The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Stop on by for some hoppy beer and hopped up conversation.
I’m starting my evening at Chocolate for Choice, I won’t be stopping by until a little later. Maybe a nice stout to wash down all that chocolate?
Not in Seattle? Liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s thirteen Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.
***Hilarious response to my earlier post about Rep. Doug Ericksen. GOP bloggers are pissed at the bad press, while the B-Ham Herald’s political guy is just telling it like it is:
For the record, Wally, I generally try to write my own headlines, sir, unless someone else’s is better. Too bad you never seem to realize there is no conspiracy. I promise. You, of course, don’t complain that I’m “slamming” someone when I link to posts on your blog, which I will also continue to do.
***Rep. Geoff Simpson calls bullshit on the anti-light rail attacks dressed up in “governance reform” language:
You hear a lot of talk about “governance reform.” This push is coming from fans of regional financing of state highways and those opposed to light rail. Sound Transit is delivering projects on time and on budget, bringing in hundreds of millions in federal funds and passing audits with the highest grades.
The only thing I regret? That Rep. Simpson represents Kent. You rarely hear Seattle legislators speaking up like this about Sound Transit.
***Rick Steves is my homeboy.
***The P-I interviews tourists about Downtown Seattle:
Convention scouts descended on Seattle to rate its suitability to host major events and pronounced their judgment: The food is good, the people are great, the weather’s a bit of a drag – and could we please do something about all the transients downtown?
Seattle has always had a visible homeless population for as long as I can remember. It is also one of the most needlessly politicized issues we face.
When the Clark County Republican Party got caught posting the “Obama is a Muslim” smear on the front page of their official web site, I suppose you could’ve just chalked it up to stupidity or venality or wankery (or all three.) But now that a second county Republican Party has been caught officially peddling the exact same lies… well… that establishes a pattern.
A comment on Slog, (via Jon Devore) points us to a January 19, 2008 opinion piece in Aberdeen, WA’s Daily World, in which assistant editor Dan Jackson rails against the “mostly untrue and hugely inflammatory” email that has made its way into his and millions of other inboxes. But….
The most galling and appalling thing about this e-mail is how it got to my inbox. It was passed on by a local citizen who had received it from Cathy Colley, the chairwoman of the Grays Harbor Republican Party.
If it were just from joeblow@yahoo.com, I’d groan about it and maybe even respond to the writer that it was racist and untrue. I doubt I’d be writing this column.
Clicking the “send” button doesn’t require a degree in law or political science — nor should it — but when you’re the Republican Party chairwoman, you should know better than to forward something inflammatory that hasn’t been vetted.
Or, to forward something inflammatory that has been vetted, and totally debunked both here and here.
Two Republican Party organizations have now been caught officially pushing the same racist lies about Barack Obama, suggesting a common theme, if not a coordinated campaign of hatemongering and innuendo. It is time for state GOP chair Luke Esser to hold party officials accountable for their actions, or be held accountable for his own.
State Senator Mike Carrell (R-28) tried to undermine Senator Karen Keiser’s universal health-care bill at the hearing this afternoon by grilling her star witness, state Senator Jon Erpenbach from Wisconsin.
[…]
Senator Carrell tried a little scare mongering. He brought up the right wing’s shorthand for socialism. “Given that Wisconsin is on the border with Canada,” Carrell began harrumphing, “doesn’t your plan parallel theirs?”
Senator Erpenbach laughed—gave Carrell a geography lesson—and appropriately Carrell’s loaded analogy quickly came unglued. “No, it doesn’t [parallel the Canada model] except that everyone is covered,” he quipped getting another round of laughter at the geographically challenged Republican’s expense.
Somebody’s getting an atlas for Christmas.
ECB is gaming the refs:
Dear liberal media: Please stop pretending Hillary Clinton doesn’t exist. I know the narrative you’ve written is one in which Barack Obama triumphs against all odds to defeat the baby boomers’ Democratic Party machine and achieve the American dream, but for fuck’s sake, this is an election, not a coronation, right?
I think the coronation reference is funny, considering how it used to be that Hillary was the one getting coroneted.
Mark my words, when Obama wins South Carolina, the Times is going to play it as the story of the year: Miracle long-shot candidate comes back from near-death to triumph against impossible odds.
In 2004, Deaniacs complained loudly about unfair press coverage (“yeeeeargh!!”). In 2008, Edwards people dissed the media for pushing a “two person race” construct. (That is, until it actually became a two person race, like it is now.)
