International Politics Today

Today is the day

2008-11-04T22:04:00.002+02:00

It has looked like an Obama victory for quite some time now. And it still looks that way a couple of hours before we truly know. An epic campaign is behind us.

Here's my prediction:

Obama wins Kerry states (252 EV's) + CO + VA + NV + NM + NC + MO + FL + OH = 364 EV's

So the final result will be Obama 364 - 174 McCain.

Democrats will have 58 senate seats including the independents (Coleman defeats Franken and the three southern Republicans including Chambliss win).

If Obama loses in contrary to all the polls it will have a huge impact on the country's image around the world not to mention the huge letdown to the African-American community. However, I don't think that's going to happen.

Happy election night. It has been one hell of a campaign - hopefully it gets a finish it deserves and no legal matters surface to ruin the American democracy - again.

McCain has attacked two of Obama's three weak spots - one remains

2008-10-19T18:29:00.000+03:00

As I listed over a month ago, three areas that can be used or perceived as Obama's weak spots are taxes, softness on foreign policy and image politics. McCain has attacked Obama for his ties with Ayers for quite some time now and has therefore used the 'image politics' card that was perhaps inevitable - Obama's not like us, he's strange or risky or elite etc. Take your pick. This time McCain chose Ayers instead of reverend Wright.

That image politics card hasn't played out well for McCain though. Polls showed that it brought his own favourability ratings down and did little good in the polls and maybe even had a negative effect. While they continue to keep that issue up on some level (how can you bury it now) they have shifted focus on Obama's tax policy which again was to be expected. Joe the Plumber, never mind how calculated or spontaneous his role in this has been, has brought this issue back to the forefront. Republicans love to talk about taxes because their message is easy to sell - the recent marginal tightening may not be because of taxes per se but even if it has it's not enough for McCain.

So McCain has extensively used two of Obama's three weak spots - one is left. That is national security and Obama's alleged naivete regarding the issue and foreign policy in general. This card will be played more agressively soon but will it have an effect?

The talk is going on about Bin Laden and his possible "endorsement" for Obama. And there's talk that he might be captured. I have argued that one of two imaginable ways for Obama to lose this election is a terrorist attack on domestic soil (the other one is a personal scandal like a sex scandal etc.). That I don't think the McCain campaign can orchestrate (conspiracy theorists may disagree) but an October suprise on national security is a real possibility. If nothing else, McCain will definately try to shift the focus on Obama's perceived softness on foreign policy issues. He has tried it already of course with his remarks about Obama's plans to negotiate without preconditions but without a good catalyst those allegations don't caught the fire McCain needs at this moment. It's almost 100% certain that McCain will attack Obama on foreign policy/national security but the effectiveness depends largely whether the McCain campaign can come up with a real "October suprise".

Then there's a chance and not a minor one that if the polls show McCain significantly behind one week before the election that he's going to refocus on image politics and bring up reverend Wright. McCain has said he won't do that but that has got more to do with the fear of being perceived as racist than with principles. If the campaign thinks they have nothing to lose they might very well bring up Wright and his clips of "hating America" again. That's a risk but one that they may feel they have to take.

Taxes, Obama's image and foreign policy/national security. All three will be in the forefront of McCain's campaign in the last two weeks. Two of those have already been played quite extensively, will the third make a difference?

The debate - much fuss but likely little effect

2008-10-15T23:39:00.004+03:00

The debate tonight has drawn a lot of attention and has created intense speculation about McCain's supposedly harder stance and more direct attacks against Obama. While it's probably true that McCain will try to land a knock-out punch more eagerly than before it's unlikely that we're going to see one, even if McCain goes into full attack mode. That wouldn't be very wise though, because the negativity of McCain's campaign last week has been perceived to been more hurtful than helpful to the Republican cause. An all-out attack would be in all likelyhood be perceived as a desperation move and it would turn a lot of voters off. So McCain probably tries to hammer Obama on a few selected issues and get a couple of zingers to connect.

Why do I say those attempts are not likely to result in a knock-out punch? Two reasons.

The target is smooth and difficult to hit and the ammunition is lacking in firepower. Obama has been almost overbearingly calm and collected in an effort to be perceived as reassuring and presidential. He has mostly succeeded. So whatever McCain throws at him it's unlikely to stump or irritate Obama. If the ammunition was good then Obama couldn't simply shield away from the attacks by being "cool" and in some ways distant but the punch in McCain's potential attacks is hardly there.

Ayers doesn't interest people and it has been beaten to death already. McCain has refused to bring up Wright which might actually work with some white voters. The economy is not a good terrain for McCain so no secret weapon there either. Foreign policy is McCain's forte but Obama has so far held his own in the debates in that area too. McCain simply doesn't have a good attack line against Obama or at least we haven't seen it yet.

In all likelyhood this debate will be more heated and will be labeled as the most interesting one of the three. We might even get some clips that will be played over and over again in the news or in Youtube. But nothing else is enough for McCain than a pure, solid victory over Obama. Based on the previous debates it's fairly safe to say that that is not very probable.

Obama is pulling away in some swing states (Virginia) and has solified his lead in others (Florida, Colorado). Obama is ahead in national polls about seven-to-eight points. The debate is the last real chance of making a big impact exluding some unforseen event and both campaigns know this. That's why Obama's going to play this safe and it would be no suprise if the next weekend's polls will be pretty much like the last weekend's.

Women and the debates will seal the deal for Obama

2008-10-14T15:04:00.003+03:00

Obama is in all likelyhood going to win the election. The decisive factors besides the financial crisis in his up-coming victory are women and the debate performances.

It is clear at this point that women have not been persuaded by the Palin pick to vote for McCain. Women have traditionally been more Democratic and in this election the trend is as strong as ever. The strategy of picking Palin and luring Hillary supporters was a compelling narrative and it sounded somewhat promising but the scenario hasn't actualized one bit. Let's look at the newly released Quinnipiac state polls (10/8-12, >1000 LV, +/-3) for numbers:

Females: Who are you going to vote? (Obama-McCain)

Colorado - 54%-38% - Obama +16
Michigan - 60%-32% - Obama +28
Minnesota - 57%-34% - Obama +23
Wisconin - 59%-33% - Obama +26

Simply stunning numbers.

Let's look at the national numbers for further confirmation:

Gallup, Sep 29-Oct 05
53%-39% - Obama +14

Research2000/Daily Kos, Oct 11-Oct 13
59%-35% - Obama +19

Rasmussen (no demographics available)

"October 12, 2008: Obama leads by fourteen percentage points among women..."

So it's absolutely clear that Obama is crushing McCain on female voters. According to an exit poll in 2004 Kerry won women by three points. So this is a huge advantage for Obama. Palin has probably hurt McCain more with women than helped.

Another decisive factor in Obama's likely victory is the debates. CNN's and CBS's polls all showed that Obama won the first two debates. Let's look at the most recent data again from Quinnipiac's state polls.

Who won the second debate? (Obama-McCain)

Colorado - 56%-24% - Obama +32
Michigan - 56%-22% - Obama +34
Minnesota - 57-22% - Obama +35
Wisconsin - 58%-21% - Obama +37

Again, simply stunning numbers for Obama. The debates have really helped Obama with independents which are the key in winning this election. Obama is currently in commanding lead with independents (R2K poll +9 for Obama) and the debates have surely helped. Obama's "cool and reassuring demeanour" in the words of pundits has removed doubts that Obama's not ready for the presidency.

Women and the debates, two things that I'm sure can't be underestimated when analyzing why Obama won the election.

