure it. The question is, how much of turnout is real (that is, will remain in the general, assuming we spend the same as the GOP in the general) and how much is due to spending.

I do think Dean’s 50 state strategy must result in some of that 5% enthusiasm amount, and it almost certainly relates to the huge caucus turnout. It’s just not clear how to measure the caucus effect on the general, though.

This article has some good data. Overall, in states with primaries, 27% of voters are participating (which would set a record). That’s still way below the expected general election turnout (55-60%).

Welcome back and while you were away they got named the Gents. Some of us are in football withdrawal. The BlueBayState has turned it mind and especially hearts to that other team who,if I understand the custom here, play-the-sport-that shall not be named.

Oh, other sports can be named. I jsut won’t likely post on it or do a trash talk thread. Turning teh teevee off for the (ha! it’s 3 degrees here) summer.

ah, sure; missed the IA distinction.

there is a point, tho, where the ability to measure actual numbers can get so picayune angelsontheheadofapin gazing that it misses the big picture, which in this case clearly covers so many variables, often interacting ones, it nearly boggles the mind. and many of those interacting variables simply cannot be interpreted, either substantively or statistically.

still, it’s a good exercise to try to determine how much money to spend in GOP strongholds, etc. and of course, that’s influenced as well by whether or not there will be congressional or senate seats in contention. i am mighty comforted knowing dean is running this show. mighty comforted.

and still mighty delighted to think about rove and HIS math!

While were are being number junkies. RE Dem delegate count.
I thought because Josh and Kos told me that while exact numbers differed, the consensus was SuperTuesday left H and B more or less neck and neck in pledged delegates. The I had the unfortunate experience of eating in a restaurant that was almost wall TV with CNN (and in a far corner an Italian soccer game.)

CNN seem to have started on the assumption that H was leading by 300 ++ P.Ds., that is, in opposition to what I believed the consensus was. As the night went one, they lowered her total as Obama’s went up. It was in a restaurant, so I could see but not hear. I was wondering if they had included her MI/FL delegates to get her there and then took them away? Did any poor soul watch and can they explain?

I suspect that there are a number of factors, but the spending of money is the least of the issue. The biggest is the fact that the national polls are simply based on the wrong predictive models…that is IF those involved in the Democratic primary actually do turn out.

These same polling agencies have failed Time and Again to accurately predict the Democratic winner, or the numbers they are winning by, to even a reasonable range. The mispredicted the Iowa caucuses, and the nearness of Obama to Clinton in NH [and the Republican winner there as well, so there are issues on the Republican side, too.] South Carolina was off by over 15%, even recording a “surge” by Obama. That’s a massive error. Ditto estimates in Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, well…all of them.

That might suggest that their sampling methods are wrong. But it’s not just their methods. People are unaware that the pollsters massage their raw data by using their raw sample and adjusting it to some hypothesized “Democrats who are likely to vote because they did the last eection” vs. “Republican who is likely to vote because they did last election” model.

They use that, plus registration figures (often two or more years old), as well as other schemes to “adjust the data”…which they know is erroneous in actually measuring the population. They problem is that if new registrants, young people, or minorities come out and vote they are going to way off.

CNN i believe was including their own estimates on superdelegates into their figures and that was what you were seeing.

Final outcome of bmaz’s Voter IDgate is yet to be determined. I went to school with the son of the pretty powerful county recorder/elections commissioner here and am lining up a little hookup to discuss things.

Agree–We don’t have the numbers (and I certainly don’t have the training) to really assess what is going on. I was just trying to point to gross trends.

I am OT, but we are doing the numbers. Mainers are phoning in their causus results to a sites, from gigantic traffic snarling causcuses.

http://www.turnmaineblue.com/s.....iaryId=779

they are dribbling in, but here is a large bunch. No Kennebunkport as yet.

I counted three or so more towns for H.
Obama wins Rockport, carrying 8 delegates to Hillary’s 3.

