Some month ago, when asked what kind of computer he used John McCain responded:

“Neither. I am an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get.”

Now the McCain campaign has suggested that Grandpa McCain doesn’t use the computer at all:

…this morning at the Personal Democracy Forum conference, Mark Soohoo, speaking on behalf of the the Arizona senator’s Internet team, was asked whether McCain even uses a computer.

His response: “You don’t need to use a computer to know how it shapes the country.”

Really? The Republicans expect Americans to seriously consider a candidate that doesn’t use a computer?

Soohoo may be right that you don’t need to use a computer to understand its cultural and economic impact.

What bothers me is what this says about McCain’s intellectual curiosity—specifically, his lack thereof. Are we really going to elect into the most powerful office in the world, a man who shows no interest whatsoever in the most powerful product of human collective culture?

And haven’t we just experienced a painful lesson from electing a President who lacks any vestige of intellectual curiosity?

SurveyUSA released the first poll of the season in the 8th CD race between Darcy Burner and Rep. Dave Reichert.

The poll surveyed 679 likely voters on June 16th and 17th, and showed Reichert leading Burner 51% to 45%.

As usual, I try to assess these poll results by a simple Monte Carlo analysis. I simulated a million fictitious elections between Burner and Reichert, using the observed percentages and the number of people polled.

Reichert won 948,339 of the elections and Burner won 48,199 times. In other words, the poll results suggest that, for an election held right now, Burner would have a 4.8% probability of winning the election and Reichert would win with a 95.2% probability.

Here is the distribution of outcomes (percentage of votes) from the million simulated elections (Reichert victories are those to the left of the red “tie” line, Burner victories are those to the right):

At risk of coming off as just another amen blogger, the poll results don’t strike me as particularly bad for Burner. Yeah…she is -6% down, but Reichert, as the incumbent, starts out with the advantage. The poll’s cross-tabs look reasonably positive for Burner. Among other things, of those who said they could change their mind, 50% were Reichert supporters and 39% were Burner supporters. Also, Reichert holds 35% of the pro-choice vote. It’s hard to imagine that the Burner campaign won’t make in-roads into that group.

This poll comes on the heels of massive mailings of campaign flyers franked informational pieces from the Reichert campaign congressional office. The Burner campaign, to my knowledge, has not made any media purchases.

Furthermore, Reichert has recently gotten a lot of well-deserved publicity for eco-friendly votes. I say “well deserved” because, clearly, Reichert’s handlers have developed a brilliant strategy that has rendered the local media stupifyingly blind to Reichert’s strategy of full participation in Republican obstructionism in Congress during procedural votes, only to switch his vote when the results are certain passage. Daniel Kirkdorffer has meticulously documented this rather cynical strategy. It is hard to say whether Reichert’s people will be able to maintain their spell over the media through November.

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)

The Governor’s big night out:

This reveals a fundamental difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain:

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama released their Senate financial disclosure statements on Friday, revealing that Mr. McCain and his wife had at least $225,000 in credit card debt and that Mr. Obama and his wife had put more than $200,000 into college funds for their daughters.

Yeah…the circumstances differ. When you leave your wife to marry a fabulously rich heiress, a quarter million of debt comes off as chump change—even “at a stiff 25.99 percent interest rate.” And squirreling away a couple hundred thousand for your kids future isn’t really necessary. But the fiscal report betrays a rather caviler fiscal attitude in the McCain residence.

This strikes me as a metaphor showing a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans—the self-anointed party of “fiscally responsibility”—have intentionally outspent their means. They’ve piled unprecidented debt onto the backs of Americans for generations to come.

George W. Bush came into office with a $5.7 trillion federal debt. Today that figure has ballooned to $9.5 trillion, which means that every American has their own $31,100 credit card charge.

Contrast this to Bill Clinton, who took office with $4.4 trillion in federal debt and left office with $5.7 trillion. And with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton pushed hard to invest in the future, a vision captured in his farewell address:

First, America must maintain our record of fiscal responsibility. Through our last four budgets we’ve turned record deficits to record surpluses, and we’ve been able to pay down $600 billion of our national debt–on track to be debt-free by the end of the decade for the first time since 1835. Staying on that course will bring lower interest rates, greater prosperity, and the opportunity to meet our big challenges. If we choose wisely, we can pay down the debt, deal with the retirement of the baby boomers, invest more in our future, and provide tax relief.

Instead…we got George W. Bush and the Big Credit Card.

This fall we will have a choice between Candidate A, whose household finances show a credit card debt of $225,000 and Candidate B whose household has saved $200,000 to invest in their children’s future.

Pretty easy choice, huh?

In this episode, Goldy and his panel take on the BIAW, say “amen” to overly-sensitive journalists, explore issues of secret ballots and voter integrity, note how the top-two primary leads to absurdities like a “Grand Old Party Party,” and tackle our region’s tough mass transit problems.

Goldy was joined by Democratic candidate for Secretary of State Jason Osgood, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, HorsesAss and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss’ blogger emeritus Will.

The show is 49:31, and is available here as an MP3.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Fresh on the heels of the Survey USA poll I wrote about this morning, Rasmussen Reports has just released their head-to-head poll pitting Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire against her Republican challenger, Dino Rossi.

The Rasmussen poll surveyed 500 likely voters on June 9th. Gregoire led Rossi 50% to 43%, with another 2% selecting “other” and 5% who are not sure. The +7% advantage that Gregoire has in this poll is about double that of the SurveyUSA poll (which was taken from the 7th to the 9th of June).

What are the chances that Gregoire would win an election today, based just on this poll? Let’s figure it out using the computational equivalent of a sledge hammer. I simulated a million gubernatorial elections of 500 voters each election. Each voter in each election had a 50.0% chance of voting for Gregoire, a 43.0% chance of voting for Rossi, and a 7.0% chance of voting for neither.

Gregoire won 949,070 times and Rossi won 2,829 times. In other words, the poll results suggest that, for an election held now, Gregoire would have a 95.2% probability of winning the election and Rossi would win with a 4.8% probability.

Here is the distribution of outcomes (percentage of votes) from the million simulated elections (Rossi victories are those to the left of the red “tie” line, Gregoire victories are those to the right):

Since the Rasmussen and SurveyUSA polls were taken almost simultaneously using similar methods, it seems quite reasonable to combine the polls. Of the 1,137 pooled poll participants, 571 (or 50.2%) of them “voted” for Gregoire, 514 (or 215%) “voted” for Rossi and 52 (or 4.6%) choose neither. A million simulated gubernatorial elections later, Gregoire wins 952,104 times and Rossi wins 44,749 times. The pooled set of polls suggest that, if an election were held now, Gregoire would have a 95.5% probability of winning and Rossi would have a 4.5% probability of winning.

You may be wondering why Gregoire’s probability of winning actually increase when the Rasmussen poll is pooled with the SurveyUSA poll. The answer is that Gregoire percent of the vote actually decreases slightly in the pooled analysis. In the Rasmussen poll she led by 50%/(50% + 43%) = 53.8%. In the combined poll, she leads by 50.2%/(50.2% + 45.2%) = 52.6%. But even with a smaller estimated fraction of the vote, there is more certainty that her lead is real (95.2% for the Rasmussen versus 95.5% for the pooled polls). This is because the certainty is more strongly affected by the larger sample size in the pooled polls.

Here is the distribution of outcomes from the simulated elections (combined polls):

As I suggested previously, it is unlikely that Gregoire’s lead is an artifact of sampling error. Now, with seven consecutive polls in a row in which Gregoire leads Rossi, it is even more certain that she is truly in the lead.

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)

A new poll in the Washington state gubernatorial race was released yesterday. The SurveyUSA poll conducted from June 7th through the 9th asked 637 likely voters who they would vote for in an election held now. Governor Christine Gregoire received 50.4% of the “votes”, Dino Rossi received 46.9%, “other” received 1.4%, and only 1.3% were undecided.

The +3.5% lead for Gregoire is substantially narrower than her +11% lead in a May 12 Rasmussen poll. But the current result falls squarely in line with all other recent polls: a late-April Elway poll that gave Gregoire a +5% lead, a mid-April SurveyUSA poll that gave Gregoire a +4% lead, and a Rassmussen poll in late March that gave Gregoire a +1% lead.

The current SurveyUSA poll results are within the 4.0% margin of error, which means that, given a sample of only 637 likely voters, the probability that Gregoire’s lead is “real” (in an election held now) is something under 95%. This is commonly called a “statistical tie,” but we can do better than that. We can estimate the probability that Gregoire would beat Rossi (and vice versa) in an election held now.

I simulated a million gubernatorial elections of 637 voters each election. Each voter in each election had a 50.4% chance of voting for Gregoire, a 46.9% chance of voting for Rossi, and a 3.5% chance of voting for neither.

Gregoire won 824,097 of the elections, and Rossi took 9,687. In other words, the poll results suggest that, for an election held now, Gregoire would have an 83.2% probability of winning the election and Rossi would have a 16.8% chance of winning the election.

Here is the distribution of number of votes (converted into percentages) from the million elections (Rossi victories are those to the left of the red “tie” line, Gregoire victories are those to the right):

The good news for Rossi is that this poll places him back in the running, unlike the previous Rasmussen result. Rossi may have been “unlucky” during that poll—that is, just by chance, perhaps too many Gregoire supporters were polled. Alternatively, Gregoire may have experienced a large surge in support last month.

The bad news for Rossi is that Gregoire has held the lead for six polls in a row now, and has led in seven out of the eight polls taken this year. (The last time Rossi led was in a March 5th Rasmussen poll, in which he held a slim +1% advantage.)

With poll after poll showing Gregoire up, it becomes very difficult to attribute her leads to chance. In other words, the consistency across polls suggest that Gregoire really does hold a solid lead over Rossi—at least at this point in the election season.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. Officially, we start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some folks show up early for Dinner.

Tonight’s activity…we will “veto every single beer”…

…with ill-marks, because it’s a Google.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

You may remember Part I of the McCain: “I am an illiterate” series, where John McCain was asked what kind of computer he uses:

“Neither. I am an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get.”

Just in case there are any lingering doubts that he is wildly out of touch with the 21st century, McCain demonstrated that he is (rather unsuccessfully) taking vocabulary lessons (my emphasis):

We’re going through a process where you get a whole bunch of names, and ya … Well, basically, it’s a Google,” McCain said. “You just, you know, what you can find out now on the Internet. It’s remarkable, you know.

Pathetic. Is this an example of McCain’s famous “straight talk”? What can we expect next from “the straight talk express”…McCain asking African Americans, “Who Let the Dogs Out,” and complementing them on their bling bling?

(H/T Political Wire.)

Gov. Christine Gregoire comments on Obama’s apparent victory:

We have just witnessed an historic primary season where ideas and ideals rose to the forefront of the debate in our country. The candidates and voters should all be commended. Now it’s time we all stand together and unite behind our Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

Many years ago, I was inspired by a man who offered a similar message of hope and belief as Barack Obama does today. Then, it was John F. Kennedy, a man whose words and actions led to my career in public service. Today, I feel similarly toward Sen. Obama. He offers this country a vision of positive change and leadership we can stand behind.

Our country is about its people, and for the last eight years we’ve been divided and moving in the wrong direction at home and abroad. It’s time to stand proud and take back this country. Sen. Barack Obama is the right person to lead us.

We need a partner in the other Washington that believes it is our responsibility to provide healthcare to children, fund a world-class education system and fight global climate change. While we’ve gotten results for families in our state over the last four years, imagine even greater possibilities with the barriers down and a partner in place in our nation’s capitol.

