Dear Person who left this in my yard:
It’s gone now…got in the way while I was raking.
But before you put up a new one, please have the courtesy to fill out the application in the box by the door. Please print legibly, and pay particular attention the the section labeled, “Next of Kin.”
Love and Kisses,
—Darryl
Jon does Barack.
Mark Fiore: microtargetting undecideds.
Sam Seder with a new edition of Random Rush.
The Candidates Have Dinner Together:
Sam Seder: Breaking down Benghazi; the G.O.P.’s scandalquest.
White House: West Wing Week.
Newsy: Another appeal’s court finds DOMA unconstitutional.
Sam Seder: FAUX and Fiends lose their minds over BASIC MATH.
Obama: Commit to vote.
Pap: The continuing G.O.P. war on voting.
Willard (and friends):
Maddow: Maricopa County Elections puts wrong election date on form—in Spanish only.
Sam Seder: Federal Appeals Court rules DOMA unconstitutional.
Jennifer Granholm: Debunking conservative myths—what your Republican uncle needs to know.
Liberal Viewer: FAUX News or CNN less biased on Romney politicizing death of ex-SEAL.
SlateTV: The Boss is back!
Maddow: Party differences apparent in donor list.
Debate, Town Hall Style:
Young Turks: “Lowlife Scumbag”…Congressional debate gets heated.
John Fugelsang: The week in amnesia—a tale of two 9/11s:
Mitchell and Maddow: Obama touts advocacy for women.
Thom with The Good, The Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.
Jennifer Granholm: Issa’s sensitive document dump jeoporadizes security.
Sam Seder: Rep. Joe Walsh opens up new front on the War on Women™.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
| Obama | Romney |
| 96.7% probability of winning | 3.3% probability of winning |
| Mean of 300 electoral votes | Mean of 238 electoral votes |
Our previous analysis had seen President Barack Obama slip a little but more, although he still led Gov. Mitt Romney by a mean of 288 to 250 electoral votes. The analysis further concluded that Obama would only have an 86.5% probability of winning an election now; Romney was at a 13.5% probability of winning.
Some new polls have arrived.
Some comments on polls: First, there were a boatload of polls released by YouGov on Tuesday. If you are an Obama fan, they look pretty encouraging. Alas, I will not be including them in my analysis, as they are on-line polls. For the same reason, I will not include this Zogby poll in Florida showing Obama up +3%.
Second, there is a new New Jersey poll from Neighborhood Research on behalf of Americans for Prosperity released yesterday. It shows Obama with a +7% lead in New Jersey.
I was very tempted to totally ignore a poll from a David Koch group formed out of the Tea Party movement. But the methods section points out that:
This poll was commissioned as a public service to provide citizens with information related to public policy.
Call me a sucker, call me a fool, but until someone can show me that this was a selectively released or intentionally biased poll, I’ll follow my rules and include it.
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| CO | PPP | 16-Oct | 18-Oct | 1000 | 3.1 | 50 | 47 | O+3 |
| CO | Grove Insight | 15-Oct | 16-Oct | 500 | 4.4 | 47 | 44 | O+3 |
| CO | WeAskAmerica | 15-Oct | 15-Oct | 1206 | 2.9 | 47.0 | 48.1 | R+1.1 |
| CT | PPP | 15-Oct | 16-Oct | 1015 | 3.1 | 53 | 44 | O+9 |
| CT | U CT | 11-Oct | 16-Oct | 574 | 4.0 | 51 | 37 | O+14 |
| CT | Siena | 04-Oct | 14-Oct | 552 | 4.2 | 53 | 38 | O+15 |
| IN | Rasmussen | 10-Oct | 11-Oct | 600 | 4.0 | 41 | 54 | R+13 |
| IA | Marist | 15-Oct | 17-Oct | 1137 | 2.9 | 51 | 43 | O+8 |
| IA | WeAskAmerica | 15-Oct | 15-Oct | 1499 | 2.6 | 48.7 | 45.9 | O+2.8 |
| MA | PPP | 15-Oct | 16-Oct | 709 | 3.7 | 57 | 39 | O+18 |
| MA | Rasmussen | 10-Oct | 10-Oct | 500 | 4.5 | 57 | 42 | O+15 |
| MI | EPIC/MRA | 17-Oct | 17-Oct | 800 | 3.5 | 52 | 46 | O+6 |
| MI | Denno Research | 11-Oct | 11-Oct | 500 | 4.5 | 44.2 | 40.5 | O+3.7 |
| MN | SurveyUSA | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 550 | 4.3 | 50 | 40 | O+10 |
| MT | PPP | 15-Oct | 16-Oct | 806 | 3.5 | 43 | 53 | R+10 |
| MT | Rasmussen | 14-Oct | 14-Oct | 500 | 4.5 | 45 | 53 | R+8 |
| NV | Grove Insight | 15-Oct | 16-Oct | 500 | 4.4 | 50 | 43 | O+7 |
| NV | Rasmussen | 15-Oct | 15-Oct | 500 | 4.5 | 50 | 47 | O+3 |
| NV | SurveyUSA | 11-Oct | 15-Oct | 806 | 3.5 | 48 | 45 | O+3 |
| NH | Rasmussen | 15-Oct | 15-Oct | 500 | 4.5 | 50 | 49 | O+1 |
| NH | Suffolk | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 500 | 4.4 | 46.8 | 47.2 | R+0.4 |
| NJ | Neighborhood Research | 10-Oct | 14-Oct | 783 | 3.5 | 48.4 | 41.4 | O+7.0 |
| NJ | Quinnipiac | 10-Oct | 14-Oct | 1319 | 2.7 | 51 | 43 | O+8 |
| NC | Rasmussen | 17-Oct | 17-Oct | 500 | 4.5 | 46 | 52 | R+6 |
| OH | Rasmussen | 17-Oct | 17-Oct | 750 | 4.0 | 49 | 48 | O+1 |
| OH | SurveyUSA | 12-Oct | 15-Oct | 613 | 4.0 | 45.4 | 42.4 | O+2.9 |
| PA | Quinnipiac | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 1519 | 2.5 | 50 | 46 | O+4 |
| PA | Susquehanna | 11-Oct | 13-Oct | 1376 | — | 45 | 49 | R+4 |
| WA | PPP | 15-Oct | 16-Oct | 574 | — | 50 | 45 | O+5 |
| WA | Rasmussen | 14-Oct | 14-Oct | 500 | 4.5 | 55 | 42 | O+13 |
| WA | SurveyUSA | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 543 | 4.3 | 54 | 40 | O+14 |
| WA | Washington Poll | 01-Oct | 16-Oct | 644 | 3.9 | 51.9 | 42.9 | O+9.0 |
| WI | Marist | 15-Oct | 17-Oct | 1013 | 3.1 | 51 | 45 | O+6 |
| WI | Marquette | 11-Oct | 14-Oct | 870 | 3.4 | 48.5 | 48.1 | O+0.5 |
Just a couple of weeks ago, Romney seemed on the road to building a solid lead in Colorado. Today, Obama has a +3% in two new polls, and Romney gets a +1.1% lead in another. But with nine current polls (and 5 of them in Obama’s favor), Obama ends up winning 71% of the elections in the state:
Two new polls in Iowa go to Obama, on by a remarkable +8% and the other one by an unremarkable +2.8%. Romney leads in none of the four current polls and the analysis suggests Obama would take the state with a 96% probability.
