just how big is this tent?

Obama has done a lot to disappoint the liberal/progressive/pinko (or progressives? well, whatever those crazy lefties are calling themselves these days), especially in his appointment of traditional, center-right Democrats to the cabinet, but up until this point nothing has come close to the (righteous) indignation felt by many Obama supporters when the president-elected selected Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. While this is a clear sign that Obama intends to make good on his promise made during his acceptance speech to be the president of those who did not vote for him as well. But what about the (majority) of Americans who did? Are our votes, once cast, suddenly meaningless in Obama's attempts to end partisanship in Washington?

Much has been said about tolerance, but there is a difference between tolerance and approval. The best example that springs to mind is Sarah Palin describing her personal attitudes towards homosexuals at the vice-presidential debate. She said that although she strongly disagreed with anything approving of same-sex marriage, she was "tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners." Those words (and perhaps, more importantly, the way they were delivered) probably did not suggest to anyone that she in any way approved of such choices, merely that she was able to tolerate their existance (as long as it wasn't in front of the altar at least). However, by selecting Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration (making him one of only two religious figures involved in the ceremony), Obama is more than tolerating the intolerance against homosexuality on the Christian right, he is giving it his stamp of approval. This is not a case of having a discussion with Warren about his views or listening to his opinions, but rather of elevating the Reverand to a position of high authority and legitimacy within his inauguration ceremony (and, by symbolic extension, his presidency).

Obama claims to want to invite everyone to the table, but how is that possible when the intolerance of certain invitees will surely make some groups feel aggressively excluded? How accepting should we be of intolerance? His desire to unify all Americans is well placed (and part of what won him the election). On election night, when Obama said that he wanted to be president of all Americans, regardless of how they voted, he was right. But all Americans does include those of us who did support the president-elect. By extending this invitation to Warren, Obama essentially indicating that he values the approval of the Christian right more than the comfort of the gay community (perhaps because he can, virtually no matter what his actions are, remain fairly confident in the support of the latter).

bush administration's transition strategy

So, there's been a lot of discussion of the coordination between the Bush and Obama administrations of late, primarily focused on how to enact a smooth transition of power in what will be the first presidential transfer of authority since 9/11. Much has been made of the contingency plans for emergency situations (wait? they had those??) that the Bush White House is providing President-elect Obama. However, at the same time that the current administration is putting on its best front in its efforts to keep America safe by providing the incoming president with important information, Bush et al. also seem downright determined to pass as many absurd regulations as possible, which the Obama administration would inevitably undo, but only after wasting a lot of time and energy. The most recent, of course, is the "right of conscience" rule, the latest way conservatives have come up with of trying to transform the woman's right to choose to the woman's right to battle a seemingly infinite number of governmental barriers and then maybe, just maybe, if she has the determination, time and resources be able to exercise that right. The regulation prohibits federal money recipients (read: all hospitals) from discriminating against health practitioners (including doctors, nurses and hygenists) who refuse to perform certain procedures because of their personal beliefs and bans hospitals from forcing employees to participate in those procedures (a caveat expansive enough that it would allow people to refuse to clean the instruments if they were being prepared for an abortion procedure). In addition to making the lives of women who do make the difficult personal decision to have an abortion even harder, it also achieve the secondary (or maybe even primary) goal of forcing the Obama administration to waste that precious time and energy that could be used to, oh, I don't know, prevent another terrorist attack on America.

... because women just can't speak to reporters

There was a bit too much of a sense of déjà vu today when Caroline Kennedy was shepherded away from reporters by her aides when asked a question about her qualifications for being senator. When asked the question, Kennedy apparently began to answer the question (I know, I know, what audacity) before being immediately hurried away by her aides. The poor woman actually said, "Hopefully I can come back and answer all those questions," while she climbing into her car. Not quite as bad as Palin telling Katie Couric that she needed to call and ask someone about the answer to question, but same general concept.

This continuing perception that female politicians are essentially unable to roll with the punches the way their male counterparts do is disturbing in and of itself. But it speaks to a larger problem of women being pushed to the forefront of the political scene for what they are (women) rather than what they've done. In some bizarre attempt to replace Hillary Clinton in the heart of the feminist movement, first the Republican and now the Democratic Party (well, to be fair, she has yet to actually be appointed) have rushed into filling the void with some woman, any woman, who hopefully could manage to provide some other vote catching mechanism as well. In Palin's case, she had the added benefit of shoring up the base. And in Kennedy's case, well, I think we all know what she brings to the table. The fact of the matter is, there are qualified women in both parties (Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Kathleen Sebelius, Olympia Snow and Barbara Boxer, to name a few, along with recent Obama Cabinet pick Janet Napolitano). So why keep supporting unqualified candidates with some amount of star power? Well, in part, perhaps, because that seems to be a working formula for many male politicians (care to recollect our current president?), but also because there seems to be some sort of consensus that voters will only stand behind a woman if they associate her either with powerful male leaders or "strong family values" (which apparently means instilling the value of teenage pregnancy). However, why everyone keeps harping on this formula that didn't work for Palin (more voters, in the end, had a negative view of her than a postive one) is beyond me.

what's in a senate seat?