I don’t think the Clinton campaign is being ignored. We’re hearing about Bill Clinton’s false allegations of voter intimidation in Nevada, and his odd misinterpretation of Obama’s Reagan comments. We’ve heard Hillary praise Joe Lieberman, and put down Martin Luther King, Jr (if ever so delicately). Even though she’s good on the issues, it’s other stuff that bugs folks and garners press coverage.
Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale) has some truly neat-o ideas for getting the GOP back into the game!
Our state must also do a better job of monitoring and addressing sex offenders. State government needs to be proactive, not reactive.
Start with your own caucus, homeboy.
On the local front, I’m working on many issues including repealing the state mandate on septic tank inspections, creating public trails districts, and ensuring local transportation projects are delivered. At the end of the legislative session we will know we were successful if we can say, “They said it couldn’t be done — but together we proved them wrong.”
Putting the kibosh on septic tank inspection? Gov. Dan Evans had his “Blueprint For Progress”… Rep. Doug Ericksen has “repealing the state mandate on septic tank inspections”.
Nothing says “solid strategy for winning back the majority” like septic tank reform.
A few weeks ago, Paul wrote about the impending return of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to their respective Comedy Central television shows and wondered:
Am I the only one who thinks Jon & Stephen have something up their sly little sleeves in returning to their shows?
[…]
Do we really think they’ll be anywhere near as funny?
I’m a regular viewer of late night TV, and I have to tell you, “Strike TV” has been “Must See TV”.
First of, Jon Stewart was on fire during his recent interview of Jonah Goldberg:
Also, Jon was very classy in changing the name of his show from “The Daily Show” to “A Daily Show” out of respect for his writers. Stephen Colbert, OTOH, relied on some pre-strike taped segments to get him through the week:
Leno, who sucks with his writers, sucks extra hard without them. David Letterman and Craig Ferguson agreed to terms independently with the writer’s guild, so they came back fully staffed. Letterman, however, returned with a crazy “old guy who lives in the woods” beard, and had it shaved off during the show. As guest Tom Hanks remarked, “Dave, that’s the kind of bit shows without writers do.”
More than any other program, “Late Night with Conan O’Brien” takes the cake for strike-related mischief. Whether it’s spinning his wedding ring on his desk, playing German techno set to a laser show, or riding down a zip line from the balcony to his desk, Conan has been making the best of a bad situation. Perhaps the best example of goofy-ass shit on “Late Night” is the giant rat maze that guest Tom Brokaw had to navigate just to get to the stage:
[Unfortunately, the clip won’t embed properly, so click here to check it out.]
It seems to me, the real environmental battle in Olympia this session is going to concern tolling.
[…]
The battle will be over this: What percentage of the money that’s generated from tolls should go to roads and what percentage should go to transit? The annoying negotiating starting point is a 90/10 split—90 for roads.
The transportation chairs in both the senate and the house […] are reportedly leaning toward keeping the dollars funneled toward roads for now.
Tolls collected by bridges should be spent replacing or maintaining bridges. I don’t know what kind of transit Josh is alluding to here. Light rail? Buses? Light rail is too expensive to be paid for with tolls on bridges. Maybe Josh is talking about “transit as mitigation” during construction. (Lots of new buses, getting stuck in traffic through Kenmore as they go around the lake. A sight to see!)
How about this: Spend bridge tolls on the bridge. Then, continue tolling, putting that money in a bank account. Then, in 50 years, when that 520 bridge is falling apart, we can just write a check to replace it. That way we can avoid the whole “90/10” argument, the whole “roads vs. transit” argument, and other dumb arguments that keep our region from getting shit done. I’m no Jim Vesely, but that seems like a good way to go.
John McCain is one wild and crazy guy:
At an event this morning in Michigan, John McCain joked that going on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show is “dangerous experience”:
I also want to assure you that from my encounters with young Americans in the military and Google and colleges, universities, high schools, even — I even went on MTV Town Hall — interesting experience. Going on Jon Stewart: That’s a dangerous experience. Letterman, Leno — I try to reach out to young people. And every time I’m around a group of young Americans, I am enthusiastic and my faith is restored.
McCain is, of course, joking. But I think it’s funny that a conservative Republican, running for President, thinks that going on a cable show somehow wins him points with his GOP base. McCain has always been somewhat of a media whore. Take, for example, his turn hosting Saturday Night Live, for which he missed a critical spending vote.