The tracking polls have been very stable

2008-10-13T19:54:00.008+03:00

A lot is going on around the election all the time. Debates, speeches, ads, attacks - the campaigning never stops and the press is more involved than ever now that there's only three weeks to the election day. The remarkable thing is that since the VP debate on 10/02 the tracking poll numbers haven't really moved. They have actually been very stable. Many pundits and casual followers alike thought that the debates would have an impact. They've had one - Obama has been able to maintain his commanding lead consistently over the past 1,5 weeks.

Let's look at the actual numbers. (McCain-Obama)

Pollster ---------- 10/02 ---- 10/13 --- movement

Gallup ------------42-49 ----- 41-51 --- Obama +3
Rasmussen ---- 44-51 ---- 45-50 -- McCain +2
Research 2000 40-51 ----- 40-52 -- Obama +1

All the movement is inside the MoE. The stability can be traced even more backwards than to 10/02. In Rasmussen's polls since 09/26 Obama has been between 50-52% and McCain between 44-45%. The stability has been simply stunning. In Gallup's polls during the same time period Obama's numbers have been between 48-52% and McCain's between 41-44%. The difference is significant and revealing. In R2K's polls again during the same time period Obama's numbers have been between 48-53% and McCain's between 40-43%.

McCain hasn't break the 45% ceiling in any of the three tracking polls since 09/26. During the same period Obama has never dropped below 48% and has been as high as 53%. That is all you need to know.

Let's look at some other tracking polls during a shorter time period (these pollster's have changed their methodology since 09/26 or don't have an easily accessible history of the poll numbers).

Pollster ----------- 10/09 ------ 10/13 ----- movement

Zogby ------------ 44-48 ------- 44-48 ----- Nothing
Diageo/Hotline - 41-47 --------42-48 ----- Nothing
Battleground --- 45-48 ---------43-51 ------ Obama +5

While these numbers tell us a lot less because they are from a shorter time period it still shows that the recent attack against Obama about Ayers has not moved the numbers at all. (Battleground has been a very shifty pollster so their numbers are not quite so useful).

The facts are these - Obama is ahead about 7% nationally (RCP avg. +6,8, Pollster avg. +7,6) and that he has had a sizeable, stable lead since the late September. Debates have been considered victories for Obama and it has negated any effect that McCain's attacks might have caused.

The future is still clear. Obama will become the next president if there's no major sudden game-changer event like a terrorist attack.

Election fraud a serious threat

2008-10-12T14:04:00.003+03:00

The electronic voting systems have long been suspect of being unsafe. One of the most famous recent reports is Ohio secretary of state Jennifer Brunner's EVEREST report (an article, the report). Election fraud is not a wild conspiracy theory but a real threat concerning the electronic voting systems around the US and which hasn't been discussed widely enough.

One of the more famous voting machine hacking experts is Finnish Harri Hursti, who has conducted studies in cooperation with University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University and University of California Santa Barbara. The team of three researchers lead by Hursti conducted a test that yielded frightening results. They managed to change the outcome of the whole election by a virus installed into a single voting machine in a single voting booth.

The group activated the voting machine's infrared gate by a magnet and transferred a virus installed into a palm pilot to the voting system. They could've used a cell phone or a programmable remote control instead also. The virus spread into all the voting machines in the voting area.

After the counting of the votes had started the virus spread into the regional central computer, from there to the state's central computer and from there to the headquarters of Elections Systems and Software (ES&S), the provider of the election system. ES&S is the largest electronic voting system provider in the United States and from their HQ the virus could corrupt voting systems in 36 states. The time that process took was less than two minutes.

That was real and it has been widely described in the EVEREST report mentioned above. Hursti himself said that "it was the most scary hacking that I've ever participated in".

Voting fraud is easy to do and it does not leave any marks. Hursti half-jokingly said that "the scary thing is what we programmers and researchers could do if we snapped and decided to manipulate elections. It's so easy that a large group of people could do it".

There are many other scary scenarios that the researchers have realized in their tests. One good place to study them is Black Box Voting.

Hacking the voting machines is real. It has been done by researchers and it can be done again. Who knows what has actually been done in real elections? When you think about the scandal in Florida in 2000 and then read about voting fraud it really brings some unpleasent thoughts into your mind. Who knows what happened in 2000? The fact is that voting fraud cannot be counted out from the equation.

In "a world's best democracy" like many claim that the United States is these kind of things should not happen. If we can't trust that our votes count then the deep core of democracy is in doubt. The new administration has to do a dramatic overhaul to the voting system because today it's unsafe. And that is not a conspiracy theory.

Palin is not an asset to McCain but 'Troopergate' has little to do with it

2008-10-11T21:26:00.006+03:00

Troopergate in all likelyhood will not play a decisive role in this campaign. When Palin was announced as the Republican VP-candidate and the issue first came up many people thought that would be something that would be a major achilles heel for Palin and for the whole McCain campaign. The truth is that it will not be a major event just because McCain is in such a deep trouble right now. Even Palin will not overtly suffer from this revelation (read about Troopergate here) because her favourability ratings are already quite bad and her ability to sway swing voters to McCain is questionable to say the least.

CNN's article states that "Sarah Palin may be the best thing that ever happened to John McCain's campaign for the presidency. She is the cover-girl of the campaign. But she may be heading back to the front page for a very different reason". I have to disagree vehemently. Palin's favourability rating is in an all-time low in R2K's tracking poll (-20) and while other polls show better results for Palin than this Democratic-leaning pollster the trend is clear. She has suffered immensely from her infamous interviews and even before those her star was on the decline because of all the "half-truths" concerning her actions in Alaska (earmarks etc.).

The conventional wisdom in the mainstream media still seems to be that Palin is somehow an asset to McCain. She solidified the base but the cost was huge - independents are not liking her one bit. It's easy to overvalue the "bringing home the base" factor - yes, McCain is not loved by the diehard conservatives but they would've never voted for Obama anyway. Palin just brings a bigger number of them to the polls and while that is important the independents are a much more decisive factor in who wins this election and Palin is not helping there.

I wrote on September 16th how the positive Palin effect is coming to a close.

"McCain's campaign is now in a watershed moment. Can they salvage Palin's image and stop the slow bleeding?"

Well, the answer is that they couldn't and Palin has most likely become a drag on the ticket. VP candidates rarely if never decide elections and most of McCain's troubles are not related to Palin (the economy, anyone?) but the storyline surrounding Palin has not benefited McCain at all. It has been a distraction and a source of much discomfort to McCain for sure. The conservative base is riled up but if the majority of the people think lightly of her regarding policy issues it's got to hurt.

Palin came, saw and conquered but also stumbled, fell and crawled back up again. But the fall wasn't pretty and her image after that is forever changed (translation: until mid-December). Troopergate is just another storyline concerning Palin and in the current athmosphere people will not really care that "she abused her powers". The firing was legal so it's all more or less semantics to the great masses. Besides, Obama's links to Ayers and Rezko make the voters easily lump all the scandals together and consider them as politics as usual. Sure, Troopergate casts another doubt over Palin but she was already damaged goods.

McCain will lose. Picking Palin didn't ultimately pay off at all. When McCain looks back at the campaign he'll surely regrets bringing Palin along. It was a risky move but McCain needed to do something drastic - this time his judgement was wrong.

McCain's campaigning schedule - playing offense

2008-10-10T18:50:00.007+03:00

It's interesting to notice that 25 days before the election both candidates are still predominantly campaigning in traditionally opposition states. Obama's strategy is understandable since he's in a comfortable lead in most if not all Kerry states and in a good position in traditionally swing and red states but McCain's strategy is quite perplexing. Check out his schedule:

Friday, October 10, 2008
8:45 a.m., Rally in La Crosse, WI.
4:30 p.m., Town Hall in Lakeville, MN.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
8 a.m., Rally in Johnstown, PA.
10:30 a.m., Rally in Davenport, IA.
Monday, October 13, 2008
10 a.m., Rally in Virginia Beach, VA.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
9 p.m., Debate in Hempstead, NY.