We also get two new Michigan polls. One has Obama up by a middling +6% and the other by an unimpressive +3.7%. Still, Obama takes all seven current polls, and Romney has not led in the past 20 polls…dating back to August. Obama is at a 99% probability of taking the state in an election now.
Two new Montana polls verify that Romney really does have a high single-digit lead. Romney is at 100% in the state.
Three Nevada polls all go to Obama by mid-single digits. Aside from one tie, Obama has led in the seven current polls. The polling trend seems to show Obama’s lead growing again and almost reaching his mid-September high:
New Hampshire flipped from Obama to Romney after the first debate. Now we may be seeing it just starting to flop back. Obama takes one of two new polls, but still lags Romney in our current polls. Based on these polls, Romney would win with a 64% probability an election held now.
Romney seem to be hanging on to his lead in North Carolina with help of this new +6%. Romney takes all five of the current polls, and would be almost certain to win the state right now:
Two new polls in Ohio both go to Obama, but by pretty small margins (+1% and +2.9%). Even so, Obama has eight of twelve current polls and his series of small leads provide evidence he would win the state in an election now with an 87% probability:
The biggest surprise of this batch of polls is that Mitt Romney finally takes the lead in one Pennsylvania poll. But, Obama leads by an equal amount in the other Pennsylvania poll, and one that is slightly larger (and newer). Overall, Obama takes seven of eight current polls, but the new one knocks Obama down to only a 92% probability of winning the state now.
Four new Washington polls give Obama leads from +5% to +14%. Combining the four current polls suggest Obama would win Washington with a probability of 100% by about +10%.
Two new Wisconsin polls both go to Obama, although one by a tiny margin. Still, with Obama up in all six current polls, it earns him a 95% probability of taking the state.
Now, 100,000 simulated elections later, Obama wins 96,710 times and Romney wins 3,290 times (and Romney gets the 414 ties out of this, too). Obama receives (on average) 300 (+12) to Romney’s 238 (-12) electoral votes. The Monte Carlo analysis suggests that, if the election was today, Obama would have a 96.7% (+10.2%) probability of winning and Romney would have a 3.3% (-10.2%) probability of winning.
You could say that the past three days have not been good polling days for Romney. It is always dangerous to call a trend after a single analysis, but it look like the previous analysis marked Romney’s high water mark, about the same he achieved after the Republican convention.
This can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 18 Oct 2011 to 18 Oct 2012, and including polls from the preceding 14 days (FAQ). See the little upward blip?
The same upward blip can be seen in the Intrade chart of median prices that I captured this morning:
Yes another poll has been release in the WA gubernatorial contest between former Rep. Jay Inslee and Washington AG Rob McKenna. This one is the Washington Poll. The poll surveyed 644 likely voters from October 1 to October 16.
The poll has Inslee leading McKenna by 47.1% to 46.3%. The margin of error is 3.9%. The +0.8% lead is consistent with two other recent polls. Yesterday’s PPP poll had Inslee leading by +5%. And just before that, a SurveyUSA poll had Inslee up by +3%. This new poll covers a broader, and older set of dates.
A Monte Carlo analysis using a million simulated elections, using only data from this new poll gives Inslee 555,393 wins to McKenna’s 432,729 wins. This suggests that, if the election was held now, Inslee would win with a probability of 56.2% and McKenna would win with a 43.8% probability.
Here is the distribution of election outcomes:
Given that we have three polls that are either consecutive or overlapping, lets look at what they have to jointly say about the state of this race.
The pooled set with this new poll and the PPP and SurveyUSA polls mentioned above give us a sample of 1,761 people. Of the 1,612 who had a partisan preference, 834 (47.4%) preferred Inslee and 788 (44.2%) preferred McKenna. The Monte Carlo analysis gives Inslee 835,698 wins to McKenna’s 160,205 wins.