I also find it odd that McCain says that his “faith is restored” by the young people who show up for The Daily Show taping. Those kids are high. Either McCain is one hip guy or he’s not paying attention.
Actual voter suppression in the works, thanks to the Bush Court:
There are many ways to lose a Supreme Court case, and by the end of an argument that was before the court on Wednesday, the Democrats who were challenging Indiana’s voter-identification law appeared poised to lose theirs in a potentially sweeping way, with implications for many future election cases.
One of the big problems I have with folks who cry “vote fraud” is that it isn’t nearly as common as voter suppression. Requiring voter ID at the polls, which is what Indiana has done, creates greater barriers to voting, and Republicans push for these laws because they know that Democrats are more likely to not have proper ID with them on election day. Another trick is to put fewer (or broken) voting machines in black neighborhoods. Mix in the occasional purge of the voter rolls in Democratic neighborhoods and you have a recipe for actual, honest-to-God voter suppression. All of this is far, far easier to pull off than some sort of big voter fraud conspiracy.
Get off the voter stuff in NH and focus on a real threat to our democracy. With huge turnouts more than likely this election, what will happen at the polling stations when Americans are turned away because of these new rules? We’ve had to fight for our right to vote and we must continue to do so.
What?! Lee voted for Dino Rossi?!!! I never knew. I guess that’s just one of those uncomfortable questions that never comes up in polite society… you know, like, “Do you find your sister sexy?” or “Who’s your favorite actor on the sit-com Two and a Half Men?”
As for his anti-Gregoire screed, Lee warned me last night that he had this particular post in the hopper, giving me the opportunity to edit or nix it in advance, but I chose not to even read it before it went live. Lee has the same deal here as the rest of my HA co-bloggers: he can write on whatever he wants whenever he wants, and in exchange, I can yank his posting privileges without warning. Nobody edits me, and I’m not about to edit them. I always knew Lee was one of those weird libertarianish kinda guys, and I never expected to agree with everything he posted, but he’s a sharp analyst and an entertaining writer, and that’s exactly what we shoot for here on HA.
But, you know, it is possible to go too far.
The impetus for Lee’s post is Gov. Gregoire’s comment on former Gov. Booth Gardner’s proposed assisted suicide initiative: “I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.” To Lee, the governor’s position is hypocritical or worse:
I find it extremely difficult to understand how a person can see abortion as a fundamental right, but also see the right for a terminally ill individual to control their own death as being subject to other people’s moral qualms.
[…] As I was researching this post and looking for Gregoire’s past statements on abortion, you’ll find that it’s nearly impossible to find statements directly from her that affirm her support for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was “against abortion.” At this point, I have no idea who’s really telling the truth. But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite. If I had to guess, I’d say her stance on assisted suicide is the real Gregoire and her pro-choice position is a pander.
I wholeheartedly agree with Lee in supporting assisted suicide legislation, but I think he jumps to conclusions regarding Gov. Gregoire’s position, and in general fails to display his usual sense of nuance. Gov. Gregoire told reporters that “on a personal level” she finds it difficult to support assisted suicide — but that doesn’t necessarily mean she would actively oppose Gov. Gardner’s initiative. Likewise, I find no hypocrisy in an elected official personally being “against abortion” yet fully supporting a woman’s legal right to choose. In fact, I’ve always assumed that as a practicing Catholic Gov. Gregoire accepts her church’s teaching that abortion under any circumstance is a sin. The significant difference between Rossi and Gregoire on this issue is that he would seek to impose his own morality through force of law, whereas she would not.
Without a doubt, the modern American politician I admire most is former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, a liberal icon and a devout Catholic who spoke thoughtfully and eloquently on this very issue. It has been well over a decade since I last read the text of the speech he gave at the University of Notre Dame on September 13, 1984 — “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective” — but with the GOP having since transformed itself into the Pro-Life Party and the defender of a Christianist America, Gov. Cuomo’s remarks are more pertinent now than ever. In this speech the governor reveals himself to be profoundly reverent of unborn life, and yet he distinguishes between his private role as a Catholic and his role as a public official:
As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created, and we never have. We thought Church doctrine was clear on this, and – more than that – both of us felt it in full agreement with what our hearts and our consciences told us. For me, life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine Justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me. A fetus is different from an appendix or a set of tonsils. At the very least, even if the argument is made by some scientists or some theologians that in the early stages of fetal development we can’t discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That – to my less subtle mind – by itself should demand respect, caution, indeed…reverence.