What on earth is he doing in Wisconsin (RCP avg. -8,8%), Minnesota (-8,3%), Iowa (-9,5%) and Pennsylvania (-13,8%)?

It is more and more evident that the only way McCain can win this race is if a miracle happens (from McCain's point of view) and some dramatic revelation about Obama comes to light. The only other way is if McCain can re-focus his campaign and win all Bush states (minus Iowa and New Mexico). It's not impossible but the way McCain is squandering his time in solid blue states like Pennsylvania (it hasn't been anywhere close for two weeks already) he's having a really difficult time winning states like North Carolina not to mention Florida or Virginia.

McCain needs to stop the useless campaigning in the Great Lakes area and focus all his resources on Bush states. North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri shouldn't be anywhere near close and he should be able to bring those states back to him if he just showed some interest to those states' constituents. His campaign schedule is truly remarkable and it can be seen as very bold or very stupid.

One thing to keep in mind is that if McCain did more or less pull out of Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin it would be perceived as another sign of weakness and it could create a harmful narrative and a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's a risk he should take though, because otherwise he's destined to lose the election.

McCain will lose because of the economy - but he wouldn't have had to

2008-10-10T17:15:00.007+03:00

A lot of things have happened in the last two weeks. The VP debate, the second presidential debate, the financial turmoil - all these things have been covered in depth in the blogosphere already. The campaign has really taken a dramatic turn as all things point towards an Obama victory, if not a landslide. Is it really so? Is McCain doomed? Yes he is, and it's not only because the financial crisis surfaced. It's because of his response to it.

There is precious little that McCain's campaign can do anymore. I wrote in mid-September that Obama's three possible weak spots were taxes, foreign policy experience and an image politics weak spot. Well, now or never the tired cliché of "it's the economy, stupid" really applies. It has been nearly impossible to compete in any other policy area than the economy since Black Monday on September 15th. The incumbent is always to blame in times like these so does McCain have any chance of "owning" the economic discussion? He might have had one, but not anymore. The boat has passed and the concentration on image politics with the Ayers thing is too little, too late and about the wrong subject.

If McCain had attacked Obama over his connections in August or even during his convention bounce in early September the character attack might have worked. Now, however, it's only backfiring and one can only wonder how close McCain would be with a better campaign strategy to begin with. Ayers is not something that people care about right now. It only fires up the hard right wing of the Republican party and alienates independents. After falling behind in the polls it's understandable and even inevitable that they went that way but they should've seen by now that it does not work. The campaign even signaled this themselves when they said after the second debate that they're not going to talk about Ayers anymore. Why did they continue? That decision was their final nail in the coffin.

All signs pointed out on September 14th that this would be a close election. McCain's convention bounce was all but gone and the trend continued to be downward. In all likelyhood it would've been a tiny Obama lead going into the first debate without the financial crisis. Now that it happened the environment obviously favours Obama overwhelmingly. That didn't have to mean that McCain's campaign goes down in flames. The campaign made serious mistakes and calling them erratic is not the most far-fetched idea to be heard these days.

McCain's stunt to suspend his campaign was a way too ambitious move. He should've acted agressively, yes, but not in a way the he did. He should've talked about policy, policy and policy and emphasize his tax cuts now that the economy is in crisis. He should've painted Obama as too inexperienced in hard times like these and he should've showed steady leadership with an emphasis on substance. He has indeed tried to paint Obama as too inexperienced but when words don't correspond with actions they're useless.

It was going to be an uphill battle for McCain but it didn't have to go the way he did. Maybe it really shows that he doesn't know a lot about economics. When the country is in crisis they don't look to the new guy first - yes, it's tempting to bring "change" but people are conservatives at heart and they seek the familiar and safe when things go bad. McCain could've provided that with his experience and "maverick image" that wasn't so tarnished back in September. He did not. His whole campaign was spinning in chaos and he couldn't translate a simple, solid message to the voters. It was Obama who not only benefited generically from the crisis, he earned the poll bump with his actions.

Then came the debates and McCain was lousy. He truly was. That doesn't mean that Obama was great, he wasn't, but his style worked well against the grumpy old guy. McCain isn't really a good performer. He has come across as old, angry and preposterous. This isn't partisan spin but an independent evaluation from the sidelines. Obama's cool demeanour has worked because McCain has been so unsympathetic. If McCain would've come across as a steady, experienced father-like figure he could've schooled Obama badly and depicted Obama as distant which is Obama's pitfall. Instead he left Obama to be presidential and came across as the challenger. He was the challenger but the way he could've climbed up in the polls would've been to act like the man in charge. It might not have worked. But the routine he pulled of now of being an angry challenger was a terrible choice. Maybe it's all he managed to be, who knows. But it's his demeanour and stunts that really lost him this election.

The surfacing of the financial crisis was a terrible blow to the McCain team. It wouldn't have been a suprise if he had lost. But the way McCain tried to turn the crisis to his advantage and how he has performed in the debates sealed his fate. He had a reputation of being an independent-minded reformer who had experience and who was fun to hang around with. Now he has been succesfully painted as a George W. Bush II whose experience hasn't helped him to be presidential and who is to top it all not very likeable. How has Obama been so succesful at turning McCain's image upside down? He should thank McCain for being so helpful in that.

ABC of negative campaigning

2008-10-01T01:23:00.001+03:00

Negative campaigning is a famous phenomenom and it has also been theorized and made into general rules. First, the effect of negative campaigning is that it bumps people into undecided category and therefore its prime impact is not necessarily luring undecideds to your side but to turn your opponent's supporters into undecideds. Second, negative attacks are far more frequent to be done by the trailing candidate than the front-runner. The more one trails in the polls the more inclined he is to take a risk and go into full attack mode in the hope of changing the status quo by luring the opponent's supporters into undecideds. Adversely, the front-runner doesn't need to turn more people into undecideds and it's enough for him to compete for the already existing undecideds by positive ads.

There are also theories about the different roles of presidential and VP-candidates. According to Lee Sigelman and Emmett H. Buell Jr the attack roles between the candidates in the ticket ”differ most when they are leading by a comfortable margin, differ least when they are trailing badly and to exhibit no consistent pattern when they are running neck and neck with their opponents.”

In this year's US presidential elections the above theories have been proven to be quite correct. In July and early August when McCain was trailing Obama not by a huge margin but clearly nevertheless, McCain attacked Obama for the first time with considerable force with ”Paris Hilton commercials”. The tighter the race became during August the more Obama started to respond to McCain's negative campaigning by launching his own attacks. The general trend in this election has been that McCain has trailed Obama slightly and it's noteworthy that McCain has received more attention from his negative campaigning than Obama. While this race has been and continues to be quite close the challenger's inclination to attack more has been evident in McCain's campaigning.

The different roles of the candidates in the ticket are also following the theoretical guidelines. While Obama has not lead by a comfortable margin at any time he has been mostly in control of the race and Biden has been more clearly the attack dog when Obama has concentrated more on showing bi-partisanship spirit. Both candidates have immersed themselves in negative campaigning but Biden has been much more consistent in attacking the opponents. The better it has looked for the Obama-Biden ticket the clearer the difference has been between the candidates in negative campaigning.