Jointly, the polls suggest that in an election right now, Inslee would win with a 83.9% probability to McKenna’s 16.1% probability. Here is the distribution:
By standard statistical inference, Inslee’s lead isn’t quite “significant.” But the larger polling trend shows that Inslee holds a small, but consistent lead over McKenna:
Note: This post was originally written using the numbers for Registered Voters, simply because I hadn’t noticed that results for Likely Voters was available. I subsequently reanalyzed the data and rewrote the post to reflect the Likely Voter numbers. I regret the error…because, man, was that a pain in the ass!
Over at The Stranger, Dan Savage and Goldy have teamed up to lay out the Big Case against gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna:
Rob McKenna has been running for governor his entire adult life. And his whole electoral strategy has always relied on tricking enough King County voters—voters like you—into believing he’s not another one of those Republicans. McKenna doesn’t want you to think he’s one of those Romney/Ryan class-warfare-waging, Koch-sucking GOPers who wants to bust unions, repeal Obamacare, ban gay marriage, outlaw abortion, and unravel what remains of the social safety net, all in the service of cutting taxes on corporations and millionaires.
It is an electoral strategy that almost worked for Dino Rossi in 2004, and one that McKenna has been expertly executing for years. You may have seen those posters asking you to vote for President Obama, R-74, and Rob McKenna—McKenna opposes both President Obama and R-74—and it’s clever messaging. It is also a complete and total fucking lie. And McKenna is praying that you’re stupid enough to fall for it.
But you’re not that stupid, are you?
The piece is epic…it systematically, issue by issue, lays out the case that McKenna is NOT the politician that he has been selling to King County voters. It’s a damn fine read, too.
My guess is that, if you’ve read this far, you need no further convincing. You’ve seen the arguments before—probably right here—on each point. But you’re not like every other King County voter, because most King County voters don’t read either HorsesAss or The Stranger.
Instead, they’re reading the Seattle Times Political Action Committee. They probably haven’t a clue about the Real McKenna.
Instead, these arugula-eating, Prius-driving, war-hatin’ liberals may only be listening to KUOW and KPLU. Rob may come off as, meh, but inoffensive; they don’t see the Big Picture.
Instead they’re young, politically disengaged, voters struggling with a minimum wage jobs. They’re likely unaware of the huge stake they have in this race.
What Goldy and Dan have done is given YOU a tool: A detailed, well-written, logical, and organized portfolio of The Real McKenna.
You now have the framework to educate your family, friends and neighbors that Rob Mckenna is no Dan Evans Republican. He is much closer to a Scott Walker—just a lot smarter and more cautious.
Friends don’t let friends get fooled!
Just yesterday, we had a Survey USA poll to analyze in the Washington state gubernatorial contest between former Congressman Jay Inslee and Washington state AG Rob McKenna.
An now we have another poll, this one from Public Policy Polling (PPP) on behalf of the Washington Conservation Voters. The new poll is of 574 likely voters taken from October 15 to 16. The poll has Inslee leading McKenna 48% to 42%. The +5% for Inslee bests the +3% we saw yesterday.
A Monte Carlo analysis using 1,000,000 simulated elections using the new poll result gives Inslee 853,506 wins and McKenna 139,477 wins. The analysis suggests that if the election was held today, we’d expect to see Inslee come out on top 86% of the time. Here is the distribution of election outcomes:
The Survey USA poll I mentioned yesterday was in the field from the 12th to the 14th of October, so it makes sense to combine these two polls as one covering the 12th through the 16th.
The Monte Carlo analysis is now working with a total of 1,117 individuals of which 531 (47.5%) selected Inslee and 480 (43.0%) selected McKenna. In the simulations Inslee wins 865,961 times. McKenna wins 128,942 times. So, in our election covering the 12th through the 16th, Inslee takes 87.0% and McKenna 13.0%. Not much difference from the PPP poll alone, really. Here’s the distribution of election results:
The new PPP Poll gives Inslee eight consecutive polls in which he is ahead of McKenna, a streak that dates back to mid-July.
As it happens, there will be a new Washington Poll released tomorrow afternoon that should have even more insight into the gubernatorial race and some of the other down-ballot races and measures. Stay tuned….
A new poll has been released for the Washington state gubernatorial contest. The Survey USA poll finds former WA-1 Congressman Jay Inslee leading Washington state AG Rob McKenna by 47% to 44%. The poll of 543 people (MOE 4.3) was taken from 12th to the 14th of October. The poll was commissioned by KING 5.
This new one makes seven consecutive polls in which Inslee leads McKenna, a streak that dates back to mid-July.
A Monte Carlo analysis with a million simulated elections using the newest poll results gives Inslee 692,593 wins to McKenna’s 296,697 wins. This suggests that, if the election was held today, Inslee would win with a 70% probability, and McKenna with a 30% chance. Here is the distribution of election outcomes from the simulation:
Inslee’s lead is not significant by standard statistical inference. Even so, the longer trajectory facilitates understanding of the state of this race:
Clearly, Inslee maintains a small, but consistent, lead in the race.
And given what a snoozer the debates have been, don’t expect any big changes in the standings.
Our next debate in tonight’s double header is AG Rob McKenna (R) versus former WA-01 Congressman Jay Inslee. I think it is supposed to be carried by KUOW, but fucking Wiretapped is on.
So, I’ll look for the debate on my portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio, and you folks can talk about the debate. In case none of us get the debate….this is just an open thread.
8:02: There is a new poll in the gubernatorial contest. Inslee leads Romney McKenna. I’ll post an analysis right after the debate.
8:06: Okay…Goldy just walked in the door and tells me I can stream the debate on KING 5. Awaiting audio…
8:09: Got the video on big screen Tee Vee and the audio streaming. Has anyone ever noticed that Rob McKenna looks like a transgendered individual?
8:11: Carl Ballard was wondering what kind of pin Inslee is wearing. A hammer and sickle pin, obviously.
8:13: [Carl] For Halloween, McKenna is going to be a skeleton with a toupee.