But not everyone in our society agrees with me and Matilda.
[…]The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.
I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or non-believer, or as anything else you choose.
We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us.
I do not ask Gov. Gregoire or any other politician to endorse my moral perspective or keep silent on their own, I only expect that they respect my right to act on my perspective freely. Likewise, I don’t expect Gov. Gregoire to hold the same legislative priorities as I do, and given the political reality, even a legislative attempt at codifying assisted suicide would not only be unlikely, it would almost certainly come back to voters in the form of a referendum. Gov. Gregoire was asked about assisted suicide and she honestly answered that “on a personal level” she would find it very difficult to support. I have no problems with that as long as she does not use the power and influence of her office to oppose the initiative.
As for Lee’s further critique, that Gov. Gregoire ran “a hollow campaign with no ideas,” and “nearly always reverts to the most authoritarian solutions”… well… I think he overstates the situation. She did not run a very compelling campaign in 2004 (hence Rossi’s near victory) and she’s not the kind of progressive champion most of us bloggers would prefer. But overall, within the pragmatic scheme of things, she’s been a good governor… and certainly far, far better than the alternative.
Lee voices regrets over his protest vote for Rossi, but says that at this point he can’t vote for Gregoire either. On this point and others, Lee is wrong. But as long as he doesn’t try to impose his beliefs on me, I’ll gladly permit him to continue posting his wrong beliefs here on HA.
Jerry Cornfield writes about the effort by former Governor Booth Gardner to bring Oregon’s assisted suicide law to Washington. His “Death with Dignity” initiative will be filed this morning at 10am.
Oregon’s law has functioned as expected since its inception 10 years ago. Despite the howling of those who claimed that the law would lead to mass suicides, only a tiny fraction of Oregonians take advantage of this law each year to legally end their lives on their own terms. Unfortunately, as David Postman reports, this initiative will have opposition from the Governor’s office:
Gov. Chris Gregoire is talking to reporters in Olympia. She was just asked her position on the assisted suicide initiative that former Gov. Booth Gardner will file tomorrow. Gardner, who has Parkinsons, has been a mentor to Gregoire. Gregoire’s voice cracked when she answered the question:
“I love my friend Booth Gardner and my heart goes out to his condition and what he’s had to face. He was my motivation for the Life Sciences Discovery Fund. I pray every day that we will find a cure. But I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.”
That’s interesting, because back in 2004, when she was running for governor, the following appeared in the Seattle PI:
State Attorney General Christine Gregoire, the leading Democratic candidate for governor, said she does not see a conflict between her Catholic faith and protecting abortion rights, said Morton Brilliant, her press secretary.
Gregoire is “deeply faithful and also strongly committed to a woman’s right to choose,” Brilliant said. “And she believes a woman’s right to choice is a fundamental right.”
Directly bucking [Seattle Archbishop Alex] Brunett’s edict, he added that Gregoire does not believe abortion is immoral.
“(Gregoire) does not see her role as governor as requiring her to impose her faith on the entire state,” he said. “Washington is clearly a pro-choice state, Gregoire will not shy away from that belief and will not waver in her support of that right.”
[Emphasis mine]
I find it extremely difficult to understand how a person can see abortion as a fundamental right, but also see the right for a terminally ill individual to control their own death as being subject to other people’s moral qualms.
I catch some grief from my friends for having voted for Dino Rossi in 2004, but it’s days like this (and there have been many recently) that remind me why I just couldn’t fill in that circle next to Gregoire’s name. She ran a hollow campaign with no ideas and has since become a governor that nearly always reverts to the most authoritarian solutions, rather than being concerned with the state constitution, the rights of Washington State citizens, or even the foreseeable results of her actions. In almost everything we’ve seen, she seems more interested in doing the symbolic than the sensible.
As I was researching this post and looking for Gregoire’s past statements on abortion, I found that it’s nearly impossible to find statements directly from her that affirm her support for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was “against abortion.” At this point, I have no idea who’s really telling the truth. But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite. If I had to guess, I’d say her stance on assisted suicide is the real Gregoire and her pro-choice position is a pander.