This theory has also applied to the McCain-Palin ticket with some reservation. Since Palin became the VP-nominee their ticket has been in a clear small lead, in a neck-to-neck situation and behind by a small but clear margin. Palin's role is difficult to measure because of extra-ordinary circumstances surrounding her candidacy but it can be safely stated that McCain's and Palin's roles haven't differed much and haven't exhibited any consistent pattern considering the negative campaigning. This would suit well with neck-and-neck and trailing situations. Because of Palin's current troubles regarding her image McCain has had to assume a more larger and solitary role in the campaign than he would've presumably wanted. If Palin can conquer her difficulties with the media her role considering the negative campaigning can be analyzed more accurately but it's likely that if the current situation stands both McCain and Palin will attack with equal vigour and more actively than Obama and Biden, the current front-runners.

ABC of strategic voting

2008-10-01T01:20:00.001+03:00

Strategic voting is a theory which argues that voters do not only vote for a candidate they want to win the most but that they also engage in strategic or tactical voting by voting for another candidate if they think it's more advantegous for their cause. There are many different theoretical approaches to strategic voting but they are all based on the idea of rational choice theory. According to the theory voters make rational decisions based on a set of preferences that they hold.

For instance if candidate A is a person's preferred candidate but he thinks A has no chance of winning against candidate B who the person dislikes, then the person can vote for candidate C if he thinks he has a chance of winning against B and thinks C is a lesser of two evils. Another example of strategic voting is from the US primaries where a person is certain that candidate A is going to win his party's nomination in the primaries. Then that person could change his registration (if needed) and vote in the other party's primary for a candidate C whom he thinks A could beat easier than the other rival party's candidates.

Strategic voting is a real phenomenom but it's unclear how widespread or impactful it really is. In two-party systems it can be however a very impactful factor. In this year's US presidential election there are many ”third-party candidates” or independents like Ralph Nader (independent), Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) or Cynthia McKinney (Green Party). Even if a voter would prefer one of these candidates over the main candidates he can be still very inclined to vote for either Obama or McCain simply because he doesn't want to ”waste his vote”. This a real concern for the voters because there are examples of third-party candidates impacting the election in a significant way. Ross Perot is a one example from 1992 and more recently Ralph Nader has been widely credited for Al Gore's loss in Florida in 2000 and therefore for Bush's election victory. Those kinds of events could very well disencourage voters to vote for less-known candidates from a fear of helping ”the worst” candidate to victory like many Nader supporters in 2000 noticed for their dismay.

Another way how strategic voting has been witnessed recently was in the main parties' presidential primaries. The Democrats had many heavy-weight candidates like Bill Richardson and Joe Biden but since all the media attention went primarily to Obama and Clinton and therefore they were significantly ahead in the early polls it disencouraged voters to vote for the ”long-shot” candidates. People have a tendency to want to think that their vote is important and that's why they flock to the main candidates. There are psychological reasons for that no doubt but many people also vote that way for rational reasons in order to help the better of the two to victory. That's strategic voting and it has been witnessed to happen many times in this election cycle already.

Site status update

2008-09-26T23:13:00.006+03:00

It's been a crazy few days. McCain suspending his campaign was something that few would have anticipated. Now the debabe is on so for now it's best to wait and see how it plays out. Things are looking really bright for Obama but as we have noticed, things can really change in just a couple of days.

Now to the main point of this post. This blog is two weeks old today and we've seen a pretty steady growth of visitors during that time. This is still a blog in its infancy but I hope that if you enjoy the analysis you bookmark this site or suscribe to the feed. I promise there will be regular updates, many new entries each week.

The first poll is still open for a couple of hours and so far 45 votes have been cast. We'll see how the result will correspond with the reality tomorrow.

If you have any feedback, comments, suggestions or criticism please post a comment and let us know. Any feedback would be highly appreciated. There are a bunch of people already who have checked the site frequently and I thank you for your interest. I hope you continue to enjoy the blog and I encourage you to post a comment and let me know of your opinion.

Lastly it must be said that even though the focus is now been purely on the US presidential election, there will be analysis on other issues coming soon. This site is fundamentally intended to be about international relations/politics so expect to see more of that soon. However, since the race is so interesting and so relevant at the moment the election coverage continues to be frequent.

Thank you to all the readers so far - this is just the beginning. Tomorrow is the time for the aftermath of the debate. Exciting debate night!

Remember New Hampshire

2008-09-23T23:21:00.005+03:00

New Hampshire could be the ultimate deciding state of all. There are still many variables and countless scenarios of how this race might turn out but I'm a bit irritated by the lack of polling in New Hampshire. Yes, it's only four electoral votes but those EV's can be absolutely crucial and definately worth more attention and polling. It's a very close state, a very independent-minded state and a state where McCain has a significant history. Keep in mind that if McCain wins New Hampshire it's among very likely scenarios that the numbers end up being 269-269.

Let's do a bit of electoral math. Some of this has been already mentioned in a past analysis.

Kerry won 252 electoral votes. All those Kerry states are more or less leaning towards Obama except New Hampshire. It's close especially in Pennsylvania according to the most recent polls but there's still a much higher probability of Obama winning all those other Kerry states than McCain has of winning any one of them.

Obama's ahead in Iowa and New Mexico by comfortable margins (Obama's ahead in NM by around six points and in IA by around ten according to RCP averages and Pollster's numbers). So Obama's "base" at this moment stands at 248 + 5 + 7 = 260. It's worthwhile to mention that this is the exact same situation where things where before the conventions (although some light blue states and light red states have become tighter).

Obama's ahead +4.0 in Colorado according to RCP average . In Pollster it's +2.7 for Obama. If he wins Colorado, he stands at 269 electoral votes.

Imagine McCain winning North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. Does that sound very unlikely to you? Yes, it's tight in Virginia and suprisingly tight in states like North Carolina but all those states have a strong tendency of going Republican. McCain would stand at 265 electoral votes. What state's left? Correct, New Hampshire with its four electoral votes.

It looked the same way four weeks ago and it still looks the same today. While Obama had a great week and many states seem brighter for him right now (eg. Virginia, to some extent North Carolina and Florida) Obama's base is still Kerry states + Iowa + New Mexico. That's 273 electoral votes. But if New Hampshire flips, it'll be 269-269.

RCP average of New Hampshire right now is +1.7 for Obama but it contains very, very old polls (including one from mid-August). In Pollster McCain's up 2.7 points right now and remember, these have been very favourable times for Obama in Pollster. Still, New Hampshire is almost leaning to McCain. Latest poll released (UNH, 9/14-21) had McCain up +2 points. The point is that even in this favourable climate towards Obama the state is a pure toss-up and most likely to flip to McCain.

McCain has a history in New Hampshire. He won the primaries there in 2000 and this year. His maverick image plays well with Granite State's voters who have a tendency to vote for people with a noticeable libertarian streak. McCain has a real shot.

269-269 is not a far-fetched fantasy. Sure, it's just one of many scenarios that might happen and even if current polling supports the scenario, suprises are bound to happen. Despite of that, New Hampshire is badly neglected by pollsters and pundits alike. We all know about Colorado and Ohio and Virginia but all signs indicate that this will be a close race no matter how the climate favours the Democrats. Obama hasn't opened up a big lead yet and it's less and less likely as each day passes. In close elections each electoral vote counts and as it stands today, New Hampshire will be one of the closest states come election day.

So please, all remember New Hampshire. It plays a part in the intriguing 269-269 scenario but even beyond that it plays a more important role than it has been given.

The state of the race - five days before the first debate

2008-09-21T23:12:00.004+03:00

This is the first of many analysis to come on the state of the race. The next one will be written after the first debate.

