Palin’s Purge

Interesting anecdote within the great Newsweek inside the campaign series:
McCain’s advisers had been frustrated when Palin refused to talk to donors because she found it corrupting, and they were furious when they heard rumors that Todd Palin was calling around to Alaska bigwigs telling them to hold their powder until 2012. The day of the third debate, Palin refused to go onstage with New Hampshire GOP Sen. John Sununu and Jeb Bradley, a New Hampshire congressman running for the Senate, because they were pro-choice and because Bradley opposed drilling in Alaska. The McCain campaign ordered her onstage at the next campaign stop, but she refused to acknowledge the two Republican candidates standing behind her. McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin (perhaps once a week when they were not traveling together, estimated one adviser). Aides kept him in the dark about Palin’s spending on clothes because they were sure he’d be offended. In his concession speech, McCain praised Palin, but the body language between them onstage was not particularly friendly. (Palin had asked to speak; Schmidt vetoed the request.)

Both Sununu and Bradley lost their races in New Hampshire. Moreover, Palin seems to misunderstand one of the core priorities of presidential elections: building broad coalitions. As explained eslewhere in the article, many New Hampshire Republicans are in fact pro-choice. 

Democrats are not going to interrupt purging efforts like this or the one going on at Redstate. 

I’m a bit surprised that the reaction to losing an election is to shrink your coalition by kicking people out.

Sphere: Related Content

Official Election Day “Until There’s a Winner” Liveblog

And here is the liveblog, if you are having trouble viewing email us (mail)…

Sphere: Related Content

2008 Election Results (President, Senate, House)

Here are live, up-to-the-minute, results for the presidential, Senate and House elections…

Sphere: Related Content

Election Day AM Liveblog

8:07: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and even Bill Ayers have all already voted. Why haven’t you? 

8:09: Morning Joe is pretty dull today.

8:11: Voting turnout is uniformly high, it seems, from early indications. A line in Madison was over a block long.

8:14: Bill and Hillary Clinton, celebrity voters.

8:26: Interesting point on MSNBC: If Obama wins, there’ll be no African-Americans in the Senate.

8:35: Joe Scarborough just said that no Republicans in Congress really supported the Iraq war: that if Bush ever vetoed a budget, they would all turn against it. That’s certainly not what Republicans ran on in 2002 and 2004, and even 2006. It was only after that election that Rumsfeld was replaced, despite wide signs that he needed to be removed before hand. I don’t think Scarborough’s analysis holds up. Also, if someone said that about Democrats, that they didn’t support the war but just did it to get their pork passed, the uproar would be huge, justifiably. Do Republicans care more about pork than war? That’s the implication of what Scarborough is saying. Just a really disingenuous argument, in my opinion.

8:49: Problems in Virginia and elsewhere:

According to reports from OurVoteLive, some precincts in Virginia are equipped with fewer voting machines than expected, while many voters are simply reporting that voting machines are “not working.” In Reston, there have been reports of paper ballot scanners malfunctioning. A few voters in Richmond report that the electronic machines in use told the voters their votes for president had been recored when, in fact, the voters had not voted for president yet.

Get that fixed.

9:07: Morning Joe is shocked that Obama is campaigning in Indiana today. But McCain is also campaigning in a couple of states today.

9:11: Harold Ford talks about unkowns being competitive in state races. Does he regret not running against Lamar Alexander?

9:16: Early non-scientific indications are that turnout is officially insane.

9:17: Joe Scarborough thinks all election lawyers are just out to turn a buck. That’s borderline offensive, and I’m pretty shocked no one on set has nothing to say, especially with voting fraud and problems really high on the minds of both parties.

9:26: More on exit polls: Nate Silver here, Mark Blumenthal here. Ignore them. They are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

9:44: In case you were wondering, Obama’s grandmother’s vote will count. Philosophically, I think it’s a good idea to count votes by people who subsequently die. I don’t really want the government to be in the business of deciding who lives long enough to be qualified to vote. Anyone voting today could die later in the day. Hopefully not, though.

9:48: How sad is it that Dan Rather has to be a guest on MSNBC to ask Chuck Schumer a question. Also, the question is stupid, asking if the party will move to the left. The new House and Senate members are uniformly more conservative than the general Democratic caucus that exists. The locus of power will move to the left, but the Democrats will move to the right. This is not particularly controversial or hard to understand, unless you’re a discredited former news anchor, apparently.