8:14: McKenna has some round pin with shit on the inside. If I’m not mistaken, that is the official pin of the ALEC bootcamp. Am I right?
8:18: McKenna would sink the head of the ferry system! Yikes!
8:19: Rob McKenna looks like he wants to puke. Get that man a bucket!
8:21: Rob McKenna goes to REI and that somehow is related to closing tax loopholes.
8:22: Can we get to the physical confrontation part of this debate, please?
8:27: We have enter the uberwonkery part of the debate. Jay Inslee wins just because he doesn’t whine like McKenna.
8:29: The departs from the format and they ask each other questions. Oh, please. This is bullshit.
8:30: Rob McKenna gets testy…which is as close to masculine as he gets all night…just because of the word.
8:34: McKenna is totally pro-women. But Inslee points out that there are three things missing from his answer. For example, McKenna is opposed to the reproductive parity act.
8:36: A question comes, via video tape, from a sister station in Spokane. If Washington wasn’t such a backward state, that would have been a hologram!
8:41: McKenna repeats his TOTALLY retarded pseudoissue about why we shouldn’t give drivers licenses to non-citizens. Ugggh!
8:44: “Lean management” comes up again. I think Rob wins, hands down. After all, he is much leaner than Inslee. But is pronounced moobs suggests he has a recreational drug habbit. Just sayin’.
8:47: On the other hand…Inslee would pummel McKenna, if only the physical confrontation phase of this debate would start.
8:48: Mr. Brunner looks like he could use some lean management….
8:51: McKenna “only” has “technical questions” about light rail across a floating bridge. Of course, he was previously recorded, before a group of right wing reactionaries, promising to stop the project. What an asshole!
8:55: I don’t know how much longer I can listen to this. Aaaarrrrrggggghhh! Whew…closing statements!
8:57: McKenna asks if you will better off putting the same people back in office. FUCK YES. Putting an asshole phoney like Rob McKenna in office will be an utter disaster for Washington state. No question about it!
It seems universally accepted that Mitt Romney scored a knock-out during the last presidential debate. And Mr. and Mrs. J. Q. Public seemed totally indifferent to the fact that Romney spent the debate telling blatant lies and “refudiating” the positions he had held—sometimes just weeks before—as Conservative Mitt.
Go figure!
But I guess this means anything goes!
Tonight, with a town-hall format, and with some remedial debate training, Obama is out for revenge. The fun begins at 6:00.
I’m liveblogging the mayhem from the Montlake Ale House. I suspect Carl and N in Seattle will be there, as well. If you can, please join us—in the comment thread or at the Ale House.
There will be blood!
6:00: I’m getting the audio from KUOW, but CNN is on the Tee Vee.
6:02: Romney goes all socialist on student loans.
6:06: OMG Obama is pointing down! Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
6:07: Obama gives “Number one”, “Number two” and “Number three” in his first answer. What a snob!
6:09: Mitt Romney has a five point plan! Doh! (Although…he may have lost some of his base going that high.)
6:09: Mitt indirectly takes credit for saving Detroit. Ignores that there was no private sector money available.
6:11: Obama is more aggressive this time. I’m sure FAUX News will say he seemed like an “angry militant” or something.
6:12: Mitt’s attempts to dominate the moderator don’t go over so well with Ms. Crowley….
6:14: Mitt is TOTALLY bullish on renewables! Uh-huh. A few minutes later: “More drilling. More pipelines.”
6:17: Obama mentions that, Mr. “Clean Coal” Romney, while governor, stood in front of a coal plant and said, “This Plant Kills.”
6:19: I think Obama wins the “production on government lands” debate. Romney was simply unaware of the “stagnant lease” issue.
6:23: Mitt goes into la-la land on his tax plan. He completely ignores the fact that THE FUCKING MATH DOESN’T FUCKING WORK. You cannot cut taxes on the wealthy as he proposes and make it up by eliminating deductions for ONLY the wealthy.
6:29: Obama: During the primary, he said “I’m going to give tax cuts to everyone, including the 1%.” He said just the opposite tonight. Mitt is the world’s fastest flip-flopper.
6:32: Obama lays out, in some detail, Romney’s 8 trillion dollars of tax cuts, but offers no details on paying for it, and then points out how Romney himself, as an investor, would never accept such a sketchy deal. Point: Obama.
6:35: “Of course my numbers add up.” Ummm…no they FUCKING DON’T.
6:35: [N in Seattle]: Gov. Romney, if it all adds up, PLEASE SHOW YOUR WORK!
6:36: Romney’s bullying isn’t working so well this time.
6:40: Romney keeps mentioning how there are more women in poverty now than when Obama took office. This completely ignores that that was Shrub’s doing. Unemployment was tanking when Obama came into office, and Obama turned it around. But like any ship, it took time. (See “Bikini Graph”)
6:45: Questioner asks Mitt about the difference between him and George Bush. Mitt is different from Shrub because he will adopt Jimmy Carter’s energy independence polity. Huh.
6:47: Mitt points out the differences…Obama points out the similarities between Mitt and Shrub. Well…some of them. He could-a gone further.
6:52: Mitt’s flaggy-flag pin is bigger than Obama’s. He wins.
6:54: Mitt: “We can’t afford four more years like the last four years.” Not really. What we CERTAINLY cannot afford is four more years like either of the Shrub four years. Those years were catastrophes that left the economy in shambles.
6:56: Mitt points out that the economy is growing more slowly this year than last. Ummm…the economy is GROWING. Under the last Republican President, the economy collapsed. That means NEGATIVE GROWTH. Any questions?
7:00: MITT Flip-Flops to become a Dream Act supporter. Holy shit…didn’t Mitt give Rick Perry SHIT in the primary for being weak on immigration for the same reason. What a fucking disingenuous asshole!