After four weeks that can be described as a political rollercoaster ride things are looking suprisingly familiar yet at the same time quite different. The Democratic Convention seems just like a distant memory anymore. Palin came, saw and conquered and then got bogged down by controversies. McCain bounce came and went and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression happened. What's the state of the race now? We'll take a closer look at the many aspects of the race.

The polls - what's the trend?

Today's (9/21) tracking polls are as follows:

Gallup - 49-45 Obama
Rasmussen - 48-47 Obama
Research2000 - 49-42 Obama
Hotline - 45-44 Obama

Obama's average lead: +3,25

The trend has been clear - Obama surged ahead in Gallup's polls in Wednesday, Rasmussen has trended towards Obama the whole week despite its stable numbers and Hotline and Research2000 both showed gains for Obama especially in midweek. However, it seems that Obama's so-called "counter bounce" has reached its limit. Gallup tightened two points today and Hotline and Rasmussen have shown very stable numbers during the past two, three days. Research2000 has had the same lead margin (give or take a point) for Obama for the past four days.

The conclusions are these: McCain's bounce had already faded before Monday's bad financial news. Obama got a clear bounce starting from Monday and gained momentum until about Thursday when the race more or less stabilized again. Does this bounce for Obama fade? It of course depends largely on the news, but if things stay relatively calm and there's no new major shock from the financial sector it may be that McCain gains a few points back and brings this race back to a statistical dead heat. Now the lead margin for Obama is probably about 2-4%.

In next week we probably see Obama staying in the lead for a couple of points but the margin will probably be very narrow. The financial crisis was still a definite advantage for Obama because it's always nicer being in a narrow lead/tie instead of being narrowly behind/tied. Obama also got other advantages from the past week's events beyond simple poll numbers which we will look at next.

Obama - trying to continue dictating the narrative

The conventional wisdom has been that if this election will be an election about economics, Obama will win. Well, then the past week definately should've helped Obama and it sure did. However, this thing is still far from being a sure Obama victory. While he gained during the past week the polls show a suprisingly tight numbers when asking "who's better with the economy". Hotline poll from 9/18 showed just +5 margin for Obama on the issue. He's surely hoping it'd be more because if McCain can get a grip after his not-so-good week he could well catch Obama on the issue.

Obama's plan is clear. Keep the pressure on the economy and more indirectly keep the pressure on Palin. Obama's got a lot of ammunition in store in the area of economics so he's surely going to use them. While McCain has a chance of catching up it's still an uphill battle for him. Secondly, Palin dropped from the brightest spotlight and while that would've been excellent news for Obama just 1,5 weeks ago, now they need to keep the pressure on her. Her negativity ratings have soared and the public perception of her has changed significantly especially among the "conservative" Democrats and independents.

Pressure on the economy, hammering Palin via surrogates. That way Obama can keep the momentum until the first debate.

McCain - difficulties with the economy, the Palin factor

If the past week was good for Obama, then it must've been bad for McCain. And it was. Mixed messages concerning the financial crisis didn't help (regulation or not?) and stating that "the economy is fundamentally strong" on Monday was also definately a minus. He's clearly uncomfortable with the issue and he must not let it show. The end of the week was already a bit better for him. It's unlikely he can change the narrative before the first debate to other issues like foreign policy which would be for his advantage so he just have to cope. The debate will be about foreign policy so he has to do well in order to change the focus and shift the momentum back on his side.

And then there's Palin. A huge celebrity which is suddenly looking more and more like a drag on the ticket. The campaign has managed her carefully and they need to do so in the future also. Expect to see them together a lot - that brings energy to McCain's events but it means they can't have the benefit of running mates campaigning in different states simultaneously and therefore maximizing the positive impact.

The debate will matter a lot - or not

The focus is on foreign policy. McCain holds the advantage on the issue - but if Obama can hold on to his own, will he be considered the winner? Or can McCain take advantage and shift the focus on homeland security/terrorism/'the surge' which will not be for Obama's benefit?

My prediction is this - both candidates try to avoid gaffes at all costs, especially Obama, and therefore the debate will be considered as a tie. Economic news continue to dominate after the debate and the polls stay relatively the same. Then again, the opposite can happen. It really is anybody's guess.

Only a bit over month remains in the campaign when the dust settles from the first debate. The final stretch begins. Obama has currently a slight advantage - the race effectively continued from right where it was before the conventions a month ago. A lot of things have happened but the dynamics of the race are pretty much the same despite McCain locking down the conservative support. It's Obama's to lose - but it won't be a major upset if he does indeed lose.

Campaign strategy videos

2008-09-20T12:47:00.005+03:00

Here's a light appetite for all US election enthusiasists. Both campaigns have released videos where their campaign managers talk strategy. David Plouffe's (Obama) most recent one is from 09/16 and Rick Davis' (McCain) is unfortunately all the way back from June.

While both videos quite obviously don't contain any mind-blowing new info, they're still pretty intriguing. Plouffe's video is up to date which is nice and while Davis' video is clearly outdated it still shows you some insight on the basic cornerstones of McCain's campaigning (and at least it may provide you with laughter with Davis' talking about McCain winning California...)

David Plouffe - Obama's campaign manager - 09/16/2008

Rick Davis - McCain's campaign manager - 06/07/2008

Obama's three weak spots

2008-09-19T20:07:00.007+03:00

After McCain's bounce Obama's rise in the polls has been bigger and more sudden than expected. Financial crisis and McCain's minor gaffes have played right into Obama's hands. The conventional wisdom is that the first debate will be crucial and possibly game-changing. That may very well be true and McCain can't slip too much behind in the polls before it.

To put it simply there are practically just three major areas in presidential campaigning. First two are issue-related - domestic policy and foreign policy. Those two are quite distinctive from another. The third area is 'image politics' - possibly the most decisive one in contemporary American politics. Obama has a possible weak spot in each area - and McCain is surely going to do anything he can to mould public perception so that those possible weak spots will be perceived as such come November 4th.

1) The domestic policy weak spot - taxes

Who remembers a Democratic presidential candidate from the past few decades who hasn't been labeled as a tax-raising maniac who will hurt the economy? This syndrome of the Democrats is alive and well. How well, that depends on McCain.

Today's Rasmussen poll showed that "48% believe that taxes will go up if Obama is elected while 26% believe the same will happen if McCain is elected". A survey conducted on May 13th by Rasmussen indicated that "60% of voters believe tax hikes are bad for the economy while just 14% believe that raising taxes is good for the economy". So it is not beneficial to be perceived as a tax-raiser.

In the current economical turmoil it's hard to predict who comes out on top in economical issues although Obama has traditionally enjoyed a comfortable lead in that area. The biggest and perhaps the only weapon McCain has against Obama in economical issues is taxes and he's going to be talking about it again and again and especially in the debates.

If McCain can depict Obama being a big tax-raiser and create a narrative that he'd be better for the economy because of lower taxes he's going to take a lead in economical issues and therefore would take a lead in the whole race. It's not easy for him with all the Republican and Bush baggage but it's not impossible - and taxes are really the only issue in which he can impactfully beat Obama on domestic issues.

2) The foreign policy weak spot - being perceived as soft, naiive and unexperienced

This is also closely related to 'image politics'. First it must be mentioned that there is no fundamental disagreement about America's role in the world between the candidates. However, Obama has generally talked more about the importance of negotiations and has specifically mentioned the possibility of negotiating with possibly hostile world leaders (eg. Iran) "without preconditions". That phrase has been twisted to fit all kinds of assumptions but the fact remains that Obama is a more multilateral guy and yes, he's a Democrat. So he has the weak spot of being branded as soft, weak and naiive.

Combine that with the argument of him being unexperienced which effects mostly how people see him as commander in chief. His opposition to 'the surge' can be played against him like McCain already has. McCain enjoyes a big lead in commander in chief numbers and homeland security numbers but he hasn't been able to exploit them to his full advantage because this race has turned more or less into an election about the economy.