Obama takes Fryeburg 67 to 17
Obama takes York 414 to 225
Clinton takes Rumford 52 to 37
Clinton takes Dixfield 16 to 14
Clinton takes Mexico 27 16* [watch for it, they also have a Paris, founded in 1792, in the middle of the Terror part of the French revolution. I have always wondered why. ]
Clinton takes Byron 1 to 0
Obama takes Hanover 6 to 2
Obama takes Gardiner 129 47 with 2 uncommitted
Clinton takes Old Orchard Beach 134 to 128
Obama takes Hampden 179 to 70
Obama takes Wilton 87 to 30
Obama takes Cape Elizabeth 550 to 217
Obama takes Deer Island 6 to 1
Obama takes Winterport 7 to 4
Obama takes Machiasport 2 delegates to 1O
Obama takes Ellsworth 184 to 100
Obama takes Bristol 7 to 2
Obama takes Bangor (District 15) 16 to 8
Obama takes Presque Isle 63 to 60
Obama takes Stonington 48 to 24

No, I think they were making crappy estimates of what would happen in the west. It was fairly clear to me that their minds–and the first headlines for the morning news–were based on the results in the East, even though Obama was expected to win a lot more of the western contests and the caucuses (which reported later). And I’m not sure they accounted for the blowouts Obama managed in the caucus states.

TPM reporting Maine caucus turnout is HUGE.

Clinton reorganizing campaign team.

Edwards is going to make an endorsement and is negotiating with Clinton and Obama to see who will give up more to get it. This ought to be an interesting little play.

And now to work. deadline looms.

Look at my previous post, for some nice numbers to chew on. And now really truly, adieu

according to TPM, Democratic voters are overwhelming the Maine Caucus

forget zogby and the rest

the real polls are going Democratic, in a way that has never been seen

they’re gonna call this the “George Bush” effect when they discuss this election in the future

does one man really make that much of a difference???

george bush destroyed a whole fucking political party

history ain’t gonna say what george thinks history is gonna say

OT: interesting write-up in today’s l.a. times on the new u.s. attorney general tom o’brien (who replaced debra yang).

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo.....full.story

There’s just no possibility that a candidate for POTUS in 2008 can win by stating that he wants another hundred years of war.

hey, keep that to yourself

(I wont even repeat it)

don’t go offering the repuglitards free clues

they’re having a hard time cutting their own throat in this election, and we don’t need to be telling them to use a sharp knife

john mccain just lost two of three repuglitard primaries, and apparently he only won the third primary cuz they stopped counting ballots once mccain got the lead

and we don’t want the repuglitards to throw us into that hucklberry patch

(kinda hard to type that with a straight face)

Would it be OK if I mentioned again the effect of diebolding on your numbers? You’ve said I think that the mismatch between exit or pre-primary polls and the official tally is due to inaccuracy of the polls, and I’m saying that the mismatch is more likely due to somebody diddling with the voting machines.

Either? Both?

Trust me, no one who sees and knows John McCain is going to like him; the problem is the fawning media that prevent people from taking a square look at him. Obama is the flavor de jour in the battle against Clinton; but anyone who thinks this will maintain head to head against McCain in the general is nuts. McCain will be the serious, experienced hand and maverick blah, blah blah; and they will not beat up on the racial dogwhistles against the McCain backers that will be inevitably played (hey they are Goopers, you know its coming) like they did the Clintons. In the first place, McCain and the GOP won’t be attacked like the Clintons have been, nobody is; but, also, the big media are still awfully traditional and awfully white. I don’t like thinking or saying these things, but I think they are there. McCain is a horrid candidate on a lot of fronts, and he is not a likable guy, but the problem will be in getting an unfiltered presentation made to the general public so they can see the obvious for themselves.

Not really. Because in the contests where the polling is REALLY off–caucuses–people are counting in public, on their fingers.

Here is my wacky theory.

Could it be that the country has finally emerged from the nightmare of our collective 9-11 PTSD…
Perhaps we have concluded that some things are beyond our control, that Bush’s revenge has turned countries against us, and as someone aptly noted “to worry about disasters is to waste precious energy”
America had a lot of pent up anger. Are we channeling (sp) this anger in the right direction?
The Republicans are STILL clinging to the fear and the anger motif (notice Romney’s fucking concession speech, McCain’s empty rhetoric, and the dickhead Bush).
The Dems turnout is a reaction against the status quo…
I just hope we don’t blow it, and that’s why we need to UNITE now…
Just a thought…

Thanks EW; that doesn’t really lift the fog for me but I can see better now.

Aloha Ya’ll, it’s 7-7 here in the Isles…

Football season is over; it is steroid season now.

Heh, don’t diss the only pro game here…

BTW, Obama will probably take Hawaii’s caucus on Feb. 19th in a landslide too…

Great numbers. Mine are much rougher, but the conclusion is the same. By my count, in the Primary States, we’re up 59 electoral votes already over 2000 or 2004. Pity, it’s only speculative data. It’ll be interesting to see how it all comes out in November…

bmaz (57) — I am still waiting for the mainstream media to really question McCain’s health. Trust me, this is much more serious issue than the attention it’s been getting.

