November surprise

You people need to take a Zoloft or something. Obama will win, and win big. His grandmother has made the final, ultimate sacrifice for her little Bear. All of those stupid undecided voters conditioned by a lifetime of Hallmark cards and afterschool specials will be wiping away tears as they vote for the big O.

Is anybody else really freakin' nervous?

I am. Really freakin' nervous

I am reading all of these premature "How Obama Won" pieces around the blogs, and it's not making me feel better. Nate Silver is more realistic, and actually quite sobering. This election might be really, really close.

And also too, it is important to be doin your prognosticatin

There's no question that the preponderance of the polling evidence indicates that Obama is well positioned to cruise to a comfortable victory, and even stands a chance of blowing McCain out of the water.

Which isn't to say that there's no room to think that the race is much closer than it appears. A handful of polls have consistently shown McCain to be within striking distance. Most prominent among these is probably the tracking poll run by the Associated Press, but there are others. How does one decide which polls to trust?

Nate Silver's work at fivethirtyeight.com has shed important light on the question. Surveying the various polls, Silver has been able to demonstrate that the differences between them boil down to differences in their likely voter models. The short story is that polls lean Republican to the extent that they assume that the 2008 electorate will look like the 2004 electorate, and lean Democrat to the extent that they predict higher turnout among African Americans and new voters.

For prognosticatin purposes, what this means is that we've got to ask whether we believe that the Obama campaign is going to be able to get its voters to the polls. I'd say it's a pretty good bet. Speaking anecdotally, it's pretty clear that the voter registration and turnout effort on campus here in Ann Arbor is orders of magnitude beyond what we've seen in other years. You already knew Obama was going to win Michigan, but there are students everywhere. How many student votes will Obama pull out of the research triangle in North Carolina? I'd guess a lot.

What about the more traditional swing states? Here are a couple of data points worth noticing. In Ohio, African American's make up 12% of the population but made up only 10% of the electorate in 2004. In Florida, African Americans make up nearly 16% of the population but were only 12% of the 2004 electorate. Whatever else you believe about Obama's ground game, surely African Americans will vote in higher numbers than in 2004.

Which brings us to the official prognositcations. My optimistic prognostication puts Obama ahead with 371 electoral votes. My worst case gives Obama 278 electoral votes. Between them, I'd bet on wild optimism. What say you all?

OK, but the devil is in the details

Mail to Jonathan Martin:

Re: For the GOP, the cavalry apparently isn t coming.

Yes, there is....ask the Lord.

It is HIS election. Watch Him.

Check your history books.

Bingo.

Elaine

Sarah Palin, quoted by CNN:

“And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”

I just wanted to get this down on the Blog of Record, so when we look back at what happened, we know whom to blame.

More updates please? Well, okay then:

Dobson says that he and other pastors have been praying to God for his intervention in the election: "We were just asking for, rather boldly asking, for a miracle with regard to the election this year."

100 days to election day!

Just sayin'. Maybe it's time for some prognostication.

Barack Obama can do ANYTHING!!

Apparently the jury is still out on whether or not Barack Obama "shoots rainbows out of his butt" (quoting Jason there), but it has long been known that he does, in fact, smell like caramel.

In other news, the following is taken from "The Delegate Hub" portion of Hillary's website:

"FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy."

Three thoughts to kick off the discussion:

1) "Florida and Michigan should count" doesn't strike me as a particularly fact-y statement.

2) I'm pretty sure I didn't hear any complaints from Hillary's campaign about the DNC's decision to not seat Michigan and Florida delegates until after she lost South Carolina.

3) If Hillary wins the nomination because she is awarded delegates from Michigan and Florida, I will not vote for her in the general election.

Discuss.

Will Iraq be the prominent issue of 2008?

As I wrote earlier, Joshua thinks "no," and I think "hell yes." Neither of us can really know, of course, but that doesn't stop either of us from electoral prognostication. Yesterday, Josh sent me the following email:

Asked of Republican primary voters:

Which is more important to you in a presidential nominee — someone who commits to staying in Iraq until the U.S. succeeds, or someone who is flexible about when to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq? 

answer: 

39% committed to winning
58% flexible

This is coming from primary voters, mind you. The GOP voter is way more on top of this Iraq shit...they aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot over it. Bush might shoot them in the foot, however.

52% believe that the winning candidate will oppose the war. They aren't gonna run on it, and if both parties won't run on it, then it won't be an issue. Might it make sense for a Democrat to try and pin the other guy w/ it? Not really. It goes to Bush and he's in his private wilderness. The press will keep doing stories on it, but since both sides will be messaging the same message (get out), what will matter is health care, education, economy. Domestic issues election, this one.

There are three reasons why I think Josh is wrong.

First, Bush will probably shoot the Republicans in the foot (better than Cheney shooting them in the face, I guess). He's going to be president throughout the campaign, and if there's one thing we can apparently count on from Bush, it's that he will continue to mess things up real good. If we end up with a broader war in the Middle East, for example, I think even Joshua would agree that this would become the major issue in 2008.

Second, even without a foot-shooting-related incident, Iraq is on track to be in a significantly more horrific situation in mid-to-late '08 than it is right now. Top of the evening news, on the front page every day... that kind of horrific. There is no way that this doesn't become an issue in the primaries, where the "mainstream" candidates of both parties will face challenges from the left and the right. Candidates will need to put up specific proposals, and then those proposals will be savaged by both the "get out now" and the "stay to win" crowds.

Third, in the general election, I just can't see the Republicans not taking another tug at the national-security lever, especially if the race is tight. Perhaps their strategists will look at these polls and consider it a losing proposition, but I think it's more likely that they will suggest a series of slash-and-burn (political) attacks designed to move the electorate, and change that polling. The context of this poll is widespread malaise about Iraq, and nobody out there trying very hard to beat the drums of war. In full-on campaign season, the rhetorical landscape will be very, very different.

This has been my first prognostication entry for '08. Discuss.