7:04: Mitt, transmorgrifies into Newt Gingrich: “I don’t want to round up 12 million people….”
7:08: Terry asks about security at an embassy in Benghazi. Obama doesn’t point out that there is no embassy in that city. (It is a Consulate.)
7:14: Obama rightly points out that the VERY DAY after the attack, he called it a terrorist attack. Mitt challenges that, and gets absolutely spanked by the moderator AND the crowd. (Bad, crowd…bad, bad, crowd.)
7:17: Questioner asks how Obama is keeping AK47s out of the hands of criminals. Obama starts out by profession loyalty to the 2nd amendment. And then says stuff…hard to follow.
7:19: There is a HUGE crowd here at the Ale House. I’m guessing 30 people here for the debate, on top of other customers.
7:23: Mitt gets cut short for not actually addressing the question about AK47s. Starts talking about hunters. FAYLE!
7:24: Obama points out that Mitt has flipped flopped on the assault weapons ban. Ouch!
7:26: Carol asks how to bring jobs home. Mitt welcomes the question…pretending that he isn’t the king of innovation in outsourcing!!!
7:28: Mitt seems to believe that business chose a “country” to be in based on tax rates. If so, you’d think that Somalia would be the business haven of the world.
7:32: Mitt, “China has been cheating.” Huh…you never did anything to encourage that behavior, did you, Willard?
7:34: Mitt’s answer on misperceptions about his disdain of the common man would be MUCH more convincing if he hadn’t been video taped telling wealthy donors that he doesn’t give a shit about 47% of Americans. Just sayin’
7:39: ITS OVER. The bloodied and battered robot Romney grabs his cheat sheet and limps off the stage….
Tonight will be another Debate Edition of Seattle’s Drinking Liberally. Please join us for an evening of political debate and conversation over a pint.
There are two debates tonight. At 6:00 pm, President Barack Obama (D) squares off against Gov. Mitt Romney (R) in a townhall format. That will be followed at 8:00 pm by a gubernatorial debate between former WA-1 Congressman Jay Inslee (D) and Washington AG Rob McKenna (R).
Note: We will have sound and audio for the presidential debate. But for the gubernatorial debate, we may have the picture, but probably no sound. Also…the bar has other customers, so the sound may not be as loud as you want, especially with the background of a busy bar and peripheral conversations. If you are serious about listening to the debate, I recommend you bring an FM radio and headsets or earbuds. Additionally, the Montlake Alehouse has free WiFi. Ask your server for the password.
We will meet at our usual place, the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.
The Montlake Ale House opens at 5:00 pm, and the presidential debate begins at 6:00 pm. Drinking liberally normally begins at 8:00 pm, but don’t hesitate to stop by earlier for the presidential debate.
There’s be some live blogging action right here.
Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings over the next week. Tonight the Tri-Cities chapter meets. The Longview and South Seattle chapters meet on Wednesday. The Spokane chapter and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meet this Thursday.
With 233 chapters of Living Liberally, including fourteen in Washington state four in Oregon and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter that meets near you.
My goal for the polling analyses is to include all polls that legitimately provide insight into the race. For this reason, I want to comment on some polls that I have excluded from analysis.
As you know, I have predefined criteria on what polls can be included in my analyses. For example I exclude all on-line polls…period. And I exclude partisan polls that are selectively released. Typically this happens when a campaign releases a poll it commissioned. Even though the poll may be above reproach, including selectively released polls introduces bias to the meta-analysis of polls.
To see why, imagine a neck-in-neck race between Republican Bob and Democrat Steve. Both campaigns do polling and, quite sensibly, release those that favor their candidate. Furthermore, suppose Crossroads GPS is very interested in Bob race, so they do a bunch of polling. Steve’s campaign does a dozen polls across the campaign, and they release the six polls that show Steve with a slight lead. Bob’s campaign is a little more poll-obsessed, and they do two-dozen polls and release the 12 polls that favor their candidate. On top of that, Crossroads GPS does and additional dozen polls and releases six that show Bob in the lead.
We can assume that individual polls are above reproach. Even so, the selective release means that at a typical point in the campaign, there will be about three polls showing Bob in the lead for every poll that shows Steve in the lead. The meta-analysis will show Bob leading in a race that is, in fact, a tie.
I bring this up because I’ve had to exclude a couple of polls from my analyses.
Yesterday, Wenzel Strategies released a poll for Missouri that showed Romney leading Obama, 54.9 to 41.1. The poll appears to be legitimate and I have no reason to believe the poll is biased or improperly done. In fact, Wenzel does something I really appreciate: they publish the counts of responses in addition to the percentages. I use the counts directly whenever possible, but aside from Survey USA, most pollsters just provide rounded percentages.
The Wenzel poll was conducted on behalf of Citizens United that:
…exists to support true conservative candidates running for federal office through direct candidate advocacy and contributions, based on our in-depth candidate research and surveys.
So, it is obviously a right-leaning organization. But that is not enough to exclude an organization’s polls. For example, the Civitas Institute is a right leaning think tank in North Carolina. I include their polls, because they pre-announce the polls, and release the results regardless of the outcome.
I though the Wenzel polls were okay, because they were released on the firm’s web site. But, I wanted to be sure. I made a call to Fritz Wenzel to ask him about it. What I learned was the following:
From our discussion, I got the impression is that Mr. Wenzel is a serious pollster who takes pride in producing high quality polls for his clients. Even so, I’ll exclude this poll, since it appears to be a selective release by a highly partisan group.
Another poll I am excluding was brought to my attention by Sam Minter, for American Crossroads:
According to a new poll shared exclusively with POLITICO, Mitt Romney is leading President Obama in a congressional district in Maine — raising the possibility of the GOP nominee winning an electoral vote in a deep blue state.