McCain has to bring the focus back on foreign policy and brand Obama as "a weak negotiator who's unexperienced to face the dangers of the world". The problem is that the narrative is currently all about economics and it's hard to imagine it changing dramatically anymore during this campaign.

3) The image politics weak spot - being perceived as un-American/elitist/angry black man/Muslim

Obama's black. That doesn't necessarily stop him from winning the election. But that brings him challenges that McCain doesn't have.

Obama's father was a Muslim. Obama has lived in Indonesia. Those facts don't necessarily stop him from winning the election but they do bring him challenges that McCain doesn't have.

Obama is a Harvard-educated scholar. He's attended a church of a controversial black preacher. Those facts don't necessarily stop him from winning the election but again McCain doesn't have any baggage like that all.

Something new might pop up from any of the above facts that could impend doom for Obama. Sadly even his Harvard education is more of a liability these days than a strength and while that fact might not destroy him, all the other aspects ranging from his Muslim father to being black and listening to Wright very well might. And McCain knows this. So don't be suprised if some 527 comes up with an explosive ad that will change everything.

In summary, Obama's possible weak spots are his tax policy, his perceived inexperience and softness in foreign policy and his background which could ignite some scandal. The first two weak spots could lose him an election but it would still probably be quite close. His possible weak spot in relation to his image could absolutely destroy him once and for all. He has been in the spotlight for 18 months now so it's unlikely that some skeletons are still uncovered. But it's not impossible.

McCain's ways to the White House - 269-269 remains a possibility

2008-09-18T17:59:00.023+03:00

What am I blabbering about 269-269? The more I look at the map the more it looks like that it's definately possible. On the other hand, there are naturally multiple other ways how the race might end up - with McCain actually winning. So let's look at those options first.

Two days ago I wrote about Obama's four roads to victory. There I argued that his base number of electoral votes is actually 255 which is undeniably a high number. It includes all the states Kerry won (minus New Hampshire) plus Iowa. I hold on to that analysis. It doesn't mean though that McCain isn't able to crack that base. First let's look at how McCain is able to work around that number without actually winning any of those 255 EV's.

McCain's base number at the moment is 227 EV's (it includes Indiana which is arguably close and Florida, which is somewhat close though leaning Republican). The fact remains that McCain has much less options of winning than Obama. He has many states that he must absolutely win in order to win.

If Obama wins the mentioned 255 EV's, he needs only 15 electoral votes to win. The states left in play in that scenario are New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. Now let's look at McCain's possible ways to victory.

1) 'The Swing State Way' (the most likely option)

227 + OH + VA + CO + NV = 274

Ohio is a must win for McCain. If he loses it, it's over because it's unlikely that he wins Pennsylvania or Michigan if he loses Ohio. Virginia is practically a must win too. Good news is that McCain is still a very slight favourite in both. Colorado is definately in Obama's reach but it too has traditionally been Republican. If Palin helps anywhere, she helps here. Nevada is another swing state but McCain has been in the lead there by a couple of poins pretty consistently for some time now. It's no doubt close but if Obama wins it he probably wins a lot of other swing states too and then it's over for McCain.

The good news for McCain is that while he doesn't have many ways to victory, this way is not unlikely at all. In fact, all these states voted Republican in the last two elections. So if McCain can keep the traditional Republican states, he wins. That is a difficult job for him but not a long shot.

2) 'The Breakthrough Way'

The only other chance for McCain to win the election is to break Obama's so-called base of 255 EV's. That means he has to win either Pennsylvania or Michigan (Minnesota, Wisconsin are more unlikely if not impossible, Oregon and Washington are out of reach no matter how "close" the polls supposedly are at the moment)

227 + OH + VA + PA/MI = 277 / 281

This would require McCain winning Ohio and Virginia again. Then if he wins Pennsylvania or Michigan he wins. In fact, if Obama loses PA or MI he pretty much can't win. This is a big challenge for McCain but not impossible. The latest polls there show a narrow race although those polls were conducted right at the height of McCain's bounce and now the race is again going better for Obama. This will be a hard task but it's also the only other way of him winning the election.

In conclusion, Obama has to win Pennsylvania and Michigan in order to win the election. McCain absolutely has to win Florida, Ohio and Virginia for him to win the race. Colorado will be a crucial state for McCain also because without it he'd had to win New Mexico and New Hampshire (if he doesn't win MI or PA).

But there's a third way...

3) '269-269' - the House decides the winner

Obama: 255 EV's + CO + NM = 269
McCain: 227EV's + OH + VA + NM + NH = 269

This scenario isn't even that unlikely. McCain wins Florida, Ohio and Virginia (not a big stretch of imagination). Obama wins Kerry states (minus New Hampshire), Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico. Then, McCain wins New Hampshire - it's even.

The polls are actually making this scenario a real possibility. Obama is ahead in New Mexico and Colorado is a pure toss-up. McCain is in the lead in Ohio and Florida right now and Virginia is a traditional red state which very well might not flip. Then McCain needs only New Hampshire where he was +3 in the last conducted poll and where he has traditionally done very well.

This scenario would of course probably result in an Obama victory because it's hard to imagine the Republicans winning back the house.

The situation is this: Obama has at least four distinctive ways of reaching 270, McCain has basically two scenarios for doing the same. McCain has to win either Michigan or Pennsylvania or he has to defend succesfully all those states that Bush won two times in a row (Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada).

McCain's sudden downward trend

2008-09-18T17:59:00.020+03:00

The convention bounce was not to last. Most people who thought rationally knew that McCain's momentum was temporary and that the race would be quite even quite soon. Yes, the Democrats panicked a little bit and it's only natural to worry when the polls don't go your way but those few who were able to observe the race without emotional involvement (that excludes me) were more commonly right in their conclusions. There are suprisingly high number of journalists who go by the flow and follow any given narrative that is being touted at any one time but let's not go into that right now.

The real notion here is that while many predicted McCain coming down and that the race would become even, few thought Obama would suddenly surge ahead with a big momentum before the first debate. But that is what's happening right now as I type.

The polls are clear. Here's Gallup's trend.

9/10: 48-44 McCain +4
9/12: 47-45 McCain + 2
9/14: 47-45 McCain +2
9/16: 45-47 Obama +2

Obama has surged ahead and gained six points in a week. And remember that Gallup's polls were more kind to McCain than many others. Let's look at Research2000's trend:

9/11: 45-47 Obama +2
9/15: 45-48 Obama +3
9/18: 43-49 Obama +6

While Research2000 uses a more favourable method towards Democrats than many other pollster (they interview 9% more Democrats than Republicans) the trend is clear - Obama's bump is four points in a week.

Hotline had the race on 9/11 at 46-44 for McCain. On 9/17 it was 45-42 for Obama. Obama gains five points in a week.

Rasmussen has had a much even graph between the two but even there are pretty clear signs of a shift. On 9/11 it was 46-46, an even race. Today about a week later it's again even at 48-48. However, in between McCain was in the lead with 3 points. So McCain's three-point lead has melted even when Rasmussen changed their party affiliation numbers in a way that favoured Republicans.

Few reasons why this is happening and why it has been faster than expected:

1) The positive Palin bounce has come to an end - Palin is more and more likely to become a liability.

2) The huge financial meltdown is clearly favouring Obama. McCain's statement of "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" can't do him much good.

3) McCain-Palin ticket has been painted more and more as liars and they lost the ad-war in the past week. Partly to blame is the campaign's own attack ads.