10:03: Speechless:

But when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer talks with Candy Crowley from the Obama headquarters in Chicago on Tuesday evening, the correspondent could simultaneously appear in the New York studio—at least as a 3-D hologram. Really.

This is too much. Way, way, way too much.

10:07: Sarah palin is voting from a helicopter.

10:14: John McCain is voting, and the camera crews are going nuts. Will he vote for Obama? THat’d certainly be the maverick move.

10:45 No recent updates because there’s nothing more to update. It seems we’ve reached some sort of equilibrium where any new information will be of less and less use. So I;m going to break for a while, pick up some things, and return here later, in a new post.

Sphere: Related Content

How Off Were The Final RCP Averages in 2004?

Answer: a few points, generally.

Sources: RCP Final by state, Actual Voting, double-checked here. I’m only using states close enough that polls would be considered reliable. 

State	Bush/Kerry RCP Margin	Bush/Kerry Actual Margin	Difference
Florida	Bush +0.6%	Bush +5.01%	4.41%
Ohio	Bush +2.1%	Bush +2.11%	0.01%
Pennsylvania	Kerry +0.9%	Kerry +2.5%	1.6%
Wisconsin	Bush +0.9%	Kerry +0.38%	1.28%
Iowa	Bush +0.3%	Bush +0.67%	0.37%
Minnesota	Kerry +3.2%	Kerry +3.48%	0.28%
Michigan	Kerry +3.5%	Kerry +3.42%	0.08%
Missouri	Bush +4.2%	Bush +7.2%	3%
New Mexico	Bush +1.4%	Bush +0.79%	0.61%
Nevada	Bush +6.3%	Bush +2.59%	3.71%
Colorado	Bush +5.2%	Bush +4.67%	0.53%
New Hampshire	Kerry +1.0%	Kerry +1.37%	0.37%
Maine	Kerry +9.5%	Kerry +8.99%	0.51%
West Virginia	Bush +8.5%	Bush +13%	4.5%
Oregon	Kerry 4.8%	Kerry +4.16%	0.64%
New Jersey	Kerry 7.0%	Kerry +6.68%	0.32%
Arkansas	Bush 6.5%	Bush +9.76%	3.26%
Hawaii	Bush 0.9%	Kerry +8.75%	9.65%
Average			1.95%
Average w/out Hawaii			1.50%

The Hawaii polls were not really believed at the time either, so I included a separate average without them. As you can see, the numbers were generally quite close, with only a handful of states exceeding the excessive margin.

The point for this year is that most states will likely be very close to what is predicted, but a few may differ. And the few that differ are likely to be the states polled the least, like North Dakota.

The best that McCain partisans can hope for is that there are very, very large breaks against Obama. I think that is really unlikely to occur.

Sphere: Related Content

Final Election Projection: The Turnout Election

[LOOKING FOR ELECTION RESULTS? Then Check Out Our ELECTION NIGHT LIVE BLOG]

As I was pondering a final election preview, I noticed how many states will be decided by turnout; specifically, Barack Obama’s turnout operation. 

Obama can win states like Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri if turnout is high. If it’s just moderate or poor, those states probably fall off the map. In the more traditional and high-leverage tossup states, turnout is less of a factor, but still highly important. If Georgia turnout is massive for Obama, that also could be on the map, but it’ll take more to win there. North Dakota and Montana are somewhere in between these two categories - the data is not stong enough to really tell. 

I’d put states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada all lean Obama for now. So officially, I’ll go the safe route and pick Obama to win with 307 electoral votes, but his ceiling is 392 electoral votes. I expect something in that range. There’s so many different routes for Obama to win, it just depends on how high turnout is to determine the margin. McCain’s best hope is a game theory type laziness in swing states. He basically needs to run the table of the contestable states to win. I really don’t see that happening, especially with the sizeable early vote for Obama.

Personally, I think that voter turnout is going to reach record levels, but I don’t fetishize predictions enough to make some sort of random prediction in how that will manifest itself exactly in terms of the electoral college.

Sphere: Related Content

Tom Cole Blames McCain

On MSNBC just now, Tom Cole, chairman of the NRCC, when asked by Joe Scarborough if he could keep losses under ten, replied “Well, we’re tied pretty close with John McCain” before talking about Mccain’s rally helping a particular candidate. It’s remarkable to see Republicans shifting blame before an election. Discipline has gone right out the window.

Sphere: Related Content

When Will We Know?

One question for tomorrow is: When we will know when the election is over?