The live-call poll, conducted by Glen Bolger of NMB Research and provided to POLITICO by American Crossroads communications director Jonathan Collegio, shows Obama winning statewide 48 percent to 44 percent.
That result already puts Romney in a surprisingly competitive position in a nominally blue state.
But in Maine’s second congressional district, Romney actually tops Obama 49 percent to 44 percent.
The ME-2 result is surprising but not a valid reason for exclusion. It is the selective nature of the poll’s release that results in exclusion. American Crossroads is engaging in good PR by releasing this information, but it isn’t likely to be representative of the polling overall. Granted, I did not call up the pollster, but the case for selective release seem pretty clear.
I point out these exclusions because I want to be as transparent about some decisions that may not, a first glance, be obvious.
Additionally, I’ll use this opportunity to ask for your help. If you see a poll I am including but shouldn’t, or a poll I’ve left out but should include, let me know. The best way is to make your case for inclusion or exclusion in a poll analysis comment thread.
| Obama | Romney |
| 86.5% probability of winning | 13.5% probability of winning |
| Mean of 288 electoral votes | Mean of 250 electoral votes |
The previous analysis showed President Barack Obama leading Gov. Mitt Romney by 295 to 243 electoral votes. The Monte Carlo simulation had Obama winning 93.9% of the elections, and Romney winning 6.1%.
The polls have been trickling in over the weekend and on Monday. At press time (which really means, “start running the analysis” time I was able to dig up 16 new polls:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| AZ | Rocky Mountain | 04-Oct | 10-Oct | 523 | 4.4 | 44 | 42 | O+2 |
| CO | Gravis Marketing | 05-Oct | 11-Oct | 2089 | 2.2 | 48.4 | 46.0 | O+2.4 |
| FL | Gravis Marketing | 13-Oct | 14-Oct | 617 | 4.0 | 48 | 49 | R+1 |
| FL | PPP | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 791 | 3.4 | 48 | 49 | R+1 |
| GA | Abt SRBI | 08-Oct | 12-Oct | 706 | 5.3 | 43 | 51 | R+8 |
| ID | Mason-Dixon | 08-Oct | 10-Oct | 625 | 4.0 | 27 | 63 | R+36 |
| IA | ARG | 11-Oct | 14-Oct | 600 | 4.0 | 48 | 48 | tie |
| NM | Research & Polling | 09-Oct | 11-Oct | 658 | 3.8 | 49 | 39 | O+10 |
| NC | PPP | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 1084 | 3.0 | 47 | 49 | R+2 |
| NC | High Point U | 06-Oct | 10-Oct | 302 | — | 43 | 49 | R+6 |
| NC | High Point U | 29-Sep | 04-Oct | 291 | — | 49 | 40 | O+9 |
| OH | PPP | 12-Oct | 13-Oct | 880 | 3.3 | 51 | 46 | O+5 |
| PA | PPP | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 500 | 4.4 | 51 | 44 | O+7 |
| PA | Muhlenberg | 10-Oct | 14-Oct | 438 | 5.0 | 47 | 44 | O+3 |
| SD | Neilson Brothers | 01-Oct | 05-Oct | 762 | 3.6 | 41.1 | 51.6 | R+10.5 |
| VA | ARG | 12-Oct | 14-Oct | 600 | 4.0 | 47 | 48 | R+1 |
A big surprise from a new poll in Arizona: it gives Obama a weak lead over Romney. It seems improbable, but there you have it. There are only two current polls in Arizona, and Romney is up by +9 in the other one. Consequently, Romney would be expected to win the state with an 84% probability.
Colorado has Obama up by +2.4% over Romney in today’s poll. With eight current polls weighing in, the state is pretty close to a tie. Romney would be expected to win the state now with a 60% probability. Here is the trend:
Romney takes a +1% lead in both of the new Florida polls. Overall, he has a 87% probability of winning the state in an election held today.
We finally get an Idaho poll, and Romney leads Obama by +36%. Now we know why nobody wants to poll in the state.
Iowa is all tied up at 48% in today’s poll. But Obama leads in the only other current poll, so he ends up with a 59% chance of winning at this point.
The new New Mexico poll puts Obama up by a solid +10%—a margin right in line with the other two current polls.
There are three new polls for North Carolina, but notice that the High Point University polls include a pre-debate poll, where Obama leads, and a post debate poll, where Romney leads. He also leads in the third new poll (which is post debate). The current polls, taken together, give Romney a 97% chance of winning now. Romney has clearly recaptured the lead he held in August:
Ohio puts Obama up by +5% in today’s poll. The collection of 10 Ohio polls give Obama a +2% and 85% probability of taking the state in an election now. The long-term trend shows something of a dip in Obama’s lead, but not enough to tie up the state or give the lead to Romney.
Obama’s lead in two new Pennsylvania polls. Overall, Obama wins all ten of the current polls. That makes 37 consecutive polls that have gone to Obama, all the way back to early February.
Virginia gives Romney a +1% lead in the current poll. Romney leads in five of eight current polls and there is also a tie in one poll. Oddly enough because Obama leads more strongly in one large poll, he gets a slight overall advantage, with a 54% chance of winning an election held now.
After 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 86,465 times and Romney wins 13,535 times (including the 1,003 ties). Obama receives (on average) 288 (-7) to Romney’s 250 (+7) electoral votes. Obama has a 86.5% (-7.4%) probability of winning and Romney has a 13.5% (+7.4%) probability of winning.
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 15 Oct 2011 to 15 Oct 2012, and including polls from the preceding 14 days (FAQ).
Stephen Colbert: Obama’s secret martian gayness.
Mark Fiore: It’s the Foreign Policy, Stupid!.
Young Turks: “Some girls rape easy,” says idiot politician.