It’s time to renew our country’s economy. It’s time our nation recommits to every working man and woman. It’s time for good quality, affordable, accessible health care. It’s time that we tell every child to dream as big as they possibly can, and that dreams really can come true. It’s time to eliminate hopelessness and poverty and give the great people of this nation a vision worth believing in.

Indeed…to me, this vision is like a breath of fresh air—a beam of sunlight breaking through—after 7.5 years under a cloud of incompetence, immorality, deception, and scandal in the White House.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. Officially, we start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Tonight many of us will be there early to witness the end of the Democratic primary and catch some dinner.

Tonight’s theme song will be a tribute to the late, great Ellas Bates, a.k.a. Bo Diddley: Hey Bo Diddley.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally . Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Has the agonizing, prolonged battle between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama helped or harmed the Democratic brand name? This has become a hot topic of debate at dinner tables, in bars, and in car pool across the nation. But mostly the debate has been fueled by a seemingly endless parade of political pundits.

One side—the pessimists—argue that irreparable harm has been caused by elevated rancor and even the use of Rovian tactics by the campaigns. The other side—the optimists—argue that the media attention, fanaticism, and fevered pace of campaigning ultimately benefits the Democrats.

I fall in the optimist camp, but I am always more comfortable having empirical verification of my opinion. And empirical evidence there is.

Every month, Rasmussen Reports releases a new partisan trends report based on monthly interviews of a huge number of people:

…the Democrats now have the largest partisan advantage over the Republicans since Rasmussen Reports began tracking this data on a monthly basis nearly six years ago.

During the month of April, 41.4% of Americans considered themselves to be Democrats. Just 31.4% said they were Republicans and 27.2% were not affiliated with either major party.

April was the third straight month that the number of Democrats topped 41%. Prior to February of this year, neither party had ever reached the 39% level of support.
[…]

The partisan gap now shows the Democrats with a 10.0 percentage point advantage over the Republicans. That’s the largest advantage ever recorded by either party. In fact, before these past three months, the previous high was a 6.9 point percentage point edge for the Democrats in December 2006.

Here is a graph showing how the trend in party affiliation has changed over time for the U.S.:

Republicans reached their peak numbers of 37.3% in September of 2004, and have been on a slow decline since.

Until about six months ago, the Democrats were holding steady at about 37% Democratic voter identity. The rise since December has been nothing short of stunning. Democrats had 36.3% identity in December and shot up to 41.5% in February—just about the time that the race started heating up.

The data don’t tell us what this increase is all about. (Although…the correlations among the groups suggest that a shift from “Other” identity to Democratic identity explains about 2/3 of the recent variation). No doubt non-primary things like ongoing Republican scandals, a tanking economy, a dragged-out occupation of Iraq, soaring fuel prices, and the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney call themselves Republicans have helped swell the ranks of Democrats.

A cautious statement would be that any damage done by the primary contest is minor at worst, as the damage has been more than offset by the Republican collapse, resulting in a net gain for Democrats.

An alternative explanation is that the primary-from-hell really has been a good thing for Democrats.

In this week’s podcast, Goldy and panel lament the departure of Robert Mak and simmer over the end of local political TV. The heat is turned-up with a discussion over Sen. Hillary Clinton and the never-ending Democratic nomination process. Things come to a full boil during a discussion of assisted suicide. (No pundits were harmed in the production of this podcast.)

Goldy was joined by our Seattle Drinking Liberally co-host Chris Mitchell, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, HorsesAss & EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss, EFFin’ Unsound, & Blog Reload’s Lee.

The show is 40:49, and is available here as an MP3:

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E, although some of us will show up a little early for dinner.

Tonight we’ll just celebrate a brief break from those infernal primary races.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally . Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Kill ’em BOTH. What the hell…

(Source)