Thanks to Nate Silver’s maps of McCain victory simulations and Swing State Projects map of poll closing times, that’s something we can guess. 

Of the early states, McCain has to win North Carolina, and three out of the big four: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. He also has to win North Carolina. Polls in these states all close by 8 ET. However, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina might be too close to call right away. 

But we’ll probably know those results at some reasonable time tomorrow. Maybe 10 ish. If Virginia and Pennsylvania both go to Obama by 10 ET, which is entirely reasonable, then I think that will decide the election.

A lot of McCain states - Missouri, North Carolina, possibly Ohio (which is right now an Obama state but McCain needs it to win) will only come in very late at night.

If McCain wins, we’re up all night long and possibly for days. With Obama we may know right away. But then again, perhaps not.

Sphere: Related Content

The Louisiana Purchase Election

A previous post looked at the Democratic hegemony over the Northeast, which is a very recent phenomenon. In response, I want to look at another recent phenomenon: Republican hegemony over the Louisiana Purchase region. The effect of the Reagan years on the electoral college have been that both parties have geographically consolidated strength. This was not always the case. 

States included at least partially in the Louisiana Purchase: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. 

While much is made of states like Florida and Ohio, Democrats have recently only won by keeping Republican electoral victories among these states to a minimum, and not allowing the Republican to run up the score. Before Reagan, the electorate really divided these states in such a way as to make them a bellweather when put together. That’s not the case anymore. 

In our latest projection, we have McCain winning 105 electoral votes from this region to Barack Obama’s 31. At most, Obama could probably win 48 electoral votes from this region (add in Missouri, North Dakota, and Montana). And perhaps another Democrat might have been able to carry Arkansas. But I’m not sure any Democrat could have possibly carried all of even these tossup states. Clinton, for instance, would likely not have been competitive in North Dakota or Montana. 

If I had more time, I might consider breaking it down and looking at total votes only in areas included in the Louisiana Purchase, and not include areas outside of it, like most of Alabama and Mississippi, for instance. Unfortunately for you, I have a life. As it is, the modern test for the Louisiana Purchase region shows that Democrats need to approach 50% of the Republican total to win the election. 

2004: Bush: 126, Kerry: 10

2000: Bush 113, Gore 22

1996: Dole 87, Clinton 48

1992: Bush 76, Clinton 59

1988: Bush 118, Dukakis 18

1984: Reagan 143, Mondale 10

1980: Reagan 123, Carter 10

1976: Carter 80, Ford 53

1972: Nixon 133, McGovern 0

1968: Nixon 66, Humphrey 35, Wallace 33

1964: Johnson 109, Goldwater 27

1960: Kennedy 75, Nixon 52, Byrd 15

 

Sphere: Related Content

If It’s One Party Rule, Don’t Blame Only One Party

Patrick Edaburn:
One way to visualize what is going on is to look at New England, the six states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Since the founding of the Republican party in 1854 the region has sent at least one Republican to every single Congress. An unbroken record of 154 years of elections.

But after this week that could no longer be true. There is only one GOP House member left in New England (compared to twenty one Democrats). Incumbent Christopher Shays (R-CT) is in a tough race for re-election and may well lose to a Democrat. Activists are vowing to ‘turn New England blue’ by wiping out any opposition of any kind.

This kind of thinking is even being promoted on a national level by some of the more far left blogs like Daily Kos where the webmaster promotes the idea of crushing the opposition. Again this is not simply the idea that you have your views, I have mine and we both hope that we win. This is the idea that only one viewpoint should be allowed, only one political position is acceptable. This is not a healthy concept either from the point of view of good government or free speech.

Now I am sure that some of our more liberal readers are thinking ‘well what is wrong with the idea of winning’. In response I would suggest they consider how they would feel if a similar campaign were being waged to ‘turn red’. The idea of absolute one party rule is quite disturbing to me. I would think the people of New England would recognize this as many of their legislatures are very lopsided and have led to a lot of scandal and corruption over the years.

Why is Edaburn not even considering that part of the problem is that the GOP is aligning themselves in such a way as to not appeal to the region? This sort of ebb and flow is natural in American politics, and it’s not fixed by pushing back and telling people to change their minds for their own sake, but by making the second party appeal to people.

Did Edaburn ever complain in the past 30 years about the GOP strength in the South? Or in the area of the Louisiana Purchase?

Edaburn’s concerns ahould not be directed at partisans who want to win. The better question is: Why is the GOP not able to win in New England?