Colbert: The 7-11/Pizza Hut election (via TalkingPointsMemo).
Bad Lip Reading: The first debate.
Kimmel: The week in unnecessary censorship.
Sam Seder: GOP Rep. who cut embassy security funds blames Obama for embassy attack.
Young Turks: Pro-life Rep. demands abortion for his mistress.
Willard (and Eddie)!
Jon: “Fucking crazy” GOP candidates .
Richard Alley on Abraham Lincoln and the Founding of the National Academy of Sciences.
Barely Political: Redneck political coverage.
Jim Lehrer: Badass moderator.
Ann Telnaes: Child Marriage.
Rob McKenna puts his dancing shoes on.
Grandpa versus Eddie Munster:
Kid President’s guide to being a party.
White House: West Wing Week.
Slate: Rape victims have a message for Todd Akin.
Liberal Viewer: When is Stephen Colbert joking?
Lisa Brown and Maria Cantwell channel SNL for Marcus Riccelli:
Thom with the Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.
Jon: Poll are so worthless but so quotable (via TalkingPointsMemo).
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
| Obama | Romney |
| 93.9% probability of winning | 6.1% probability of winning |
| Mean of 295 electoral votes | Mean of 243 electoral votes |
The Monte Carlo analysis two days ago showed President Barack Obama leading Gov. Mitt Romney by a mean of 303 to 235 electoral votes. If an election was held then, we would expect Obama to win with a 95.7% probability, and Romney with a 4.3% probability. Since Obama’s probability is greater than 95%, standard statistical reasoning would call Obama’s lead “statistically significant.”
Today there were lots of new polls released.
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| CA | Pepperdine U | 07-Oct | 10-Oct | 831 | 3.4 | 54.0 | 32.9 | O+21.1 |
| CA | SurveyUSA | 07-Oct | 09-Oct | 539 | 4.3 | 53 | 39 | O+14 |
| CO | SurveyUSA | 09-Oct | 10-Oct | 614 | 4.0 | 47 | 48 | R+1 |
| CO | Quinnipiac | 04-Oct | 09-Oct | 1254 | 3.0 | 47 | 48 | R+1 |
| FL | Rasmussen | 11-Oct | 11-Oct | 750 | 4.0 | 47 | 51 | R+4 |
| FL | ARG | 08-Oct | 11-Oct | 600 | 4.0 | 46 | 49 | R+3 |
| FL | Mason-Dixon | 08-Oct | 10-Oct | 800 | 3.5 | 44 | 51 | R+7 |
| FL | Marist | 07-Oct | 09-Oct | 988 | 3.1 | 48 | 47 | O+1 |
| IL | Tribune WGN | 04-Oct | 08-Oct | 700 | 3.7 | 55 | 36 | O+19 |
| MA | PPP | 09-Oct | 11-Oct | 1051 | 3.0 | 55 | 41 | O+14 |
| MI | Rasmussen | 11-Oct | 11-Oct | 500 | 4.5 | 52 | 45 | O+7 |
| MI | Glengariff Group | 06-Oct | 08-Oct | 600 | 4.0 | 49.0 | 42.3 | O+6.7 |
| MI | Gravis Marketing | 05-Oct | 08-Oct | 1122 | 3.2 | 46.0 | 44.4 | O+1.6 |
| MT | PPP | 08-Oct | 10-Oct | 737 | 3.6 | 41 | 52 | R+11 |
| MT | MSU-Billings | 27-Sep | 30-Sep | 477 | 5.0 | 35 | 49 | R+14 |
| NV | PPP | 08-Oct | 10-Oct | 594 | 4.0 | 51 | 47 | O+4 |
| NV | Suffolk | 06-Oct | 09-Oct | 500 | 4.4 | 46.8 | 45.2 | O+1.6 |
| NH | ARG | 09-Oct | 11-Oct | 600 | 4.0 | 46 | 50 | R+4 |
| NJ | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04-Oct | 08-Oct | 604 | 4.0 | 51 | 40 | O+11 |
| NC | Rasmussen | 09-Oct | 09-Oct | 500 | 4.5 | 48 | 51 | R+3 |
| OH | Rasmussen | 10-Oct | 10-Oct | 750 | 4.0 | 48 | 47 | O+1 |
| OH | Gravis Marketing | 06-Oct | 10-Oct | 1313 | 2.7 | 45.1 | 45.9 | R+0.8 |
| OH | Marist | 07-Oct | 09-Oct | 994 | 3.1 | 51 | 45 | O+6 |
| OH | Pulse | 08-Oct | 08-Oct | 1000 | 3.0 | 47 | 46 | O+1 |
| PA | Pulse | 08-Oct | 08-Oct | 1000 | 3.0 | 47 | 45 | O+2 |
| PA | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04-Oct | 08-Oct | 600 | 4.0 | 50 | 42 | O+8 |
| VA | Rasmussen | 11-Oct | 11-Oct | 750 | 4.0 | 47 | 49 | R+2 |
| VA | Marist | 07-Oct | 09-Oct | 981 | 3.1 | 47 | 48 | R+1 |
| VA | Pulse | 08-Oct | 08-Oct | 1000 | 3.0 | 48 | 48 | tie |
| VA | Quinnipiac | 04-Oct | 09-Oct | 1288 | 3.0 | 51 | 46 | O+5 |
| WI | Pulse | 08-Oct | 08-Oct | 1000 | 3.0 | 50 | 46 | O+4 |
| WI | Quinnipiac | 04-Oct | 09-Oct | 1327 | 3.0 | 50 | 47 | O+3 |
Colorado turns red with the addition of two new polls that give Romney a +1% edge. Romney leads in five of seven current polls and has a 75% probability of taking the state now.