Dino Rossi is the only openly anti-choice politician I’ve ever voted for in my life, and as the election was unimaginably close, I became overly concerned about casting what was essentially a protest vote over Gregoire’s lethargic campaign that could’ve been the deciding vote in the entire election. After watching the entire Republican Party establishment act like a bunch of toddlers in the months after the election, I seriously doubt I can vote for Rossi again – but at this point, I can’t vote for Gregoire either. As the Bush era collapses into itself and gives Democrats incredible gains in Washington DC, we’re heading into a new progressive era where civil liberties actually matter again to voters, but this November Washington State residents won’t have anyone on the ballot who reflects these values.
UPDATE: Back in October, the Seattle Times had a nice story of someone in Oregon who took advantage of their right to choose.
New Yorker Political columnist Hendrik Hertzberg writes about the National Popular Vote plan.
The National Popular Vote plan is the state compact that, if enacted by enough states, would have member states award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Essentially, the plan is a constitutional way of creating a national popular vote without the difficulties of amending the U.S. Constitution. The National Popular Vote plan has been championed by Dr. John R. Koza, who is Chairman of National Popular Vote Inc.
Hertzberg looks at Koza’s research into the “wrong winner” problem, in which the winner of the electoral college vote loses the popular vote (like happened in 2000). Koza uses national head-to-head general election polls and compares them to state head-to-head polls. Hertzberg writes:
A 2000-style disaster for democracy could easily befall us again this year, as Koza has just written an interesting analysis to show.
By compiling state-by-state polling data, Darryl Holman, a University of Washington social scientist, has run eight mock general-election pair-ups between Democratic and Republican candidates, showing who would win and who would lose in the Electoral College if the election were held today. What Koza has done is to compare Holman’s findings with a calculation of what the national popular vote would be, using national polls taken in the same time periods.
Koza’s startling finding: In three out of Holman’s eight head-to-head face-offs, the national popular-vote winner loses the electoral vote—and with it, of course, the mock election.
(Hey…I’m glad someone found those analyses useful!)
Hertzberg provides Koza’s entire analysis.
It is hard to argue in favor of our current system of electing our Presidents via the winner-take-all Electoral College approach. (Well…ignoring the “It’s how we’ve always done it!” argument, anyway.) Two hundred years ago the system might have made some sense, but today we really should be electing the President through a popular vote.
One thing is certain though…the Electoral College is not going to go away anytime soon. But since the Constitution give the states control over how electors are selected, the National Popular Vote compact (if enacted by enough states to control the majority of the Electoral College votes) would effectively and legally create a popular vote for President. And with no need to amend the U.S. Constitution.
Think of the advantages to this system…. First, candidates will no longer spend the vast majority of their time pandering to a few important swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Right now, a voter in Ohio has far more influence in electing the President than you have. It just shouldn’t be so. In an ideal democracy, every person’s vote should carry the same weight.
A popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign more broadly so as to reach as many voters as possible. It would mean that candidates visiting Washington for fundraising would actually engage in this activity called campaigning. Imagine that…Washington state no longer being treated like an ATM machine!
Finally, a popular vote gets rid of the embarrassing (albeit rare) situation—like we saw in 2000—where the loser of the popular vote ends up being President.
The Washington state legislature is about to take up work on a National Popular Vote bill:
The 10 legislative sponsors of the National Popular Vote bill in Washington State include Representatives Joe McDermott, Shirley Hankins, Mark Miloscia, Mike Armstrong, Fred Jarrett, and Tom Campbell and Senators Eric Oemig, Darlene Fairley, Craig Pridemore, and Jeanne Kohl-Welles. The House bill is HB 1750 (Status of HB 1750), and the Senate bill is SB 5628 (Status of SB 5628).
If you like the idea of Washington state participating in the compact, contact your Washington state Senator and Representatives. Here is a good place to start.
To learn more about the progress of the compact in other states, visit the National Popular Vote web site.
(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)
This week’s Birds Eye View Contest is not likely to be unsolved for very long.
Dominic Holden has an article in The Stranger this week that deserves as wide an audience as possible.
Also, Jim Miller is not clear on why no Democrats have responded to his request. I think my colleague Carl already covered this when he explained, “Maybe it’s Because You’re An Idiot?.”
I’m afraid I have to take exception to this statement by Goldy:
Oh… and the fact that polls generally show Edwards as being the toughest Democrat to beat… that doesn’t hurt him in my book either.
I suppose Goldy is relying on national head-to-head polls like these. The problem with such national polls is that they don’t reflect the way we elect our Presidents.
Rather than looking at the national head-to-head polls, we should be examining state head-to-head polls and take into consideration the number of votes each state gets in the Electoral College.
In fact, I have been doing just that for a number of months. Essentially, I’ve collected the state head-to-head polls taken in 2007 and have been analyzing the polls as a way of evaluating the relative strength of candidates.
Now I am going to switch into statistical wonk mode and explain my analyses. If you just want to see the results, skip over the Methods section and pick up from the Results.
To analyze the poll data I take the last month of polls for each state as a way to increase the certainty and (hopefully) minimize biases inherent in individual polls. If there is no polls taken in the last month, I use the most recent poll available in 2007. The analysis could stop at this stage after simply tallying the number of Electoral College votes each candidate would receive for each state based on the poll data.
The one problem with this approach is that it doesn’t account for the uncertainty in the polls. For example, suppose a poll in Pennsylvania of 500 individuals gives Clinton 51% and Giuliani 49% of the vote. Clinton’s lead comes from only five individuals who went for Clinton instead of Giuliani. In fact, statisticians would tell us that there is substantial sampling error because of the small sample size and the very close percentages. The statistician would do some calculations (or simulations) and tell us that the poll indicates that Clinton has only a 69.9% chance of winning, and Giuliani has a 30.1% chance of winning.
In simulating a national election, I do this same evaluation over all states. Here is how it works. I simulate elections using only information from state head-to-head polls (with one exception discussed below). Each single election proceeds state by state, pooling polls from the last month (or the most recent poll if no polls were taken in the last month). For each person polled in the state, I randomly draw votes according to the observed probabilities found by the state’s poll(s).
After conducting such elections in all fifty states (plus Washington D.C.), the electoral vote is totaled and a winner determined from the electoral vote count.
This process is repeated 10,000 times. The result is a distribution of electoral votes for the pair of candidates that fully accounts for the sampling error in the polls used. For example, here is the distribution of electoral votes for a Clinton—McCain match-up from a few days ago:
In this example Clinton won 9,167 simulated elections and McCain won 779 simulated elections. (There were also 54 ties that would go to the House of Representatives and almost certainly result in a Clinton victory.) Thus, the poll data suggests that, if the election were held today, Clinton would have a 92.2% chance of beating McCain.
Oh…about that exception I mentioned above. Some states have had no polls taken at all. In that case, I always assign the electoral votes for the state according to the 2004 presidential election outcome. For the most part, states that have had no polls taken are not likely to hold any surprises. In any case, this procedure slightly favors the Republican candidate (since Bush won in 2004).
Here are the results after simulating a variety of match-ups. (Additionally, I provide a link to my most recent analysis. In most cases the published analysis is slightly older than the analysis from today given in the table below, but the numbers are close.)
| Republican | Democrat | Probability the Democrat wins | Average electoral votes for Democrat | Link |
| Giuliani | Clinton | 100% | 342 | Analysis |
| Huckabee | Clinton | 100% | 335 | Analysis |
| McCain | Clinton | 92.1% | 293 | Analysis |
| Romney | Clinton | 100% | 385 | Analysis |
| Thompson | Clinton | 100% | 354 | Analysis |
| Giuliani | Edwards | 4.90% | 237 | Analysis |
| McCain | Edwards | 99.4 | 303 | — |
| Romney | Edwards | 100% | 388 | — |
| Thompson | Edwards | 100% | 358 | — |
| Giuliani | Obama | 27.7% | 258 | Analysis |
| Huckabee | Obama | 88.7% | 277 | — |
| McCain | Obama | 4.4% | 237 | — |
| Romney | Obama | 100% | 376 | Analysis |
| Thompson | Obama | 100% | 329 | — |
Right now Clinton does better against Republican challengers—she beats every one of them with a high degree of certainty. Edwards does very poorly against Giuliani, although he does a little bit better than Clinton against McCain. Obama doesn’t do well against either Giuliani or McCain right now.
Keep in mind that the analysis only suggests what would happen if the election were held right now. (Interpret this the way you might the speedometer on a long trip—it gives you some idea of your progress even though you know your speed is going to change along the way.)
Things will certainly change in the next ten months, but what we can say now is that Clinton has some advantage over both Obama and Edwards in a general election. Is Clinton’s advantage right now important in the long run? It’s hard to say. It’s not even clear to me that her advantage should be considered over more fundamental characteristics like political philosophy and policy positions. Perhaps some readers will use this information as a tie-breaker.
As for me? I still have no idea who I will support at tonight’s straw caucus. Maybe I’ll pretend to be a Republican….
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!