I was a poll worker here in California. A man asked me for an “R” ballot. As I handed it to him he said, “That is R for red with embarrassment.” I smiled and handed him a voter registration form - for next time. *

My thinking is that maybe we should all be embarrassed at the amount of money spent on campaigns. Probably half a billion by Super Tuesday - and how much more before June? Nevermind November. I AM glad that the netroots and grassroots are voting with their pocketbooks now, especially since the legislation Congress enacts affects more of them than the super donners. Still a 1/2 billion here, a 1/2 billion there could do a lot for the 12% or so of Americans who live in poverty. /rant

*Voter registration forms were mostly available so people would change their voter registration info to ‘vote at polls’ from ‘absentee’ - we ran out of provisional ballots (had to make about 50) because everyone in my neck of the woods thinks they will vote absentee - and then they do not.

agreed. both family members and friends have gone through recurrences of melanoma, particularly melanoma in the face/head area. the path this cancer can take is not pretty, and all sorts of neurological effects can come into play years down the line.

Interesting. There’s a study from Jan 2006 that says African-Americans and Hispanics use cell phones more than other groups. I’d like to see comparisons of call minutes by groups to internet usage on PC’s by groups.

In the last two years, cell phone adoption by tweens/teens increased 26% compared to 45-54 y.o. age group’s adoption rate of 10%. Wonder how many cell phone-armed teens became new voters in that period, receiving their cell phone before the 2006 mid-terms and are now able to participate for the first time.

This could be the first real impact on our primitive voting system by the emergent digital tribe; we were only the bleeding edge in 2004, are now seeing the rising tide of a generational shift of voters who expect the same kind of direct representation and immediacy from democracy that their cell phones enable in community interaction.

Notice that they did not question Dick Cheney’s health, even though he had had 3 heart attacks prior to nomination, and probably had one in June of 1999 as well. Some people politely asked, we never got answers, which should have been a major clue about how he was going to operate while in office. I wish they could get someone like Nancy Reagan to question McCain’s health. Aak. In my dreams.

I don’t think it’s cancer-related. IMO, I think McCain may have a form of Parkinson’s. While folks like Michael J. Fox make it very obvious that people with Parkinson’s can be very productive, the family of Parkinson’s diseases is broad and has many different outcomes. My MIL suffers from a form that’s degenerated far more rapidly than other manifestations of the disease; she’s no longer able to care for herself and has progressed from being able to perform her own daily living tasks 3 years ago to complete inability to walk, have a conversation, make rational decisions for herself and express them clearly. That, inside the length of a term of office…

Assuming it’s Parkinson’s — and I know that’s a huge assumption — the public deserves to know before the election about it and what the risks are.

Rayne, what makes you think he has Parkinsons?

please, i beg of you to avoid conflation of exit polls with any other polls. and then to make any comparison at all between polls and diebold effects; that’s talking apples and screwdrivers.

exit polls, at least as they are conducted in most other countries, and by the UN in election observations, are unbelievably reliable! typically they weigh in within 1% of the count!! that is precisely why they are used as the standard against which to judge an election!

this is a very serious matter that should NOT be overlooked, nor should it be misunderstood. rove and his henchmen have been actively sullying the exit polls for years for the express purpose of distracting the public from the problems with their rigged machines, be they diebold, es&s, you name it.

but never forget, in order for their rigging to work effectively, they have to somehow get the polls to be somewhat close. if they’re not at all close, then any shift from the pre-election polling would automatically be suspicious; any discrepancy between results and exit polls would only be suspicious if exit polls are respected, which is why they’ve been trashing them. we really have to work hard to reverse that trend, which is why i’m harping on this matter so viciously! (do forgive)

take note that if the polls end up being way skewed in favor of the dems, it will make it really really difficult for rove to work THE math. also, with all the new (and woefully belated by years) scrutiny of the machinery, it will be that much harder (tho not impossible) for them to rig some key states, as before, and thereby the whole election.

yeah, rayne, what makes you think mccain has parkinson’s? i see no evidence of such, and i have experience diagnosing the effects of that disorder.

of course, all i see of him is what everyone else sees via TV, so what do i know? or you, for that matter.

hence my original question.