In conclusion, the trend is worrisome for McCain. All signs pointed towards an even stretch before the first debate on 26th of September. The Palin pick looks after a rosy start a bit more risky and the public discussion has really backlashed on McCain. The favourability numbers are coming down alarmingly fast for both McCain and Palin.

While the Democrats panicked too quickly just a few days ago, the Republicans have no need to feel too panicky - yet. In this election the news cycle is so much faster that everything can change before the first debate. Still, McCain needs to stop the bleeding before it gets out of control. He has a bigger chance of losing this election before the election day than Obama has.

No, Armageddon is not upon McCain's campaign but after an excellent start of the month they need to adjust themselves back into a more familiar role - as an underdog.

Positive 'Palin effect' coming to a close

2008-09-16T21:28:00.010+03:00

It's been noticeable for days now and it's becoming more and more evident that the so-called 'Palin effect' which energized McCain's campaign and helped him to a moderately big convention bounce is now ending. According to Research2000's and Hotline's polls Palin's favourability ratings have taken an impactful hit compared to the height of the convention.

In R2000's poll conducted on 9/11 Palin's favourability ratings were 52/35 (positive opinion/negative opinion). Today they were 45/44. In Hotline's poll her ratings on 9/7 were 48/24, today they were 47/36. Also today the percentage of people who think she's "just another politician who offers no new ideas and engages in negative politics" was 36% in Hotline's poll, nine points up since 9/7.

This has been in no way suprising but it is still worthwhile to mention because Palin has been a big factor in the recent McCain popularity surge and in the slight panic mode of the Democrats. She brought energy, excitement and celebity quality to the ticket and she drilled herself into the national conciousness like an Alaskan oil drill. The scandals relating to her family just intensified the immediate cult status she received and some section of the media by critisizing her (validly or not) created a minor backlash against Obama. That's why Obama had such difficulty adjusting to Palin because he had to take into an account the media frenzy that was going on.

Now things have settled down a bit. Palin gave her first interview which was not a catastrophe but it deflated her status. Her "ok" or worse performance combined with news that many claims about her (Bridge to Nowhere, earmarks etc.) were not "100% true" like most of the media so eloquently puts it slowed down the hype considerably. She was not the super politician anymore and McCain-Palin ticket had trouble answering the accusations. The momentum shifted to Obama and he has found a working tactic against Palin of not attacking her directly but letting the "meme of lying" about her record circulate the media via aides and spokespersons.

Introducing Palin to the mix affected the race in many ways.

1) It "brought the Republicans home" - evangelicals and conservatives didn't have a candidate, now they have one.

2) The whole style of campaigning changed - McCain ditched "experience" in favour of "change" and "two mavericks".

3) It energized the whole presidential race and seduced many independents and even Democrats to think that maybe McCain was their man after all.

Now the hype is all but over. Palin's negativity numbers have risen as she has received a lot of negative publicity. Combine this with McCain's ruthless new attack ads which were widely criticized and used against McCain by Obama effectively and it seems Palin's positive effect among independents and Democrats is coming to a close. Note that Republicans still like the ticket a lot more now that Palin is on it. While that was McCain's one goal when picking Palin the main goal was to get independents and women Democrats behind this "maverick". It looks more and more that it's not going to happen at least by large numbers.

The title says "Positive 'Palin effect' coming to a close". There's a chance that she begins to have a negative effect on McCain. If the narrative that she's dishonest, not-really-a-reformer, lightweight and "not ready" continues to take hold the Republican ticket might be in trouble. This risk was known all along and while it seemed the Republicans could win the media war concerning Palin in the days following the convention the tide has turned. It's still no way certain that she's going to be a drag on the ticket but the possibility of that happening is increasing day by day.

McCain's campaign is now in a watershed moment. Can they salvage Palin's image and stop the slow bleeding? Did the campaign contribute to bringing Palin down by their negative ads? Just five days ago it looked great for McCain. It still doesn't look bad. But now with the economic doom and gloom this is a crucial moment for his campaign. It was in McCain's interest to keep Palin in the headlines but it's not anymore.

'Palin effect' ran wild and helped McCain a lot during the past 15 days. Can McCain now contain that effect or has he unleashed something that will eventually distract him and bring him down in this close election?

Obama's four roads to victory

2008-09-15T21:25:00.014+03:00

The focus of the national media is overwhelmingly on the national polls which is somewhat understandable because it's easier to state simple numbers instead of going into a detailed analysis about electoral college. Yes, there is talk about swing states (I'd think most people now know that Ohio is a swing state after being in a spotlight for years) and I know about CNN's John King's "magic wall" but if we are really to understand the state of the race we must focus even more carefully on the electoral map.

The last entry was about daily tracking polls and their significance. Now that we analyze electoral college it's important to remind that statewide polls are without much doubt the most important polls there are - after all the state-by-state results are that matter in the end. Rasmussen is releasing five new battleground state polls this evening but they are not likely to be race-altering numbers. The fundamentals of this race are clear at this point.

Obama and his staff talked about a 50-state plan during the summer and I believe it was in part sincere optimism. However, the conventions and the current dynamics of the race have pretty much shattered all hope for team Obama that he's going to be competitive in traditionally very red states like Georgia, North Dakota, Montana or even North Carolina and Missouri. The race looks more and more like a traditional horse race between a Democrat and a Republican. It all comes down to a bunch of key states, though one must admit the bunch looks a little bit different than in the past.

First of all, it seems pretty clear now that Obama has a good probability of winning all states that John Kerry carried in 2004 (known as 'Kerry states'). If Obama is able to win those states he's going to have 252 electoral votes, just 18 short of the magical 270. It's not as easy as it looks though. Kerry states that are crucial and possible candidates to flip to McCain are Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire and long-shots Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Pennsylvania is one that has been acclaimed to be one of Obama's achilles heels and the hype has probably gone a bit too far. Sure, Clinton beat Obama badly in Pennsylvania but the claim that these so-called blue-collar workers are deeply difficult for Obama to reach is an overreaction and one example of how the media loves narratives and clings on to them a bit too passionately and for a bit too long. McCain hasn't been ahead in Pennsylvania in one single poll, not even at the height of his convention bounce during the past week.

Michigan is arguably a tougher call and one of the absolute key states for Obama. If he loses Michigan he's in all likelyhood going to lose. However, Michigan is always being heralded as ripe for Republicans but the economy favours Obama a lot in the state. The polls have been close and it's the toughest state for Obama to defend but it still seems it's going blue in November. Wisconsin and Minnesota are states that McCain fantasizes of but it's very hard for him to win there. Again, if he wins one of those states it's probable that Obama's going to lose by a big margin.

Now, one Kerry state that can play a suprisingly decisive role for Obama in November is New Hampshire. The winner of the Granite State receives only four EV's but as you can soon see those EV's can be crucial.

One other state that has to be mentioned before the scenarios is Iowa. It is according to all polls solidly going to Obama with its 7 EV's. It's an important capture for Obama.

Let's assume that the base Obama now has is 255 EV (Kerry states minus New Hampshire plus Iowa). He has to keep that base or he's toast (eg. losing Pennsylvania but winning Ohio? Not likely). Here are his roads to victory:

1) 'The Likely Road'

255 + NM + CO + NH = 273

According to all polls this is the most likely route to victory for Obama. No matter how you spin the map this scenario seems to be the easiest for Obama to reach. New Mexico has looked strong for months, Colorado is leaning Democratic more and more and New Hampshire is one of the Kerry states that Obama has had a lead in, albeit a small one. Notice that the probability of Obama to win those states decreases from left to right. (Note: New Hampshire's important role)

2) 'The Western Road'

255 + NM + CO + NV = 274

The same as scenario one except New Hampshire is replaced by Nevada. Nevada has been close in the latest polls and the state's demographics are changing rapidly but it would still be quite a coup for Obama. Still this remains a possible scenario.

