The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

MoeLarryAndJesus — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:02:34 -0000

I'm not sure McCain doesn't honestly believe, deep down in the crusty, dusty corners of his seldom-used heart, that there's no way the 'merican people will vote for that there colored guy over a swell white guy like him.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Jim — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:56:45 -0000

They're trying to avoid a landslide at this point, also help the downballot candidates.

But until I see the sign that says Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States, I will still think he's not going to win this. Something tells me this effect is going to occur on Nov 4th..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqIdTOFyeTQ

cynical i know...

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Joel — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:07:44 -0000

Penn is the only chance of a McCain victory at this point. Judging from the man's actions (the cancelled rally, the dismal appearance on MTP, meeting the press on the lawn on election night), he doesn't expect to win. But republicans need to turn out or else his party gets creamed in the senate/gubernatorial/house races.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Joel — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:05:43 -0000

Rasmussen is individually reliable, but you're going to get a more accurate result with a larger sample size. FWIW the Ras state polls that I cited had LV samples of ~500 voters. Not their strongest efforts.

Consensus polls (assuming that you weight out the zogby's / crappy ones) are generally going to be more accurate than individual polls for this reason. Like, the RCP poll of polls was pretty heads on accurate on a state-state basis four years ago. But now there are better sites out there.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Katherine — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:00:07 -0000

Rasmussen is one of the most reliable if not the most reliable poll (fivethirtyeight has noted it), so I'm paying a little more attention to them, and considering Muhlenberg an outlier as fivethirtyeight rates them very low. Penn is probably in the 7-9% range.

Florida, you're right, it looked more like a tie based on last week's polls, several of which had McCain up, but the more recent polls have Obama ahead (except for Zogby, which is worthless).

What I don't understand about the "gamble on Penn." strategy is that it doesn't even feel like McCain's playing to win outside of the big states. If Obama takes CO, NV, VA and the Gore states other than Penn., McCain can take it and still lose. And yet he's spending money in places like Arizona and West Virginia instead of in the swing states. It feels like he's trying to lose narrowly rather than largely, not playing to win.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Joseph — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:48:21 -0000

He is gambling on Pennsylvania because, of all the other states that are polling less, PA is the only place where the synthesis of his coded language, his "socialist" cries and the Palin "aw shucks" archetype can be most effective.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Joel — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:21:32 -0000

The more recent polls in Pennsylvania are averaging more around 8%, and Florida, Missouri and North Carolina are effectively ties.

---

Only partly true, actually; polls that touch at least one day this week (weekend polls ending 10/26 is my cutoff)

PA: O+11 (muhlenberg) O+7 (rasmussen) O+9 (insideradvantage) O+14 (marist).

Pollster.com averages PA at O+11.

FLA: O+4 (CNN) O+7 (Times) O+4 (rasmussen) O+5 (datamar).

Pollster.com averages FLA at O+3.

NC is a true tossup: M+1 (rasmussen) O+1 (PPP).

Pollster.com averages NC at O+2 largely on the strength of last week's polling. Florida and Pennsylvania is much more heavily polled so the data is more reliable in those situations.

MO is also a true a tossup: M+2 (CNN) O+1 (rasmussen).

Pollster.com averages MO at O+1.7 but polling data is too thin to pinpoint a good average. Just look at the histogram on the site..

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Katherine — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:41:21 -0000

The more recent polls in Pennsylvania are averaging more around 8%, and Florida, Missouri and North Carolina are effectively ties.

But the general idea is probably right. McCain's not looking like winning in Colorado or Virginia right now, and he needs both.

Still can't help worrying that the polling is off, though.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

rikyrah — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:38:37 -0000

This is the media trying to make this a horserace. Period.

If we were really being frank,this race would have BEEN OVER because of the EQUAL VETTING of Caribou Barbie that they did Obama, and once that happened, it would have automatically disqualified John McCain for selecting that joke.

This woman has lied about every frigging thing since she stepped onto the national stage.

She would be one of four people with the possibility of being President of the United States..

AND SHE'S NEVER HAD A GODDAMNED PRESS CONFERENCE.

Think on that.

She's married to man who belonged to a SECESSIONIST GROUP

She's had a WITCH HUNTER PREACHER

She, herself, gave an address or two to SAID SECESSIONIST GROUP

She's under 50 and won't release her medical records.

Is anyone going to sit here and tell me if Obama had done the same, that this bullshit would be allowed?

It's the same double standard that Obama's had to deal with from the beginning.

I knew that the Democratic Nominating Process was OVER the night of the WISCONSIN Primary - why, cause Chuck Todd crunched the numbers and SAID that HIllary Clinton could never catch Obama in the Pledged Delegate race.

But, they sat around, and went along, with all the moving of the bar bullshit that the Clinton Camp came up with, month upon month.

THAT's what's going on here.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Kevin McGee — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:37:13 -0000

I'm shocked..shocked to find a World of Warcraft post on Andrew's page instead of yours. I really enjoyed it and trust you did/will too. :)

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

jetan — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:19:34 -0000

Maybe I didn't signpost it enough. Robert Lee knew that the Confederate States didn't have the dough or the arms to conduct a lengthy war. So he threw everything into Pennsylvania (in hopes of making the War too painful for the Union) and eventually broke the back of his army there at Gettysburg.

Just an off-hand, snarky jab at McCain, really. Though I actually had a twinge of sympathy for him today when Palin sort of stabbed him in the back.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

brent — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:00:21 -0000

Maybe I am a little dense today jetan, but I actually don't get your reference.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

jetan — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:50:06 -0000

You know, this isn't the first time an under-funded, under-equipped force gambled everything on a desperate, do-or-die campaign in Pennsylvania. And we all know how that turned out.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

brent — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:44:55 -0000

It sure doesn't hurt Obama's turnout to perpetuate the illusion of a close race.

That is why I find the whole narrative around McCain's pollster's comments this morning so odd. They have been asking Democrats on to argue about it all day but, if you are a surrogate for Obama, why even bother arguing the point? If it were me my response would be something like: if they really think they are describing reality, more power to them.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Asher — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:28:18 -0000

I just think you have to accept that all cable coverage is garbage and bears only the most tangential of relationships to the realities of the election, just as the analysis on Sportscenter has nothing to do with what really determines who wins baseball games. (There's a reason the foremost polling site is run by a baseball stats guy.) Starting, of course, with the obsession with the campaign itself. Most political scientists will tell you that campaigns barely matter. Especially in a year like this. A Democrat was more or less destined to win this election. Given that reality, we'd be better off with more serious reporting on (a) what the man destined to be our President will do once he's elected and (b) what this loss means for the Republican Party and less campaign coverage.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Stacy — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 18:14:00 -0000

I agree with Asher completely. Why does MY let this bother him? Obviously, it helps McCain's turnout as well, but really, as long as Obama's voters turn out, this thing is done. And would we expect anything else from the media?

Although it was a little depressing hearing Anderson Cooper wonder "why Obama isn't winning by more" out loud last night.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Jake — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:42:46 -0000

It sure doesn't hurt Obama's turnout to perpetuate the illusion of a close race.

This cannot be emphasized enough.

Re: Effete Liberals Pt. 2

Asher — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:33:41 -0000

He's a lock, no doubt, but does it make a real difference to you that cable news wants to pretend it's a close race to boost their ratings/avoid Republican accusations of calling the race? Like what's the harm? It sure doesn't hurt Obama's turnout to perpetuate the illusion of a close race. Just turn off the TV if it bothers you.