When that question is answered, the GOP will be on the rise again. But sometimes, losing is the best recipe. The Democrats would not be the party they are today without 1984 and 2004. Reagan needed 1976 and 1964 to win in 1980. 

Blaming a party for wanting to win is patently ridiculous.

Sphere: Related Content

Quote for the Day

“If John McCain wins, we’re not a racist nation. If Barack Obama wins, we’re not going to hell in a handbasket.” - Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (11/02/08)

In this podcast, we discuss projections for election day and reflect on the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain in order to glean insight into how they would serve as president.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Sphere: Related Content

Our Election Projection

In case you missed my last electoral projection from a week ago, you can see it here. We’re going to be doing a final one tomorrow sometime, but I’m absolutely confident in this one still. I don’t expect much to change. Maybe North Carolina or Ohio at most might swing to McCain, but not enough to swing the election.

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: John McCain on SNL, Part II

VIDEO: John McCain, Cindy McCain on SNL

VIDEO: Dick Cheney Endorses John McCain

Sphere: Related Content

Awkward: Lieberman Says McCain Will Live Until At Least 85

In another example of Palin’s perceived drag on the ticket, McCain supporter, Sen. Lieberman tried to assuage concerns about the possibility of Palin assuming the presidency if McCain were elected by talking about McCain’s longevity.  Said Lieberman:

“People say to me, oh jeez, he’s 72 and he’s got skin cancer…I can tell you he’s been in remission for eight years. Secondly, I talked — because I get asked this question so much — I talked to doctors and insurance actuaries. And they tell me based on McCain’s age, his health, including skin cancer, he’ll live till at least 85. And probably longer.”

Apparently Lieberman doesn’t think Palin has much “joementum.”  He’s criticized her before, saying:

But when asked by The Advocate if Palin is ready to be president from day one, Lieberman said “thank God she’s not going to have to be president from day one. McCain’s going to be alive and well.”

Yet another illustration why the McCain Campaign is having such trouble.

Sphere: Related Content

More on the Fallacy of Divided Government

I’ve talked through the philosophical problems with divided government here and here. John Judis looks at it historically, and it’s still a bad idea better:

Let’s first look at those past administrations that enjoyed singular success. Most lists would include George Washington’s two terms, Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, Theodore Roosevelt’s (just about) two terms, and Franklin Roosevelt’s four terms. A longer list not based on consensus might include Thomas Jefferson’s first term, Andrew Jackson’s two terms, Woodrow Wilson’s first term, Harry Truman’s two terms, and Ronald Reagan’s two terms.

Of the consensus choices, all enjoyed a united government (in George Washington’s days, there were not really parties.) Of the more controversial choices, Truman suffered through divided government for only two of seven plus years. Reagan is somewhat harder case. In his first six years, he enjoyed what was functionally a united government, because he could count on a majority of Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats; only in his last two years did he have to deal with a Congress controlled by the opposition – and those, of course, were the years of the Iran-Contra scandal, where, on domestic policy, his administration ground to a halt.

Now let’s look at the more disastrous moments in the history of American administrations – where charges of impeachment were brought, and recriminations paralyzed the government. That would have to include the administrations of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton – all instances of divided government. I’d also add the last two years of Wilson’s second term when divided government (and Wilson’s illness) set America on the track of irresponsibility in foreign and domestic policy. So if you look at America’s moments of glory and ignominy, the conclusion is inescapable: divided government is a curse, not a blessing, and should be avoided, if at all possible.

Moreover, the type of relationship McCain would have with Congress is even worse historically:

[T]here are presidents who, in Skowronek’s words, are “affiliated with a set of established commitments that have in the course of events been called into question as failed or irrelevant responses to the problems of the day.” Skowroneck numbers among these James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. These presidents don’t necessarily have to contend with a Congressional opposition in power, but like Hoover and Carter in their last two years, with a nascent and growing opposition in Congress that constitutes a functional majority in opposition to what they want to do. These presidencies have also proved disastrous.

A John McCain presidency would clearly fall in the latter group, and McCain, unlike Hoover and Carter, would have to face clear and unequivocal majorities in Congress united against him. Rather than promising success, that kind of divided government would promise chaos and failure. But don’t tell that to the proponents of divided government.

Divided government works when the jo of the federal government si to do less, not more. But if actual reform is needed, large congressional majorities for the president are fairly essential to that reform.

And hey, if don’t think reform is needed, you’re probably already voting for McCain.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »