• Actually, I don't remember McCain leading in the polls through the summer. Nobody else seems to remember that either. Pollster.com doesn't seem to remember it either.

  • I think the point is that Jerome is intent on looking like an ignorant and bitter man in public.

    To claim that a completely transparent poll with its unaltered internals fully on display was somehow "cooking its books" is, frankly, ridiculous.

  • on a comment on Process Over Policy over 5 years ago

    You're assuming that the final vote tally in the Senate wasn't affected by Obama's use of his political capital to support Lieberman.

    This is not, in fact, what actually happened.

    Come back to the reality-based society. It's much saner over here.

  • on a comment on Process Over Policy over 5 years ago

    60 is irrelevant. Simply being a Democrat doesn't mean that Lieberman will vote for cloture. And, in point of fact, Lieberman is on-the-record saying that, if the Democrats have the ability to overcome filibusters, it will be bad for the country.

    If he thinks its bad for the country, why would you expect him to vote for cloture?

    And it's not like the guy respects any political debts. Obama campaigned for him in 2006 when he desperately needed help. Obama's reward? He got slandered by Lieberman and Lieberman campaigned for McCain.

  • on a comment on Backing Waxman over Dingell over 5 years ago

    Re: Leiberman. IOU? He owed Obama a huge IOU for coming to CT and campaigning for him in 2006. He paid back that IOU by slandering him and campaigning for McCain.

    60 votes in the Senate is only relevant for (1) overcoming vetoes; and (2) overcoming filibusters. The veto is irrelevant (since Obama is President) and Lieberman is on-the-record as stating that the country will be harmed if the Democrats have the ability to overcome filibusters. Why would you expect him to vote for cloture when he's said that it's bad for the country?

  • comment on a post What did you get wrong? What did you get right? over 5 years ago

    After Iowa I thought Obama would win NH and, if necessary, spin that into one or two more wins in order to knock Hillary out of the primaries. But, if that happened, I thought it was pretty much 50-50 whether Edwards or Obama would get the nomination.

    So, yeah... I was wrong about that.

    But my electoral prediction was pretty solid. My only mistake was in predicting that Missouri would go for Obama. I predicted that we would get 59 senate seats plus the run-off in Georgia (which still looks possibly). I predicted a 20 seat pick-up in the House.

    Of course, in reality, that was just me putting a lot off faith in 538's numbers plus the anticipation that the ground game in Indiana would shift things and that Missouri wouldn't lose its bell-wether status. Ah well.

  • comment on a post GA-Sen: Republicans Stick with Same Lame Message over 5 years ago

    What's the confusion? "Fear of the Unknown Other" is a huge part of Republican election strategy.

    Jim Martin is a liberal. He pals around with a bunch of other liberals you've never heard of. It's scary! Look at the desaturated colors! Listen to the spooky music!

    Be afraid! Be very afraid!

    Vote Chambliss.

  • In a race with a third-party candidate, that's essentially meaningless. Are you ignorant or just trolling?

  • comment on a post blowout opening over 5 years ago

    You predict the largest Democratic blowout since 1968: 6.4 margin of victory in the popular vote; 338-200 EVs.

    Quick History Lesson:

    Clinton '96: 8.5 margin of victory; 379-159 EVs
    Clinton '92: 5.3 margin of victory; 370-168 EVs

    Personally, I think we've got a pretty good shot at beating Clinton's EV margin. If we have a significant edge in GOTV, we might even crack 400. That would be a historic blowout, but it's not what you're predicting.

  • comment on a post The Myth of 1948 over 5 years ago

    That McCain's last best hope for victory was the third debate.

    If he had shown up with Osama Bin Laden trussed up and thrown over his shoulder, he could have still won.

    (And while the talking-heads created a narrative in which McCain gave his best performance in that debate, the reality is that it was a gaffe-filled performance in which Obama crushed him. And the polls showing that Obama scored his widest margin of victory among undecided voters during that debate would seem to back up my impression.)

  • on a comment on Here we are... 19 to go over 5 years ago

    You're thinking about this post.

    Around that same time, I was declaring that Sarah Palin was the most dangerous woman in politics. And she was. But I also pointed out her key weaknesses: Inexperience. Scandal. Dishonesty.

    It was important that we hammered her on those negatives, because if her positives had cemented this election would not be where it is today.

    People kept saying that we should focus on McCain and ignore Palin. They were wrong.

  • on a comment on Here we are... 19 to go over 5 years ago

    Hmm... Karl Rove seems to have hacked Jerome's account.

    "With a restive electorate, with an economy that's sort of chugging around, with a war in the background, at the end of eight years of Republican rule in the White House, Obama should be way ahead." - Karl Rove, Face the Nation, August 10th

    Pollster.com: Is Obama Underachieving?

  • There's a strong part of me that would prefer to see us sitting at 57 + Bernie Sanders rather than sitting at 58 + Bernie Sanders. Specifically because, with 59 seats, I suspect Reid will continue pandering to Lieberman.

  • on a comment on Friday Notes over 5 years ago

    Because state-by-state polls are erratic. Going to some swing states at pollster.com, I find:

    OHIO - No single poll was taken both before and after the DNC, making it impossible to measure Obama's bounce. The most recent poll was 8/31-9/2 from CNN, meaning that we can't see any reaction to Palin's speech.

    FLORIDA - The last poll was conducted 8/25-8/26. Let me know how you're planning to use that data to parse bounces for Obama or McCain.

    NEVADA - The last poll was conducted 8/24-8/26. Ditto.

    MONTANA - The last poll was conducted 7/29.

    The Electoral College is absolutely what determines the election. But the data necessary to analyze electorate reactions to the convention simply don't exist on a state-by-state basis.

  • on a comment on Post Palin over 5 years ago
    Palin has the potential to change those fundamentals. She can do that by firing up the conservative base and getting it to the polls, but she can also do it by locking down the far-right wing of the party and freeing McCain to move back towards center. The next few days are going to be key: Does Palin get identified as the inexperienced, mendacious, and scandal-ridden candidate that she is? Or does the "Hail Sarah" work and McCain has suddenly created options where, before September, it looked as if he had backed himself into a corner? Jerome is pointing to this one poll as an indication that we have cause to be worried. It's the only point of relevant data we have. But it's also only one point of data.


Advertise Blogads