Three new Florida polls, also give Romney the edge. He leads Obama in five of the ten current polls, but by larger margins. Taken together, the simulation gives Romney a 76% chance of winning Florida now. Here’s the last three months:
Michigan voters seem content to supports Obama, if these three polls are representative. All five current polls go to Obama and they average out to a mid-single digit lead. The larger picture shows Obama with a pretty solid advantage:
Two new Nevada polls give Obama weak leads. In fact, Romney doesn’t lead in any of the five current polls, although one poll had the candidates tied. Taken together, Obama get a 74% probability of taking the state now.
A new New Hampshire poll goes surprisingly strongly for Romney—by +4%. The previous poll was a tie, and the oldest current poll has Obama up by a comfortable +15%. But fair warning: That poll was taken before the presidential debate! New Hampshire is definitely worth watching at this point. Here is the rather abrupt change in a picture:
Only one new North Carolina poll that puts Romney over Obama by +3%. Romney leads in three of the six current polls and all three post-presidential debate polls.
Four new Ohio polls split 3 to 1 for Obama. The President leads in 8 of 12 current polls. If the election was held now, the model predicts Obama would win Ohio with a 91% probability.
Pennsylvania is even stronger for Obama, who takes both of the new polls. Obama leads in all five of the current polls, and would be expected to win Pennsylvania now with a 94% probability.
Three Virginia polls give three results: a tie and a win for each candidate. When the current polls. are combined, Obama takes 50.4% of the pooled “votes”. And that translates into a 69% probability of winning an election right now. Here is the story in picture form:
Two new Wisconsin polls give Obama weak leads (+2% and +4%) over Romney. Obama’s lead has been cut from double digits just before the debate to about a +4% advantage. But the results give Obama a 98.4% probability of winning the state right now. The picture shows Obama with consistent lead in the state, if by a reduced margin:
When these new polls are added to the mix, the Monte Carlo analysis of 100,000 simulated elections gives Obama the win 93,914 times and Romney, 6,086 times (including the 901 ties). Obama receives (on average) 295 (-8) to Romney’s 243 (+8) electoral votes. If an election was held today, we’d expect Obama to win with a 93.9% (-1.8%) probability. Romney would have a 6.1% (+1.8%) probability of winning. By standard statistical reasoning, Obama’s lead is no longer “statistical significant.”
The long term trends in this race can be seen from a series of elections simulated every seven days using polls from 12 Oct 2011 to 12 Oct 2012, and including polls from the preceding 14 days (FAQ).
Essentially, Mitt Romney rebounded back to where he was just after the Republican convention.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
[Read more…]
Former congressman Jay Inslee is going to debate Washington AG Rob McKenna in a couple of minutes. The Ale House will give me picture, but no audio. And I haven’t found the audio feed on my radio yet, but here is a thread for you to offer your own thoughts.
Have at it!
9:01: It sounds like KUOW really does have it on tonight. Bonus. In fact, I cannot see what is going on, but I can hear it, thanks to the miracle of the transistor (radio)!
9:03: McKenna refers to this debate as an “unprecedented event.” I don’t think it is quite that unique!
9:05: First question…what will you cut if we have a new recession? Ummm…isn’t the economy getting noticeably better?
9:07: So far, both candidates have been regurgitated talking points. Comeon guys…mix it up a bit. I already heard this debate.
9:10: How will each candidate meet the $4 billion court ordered funding level:
McKenna: Well…we can do it a bit at a time by some magic voodoo method.
Inslee: We can do it…by increasing percentage of budget going to education.
9:15: Inslee goes on the attack calling McKenna’s proposal a “gimmick.” Topic changes. The judges hold up a “Jay +1” sign.
9:17: Rob McKenna wants a level playing field for all businesses. That sure sounds like SOCIALISM to me.
9:19: Jay points out that Washington state gets ranked as one of the best places to have a business. Yes.
9:20: Early learning. McKenna wants to extend it to nursing visits for pregnant moms. Okay…I guess we can call that “early learning”. McKenna points out that many kindergartners are not prepared for kindergarten. WTF?????
9:23: Inslee has been advocating for early learning since 1980 (when McKenna was an adolescent). Good point!
9:24: Come to think of it, McKenna may STILL be an adolescent.
9:25: Inslee went to church in Seattle today where there were beautiful children. (Oops…out of time)
9:26: The TeeVee tells me that Detroit is kicking Oakland’s ass.
9:29: Fuck…this is boring. I want JOE!!!!
9:30: Inslee: Women should have access to contraceptive services (and men, for that matter).
9:31: Inslee supports marriage equality. McKenna…not so much.
9:34: McKenna starts doing metacommentary…
9:35: I see men hugging men on TeeVee. It isn’t a Dan Savage special…it’s PROFESSIONAL SPORTS!
9:37: Pot: Jay will vote no, but will uphold the will of the voters.
9:40: Pot: Rob…not so much.
9:41: Time out for a sec. GAWD…I cannot express how unappealing I find McKenna…WHAT A FUCKING WHINING, SNIVELING, GEEKY, SICKLY DWEEB. Okay…back to normal….
9:45: McKenna would operate in a “bipartisan fashon”. Yeah. Like being a founding principle in the failed state AG lawsuit against “Obamacare.”
9:49: On Gun Control: Inslee wants a zero-tolerance policy on violence. Complements his opponent on making progress in this area.
9:54: Inslee hits McKenna on that stupid “Old men sitting in a diner complaining about taxes” ad. I guess that’s okay, but that add is so amateurish that he didn’t really need to waste the words.
9:56: Closing statements. Fucking yeah!!!!
Take home message: McKenna is a congenital whiner. He can’t help it—it’s in his DNA. As a good liberal, I shouldn’t discriminate against him for it. But FUCK, IS HE FUCKING ANNOYING!!!!
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!