3) 'The Thief's Road'

255 + VA + any state (eg. NH) = over 270

If Obama wins Virginia he's only two EV's short of victory. Then New Hampshire would again play a crucial role in bringing Obama past the finish line. On the other hand, if Obama wins Virginia and its 13 EV's it's likely that he's going to win more than one other state. As to how likely an Obama victory is in Virginia? The demographics are changing in this state too and the Democrats have had a formidable voter registration effort there. The African American turnout would have to be big. It's not impossible - Virginia's result is one of the most difficult to estimate (remember also the Bradley effect). Virginia has been traditionally a solid red state so this would definately be a magnificent theft by Obama.

4) 'The Battleground Road'

255 + OH/FL = over 270

If Obama wins Ohio, it's done. Ohio has been swinging back and forth in the latest polls, though it seems McCain has the upper hand at the moment. Florida seems to lean Republican and is a tough place for Obama to crack. He has the money to keep trying there but it's still a moderately long shot.

So in conclusion, Obama has quite a few ways to win this election (more than McCain on which I focus in the coming days). The assumption here is that Obama keeps the Kerry states (minus NH) and carries Iowa. One might claim that's a too optimistic of an assumption. However, the dynamics of the race seem to indicate that if Obama loses any of those Kerry states like Pennsylvania, Minnesota or Wisconsin it will be hard for him to clean the table elsewhere. Those 255 EV's are not a lock for him yet and he has to fight to keep them but he has a much easier task of keeping all those states than McCain has of winning any one of those.

How to get those 15 electoral votes? Four scenarios rise above all else. Personally I estimate that either 'The Likely Road' or 'The Battleground Road' (with Ohio) are the most likely ones (huh, I have a lot of imagination in naming things). It'll be interesting to follow state polls and to see the race evolving.

One thing is for sure. If nothing dramatic happens and the race stays relatively close until the election day, Obama has more ways of winning than McCain. I'll analyze McCain's prospects soon. But one other thing is sure also - forget Georgia, Missouri and the like.

If I had to put my money on the line for Obama I'd say Ohio is the place to bet on. He wins there and it's over. One state, folks, it might just come down to one state again.

The basics of tracking polls - do they matter?

2008-09-14T12:11:00.023+03:00

September 11th is not infamous anymore only for the obvious reason, it also marked the moment when there were four tracking polls published each day for the US presidential election (Research 2000/Daily Kos poll began). It's quite a number when compared to the last election or considering that it's still almost two months to the election day. However, a sheer quantity of polls doesn't necessarily quarantee reliable results. Therefore it's important to keep in mind a few basic facts about polls and especially about daily tracking polls.

There are four daily polls which are provided by Gallup, Rasmussen, Diageo/Hotline and the aforementioned Research 2000/Daily Kos. Gallup (yes, that Gallup) is a famous and old polling company which has been tracking this election daily since the primaries. Rasmussen Reports is another solid name in polling and it has also covered this election for some time now. Scott Rasmussen, the head of the company, is an evangelical Christian and the company has cooperated with Fox News but despite these facts he's widely considered to be a reliable and independent pollster. Diageo/Hotline started their daily polling on September 2nd and Reseach 2000/Daily Kos on September 11th. Daily Kos is a liberal blogging site but they have provided all the internals of Research 2000's polling so people can judge for themselves whether they are reliable or not. It's commendable to release as much of the polling internals and methodology as possible so Research 2000 is a welcomed addition.

There are certain things that has to be kept in mind when reading these polls. First, all four publish what are known as three-day rolling averages. This means that the average of polls from three past consecutive days will be published. On September 15th they publish the average of polls from 12th-14h of September. Each day the oldest day of polling will be dropped from the average and the previous day's poll is added to replace it. This has a few implications - the variance between the polls will not be huge because of the balancing effect of the previous days. Also, if one candidate one day takes a lead of 3% it is not clear whether this was because the previous day was excellent for that candidate or that the day which was dropped from the rolling average was a good day for him and therefore he lost that good number from his average.

Secondly, polls have always a margin of error and even though this is self-evident to many, it tends to be ignored in the heat of the race where passions run high. In the case of these four tracking polls, they report their 'MoE' to be between 2-3%. Any movement inside those numbers can be attributed to MoE and it's easy to read too much into a poll that has eg. Obama moving up one point when in truth it doesn't tell you any concrete, scientifical, statistical info at all.

Third thing to keep in mind is the methodology of different polls. This is very important and in essence the very core of polling. What questions do you ask is naturally a fundamental aspect but more importantly who do you ask them and in what proportion? All the pollsters try to estimate in which proportion the people will vote come election day. Few examples: women tend to vote more actively so many pollsters have the women-men ratio at approximately 52-48. Democrats have had the advantage of registered voters so all the pollsters ask more registered Democrats than registered Republicans. How big the difference is especially after the so-called 'Palin bounce' is really hard to estimate and so the pollsters have different estimates and this reflects directly into their poll results.

In conclusion we have four polling companies publishing three-day rolling averages on a daily basis. Margin of error is real and the methodologies of different pollsters matter a lot. Then how big an importance we should give to these tracking polls?

The answer is obvious to many but in practice many ignore it. What matter are trends. In any given day the margin of error may and will impact the numbers significantly because no pollster has resources to poll such a large number of people that MoE would be in reasonable levels. These three day rolling averages exist just because of that - that ables the pollsters to lower their MoE to 2-3%. However, the MoE is still there and 1-2% shifts up or down in these daily published polls alone do not tell you anything. Look at the past five daily polls and you start to get an idea. Compare one pollster's numbers with others - see if there are any common trends. Is McCain moving up in three of these four pollster's polls during the past five days? Is Obama consistently down 2-3% in many of these polls during many consecutive days?

This common sense attitude gets easily lost these days with the 'poll-mania' running wild. Political junkies, myself included, get easily trapped in the world of daily polls and start reading something into them that really isn't there. It's tempting and somewhat entertaining (depending on how your candidate is doing in the polls) but ultimately quite frutile. This syndrome does not limit itself into political junkies as news outlets are prone to make the same mistake sometimes. However, they usually put more weight into their own opinion polling (CNN, CBS etc.) and hype those polls out of proportion instead of the daily tracking polls. When it comes to the ordinary voter, they really don't follow the polls themselves but "surrender themselves" to the narrative that the media is touting at any one time. Tracking polls give the media more material to chew on but luckily the TV media for example hasn't started any "daily poll shows". Believe me, that day could come and it wouldn't be good news.

Tracking polls are mainly a concern of internet bloggers and enthusiasists at the moment. They are entertaining and when viewed through a larger scope they contain valuable information specifically in terms of trends. As temptating as it is to read into Gallup's daily poll that "Palin's interview gave McCain a one-point bump" it really isn't a very solid conclusion or even relevant in the big picture.

Remember, there are still 51 days left. That means we can enjoy at least 204 daily tracking polls. It's all perspective.

The launch of a new political blog

2008-09-14T01:22:00.005+03:00

Welcome all readers to a new political blog focused on international political events. The focus this fall will be on the US presidential elections since its long-term significance cannot be underestimated. The aim is to analyze all the latest events in the presidential race including the newest polls and the latest controversies and policy details. However, the focus is not on daily occurrances per se, but to analyze the factors behind the news and the polls.

The blog and the whole concept is still in its infancy but as time goes by there's sure to come some weekly regular features. For now I wish you all welcome and hopefully you'll enjoy the analysis in the coming months.