Well, according to Governor Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000. But I'll leave Blagojevich's questionable political dealings vis-a-vis Obama's vacant Senate seat, which may not even have been strictly illegal under America's delightfully vague definitions of political corruption, for others to analyze. Instead, I'm going to discuss that other Senate seat soon to be left open by a former Democratic candidate for president. Caroline Kennedy seems to be the likely front-runner, now that she's officially declared her interest in the office. Her bid has been met with some (deserved) degree of skepticism. In fact, the best thing I've actually heard in her favor is that she'll help maintain the half-century long tradition of having a Kennedy in the Senate. As an added bonus, she'll bring some star power and name recognition to the office, à la Hillary Clinton. The most innocent benefit of this idea being, of course, that it would keep someone in New York's junior Senate seat who would command a great deal of power and respect. Oh, and the fact that being able to vote Kennedy-Patterson may help Patterson win his re-election bid. The New York Times ran an article today originally titled "Resume Long on Politics, but Short on Public Office" The name of the article was changed at some point this morning to "Kennedy's Credentials are Debated in Senate Bid," perhaps because the article failed to name a single way that Kennedy's resume was long on anything save charity board membership. First among the grievances against Kennedy is the fact that she has never been elected to public office and, until the Obama campaign, was not particularly drawn to that perennial political call of the Kennedy clan.

What I find most disturbing is the continuing trend in politics that power female figures must derive their clout from name association and familial ties. Hillary, let us remember, despite some level of disapproving noise from her camp in reference to the prospect of a Kennedy pick, had never been elected to political office before running for the New York Senate seat in 2000. While Clinton was clearly far more qualified than Kennedy is (given the fact that, you know, she'd be highly involved in politics since her early days at Wellesley (where she was president of, wait for it, the Young Republicans her freshman year). However, there is something distressing about the fact that when the Democrats turn to find a powerful female leader, the first place they look is at the wives and daughters of established (male) politicians.

one small shoe toss for man, one giant leap for democracy

As George W. Bush concluded his final trip to Iraq, he received a parting gift from a local journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, who hurled not one, but both shoes at the outgoing American president, The first toss was accompanied by Mr. al-Zaidi shouting: "This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!" The second was described as a gift "from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." Democracy-building mission accomplished? Evidently. Bush hailed the incident as a sign of the democratic progress made in Iraq claiming, "that’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves" while the man's screams were heard in the background. Well, so much for being bid farewell as liberators...

could the dems still reach magic number 60?

As it stands, the Democratic Party has picked up 6 seats in the Senate (with 3 races, in Georgia, Alaska and Minnesota, still too close to call), giving them a total of 57, if you count the independents Bernie Sanders and, more questionably, Joe Lieberman, who caucus with Democrats. Now that he is no longer needed to hold a razor thin 51-49 lead for the Democrats, Lieberman's standing in the party is becoming increasingly tenuous, so even in the unlikely event that the Democrats do miraculously manage to sweep up those three seats, it's unclear how filibuster-proof their majority would actually be. In reality, the Dems would be lucky to pick up any of the remaining seats. In Georgia, Chambliss leads Martin by over 100,000 votes, but remains some 9,000 votes short of the absolute majority required by Georgia State Law (due to Libertarian candidate Buckley capturing 3% of the vote). Unfortunately, a run-off win does not look promising for the Democrats. Even if most Libertarian voters go for Martin (and that in itself is no guarantee), it will not make up for the loss of a large number of black voters, which is the reason why the race was even close in the first place. The Obama candidacy had an enormous effect on black turnout and registration; African Americans made up an unprecedented 28% of the Georgia electorate. According to exit polls, 93% of them also voted for Martin. It is highly unlikely that a run-off Senate election will bring nearly the same level of enthusiasm. If the Democrats were going to take the Georgia Senate seat, they would have been able to do it because of the Obama effect; without it, they will most likely be left with an older, whiter constituency which is less likely to pull the lever for Martin.

The Alaska senate race remains very much up in the air; Stevens leads Begich by 3,527 votes, but at least 50,000 (and possibly as many as 70,000) absentee and early votes need to be counted. While Begich certainly could win the election, in most years, absentee and early voters tend to be older and more likely to be in the military (not the Democrats' target constuencies); however, this year has proved the exception in many respects, including producing a much more liberal early voting crowd. However, Stevens is further helped by the fact that at least some portion of these voters would have cast their ballots before he was convicted on seven counts of felony on October 26 (the Monday before Election Day).

Minnesota might be the Democrats' best bet in the three undecided races. Al Franken would almost certainly have carried the race if Dean Barkley hadn't scraped off 15% of the electorate, most of whom probably would have otherwise voted down the ballot for the Democrats. 27% of Independents, who make up a full quarter of the Minnesota electorate, voted for Barkley, 38% for Franken and 33% for Coleman; by contrast, Independents went for Obama 56-39. We can safely assume that Barkley pulled more from Democrat-leaning Independents than he did from Republican-leaning ones. As it now stands, Coleman leads Franken by a mere 206 votes, far less than the 1/2 of a percent required for the victory to stand without a recount. Franken could certainly manage a victory here, but it's essentially a toss-up. Supposedly, the final count should be done by December, but given the general pace of these things, we'll be lucky to know the result by Obama's Inaugaration Day.

"young, handsome and sun-tanned"

How refreshing it is when the political leaders of someone else's country are the ones behaving embarrassingly for a change. After Obama's historic victory, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, best known, perhaps, for his wealth, age (he was born exactly one month after John McCain) and playboy antics, remarked to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that President-elect Obama “has all the qualities to get along well with you: he’s young, handsome and suntanned, so I think you can develop a good working relationship." While I am sure everyone is relieved that Berlusconi foresees a bright future for American-Russian relations, the joke did not go over so well. Nor does it necessarily make much sense. Evidently, it was some sort of reference to Medvedev also being young, handsome and suntanned (not qualities I'd ever particularly remarked upon in him myself...). In other post-Cold War relations news, Kremlin announced that Medvedev and Obama would soon meet so perhaps Berlusconi's comment gave Medvedev a nudge in the diplomatic direction?

what bradley effect?

In the weeks leading up to the election, when Obama was shown to be consistently ahead in the polls, once burned twice shy Democrats bit their nails and hemmed and hawed, spouting out reason after reason why the polls should not be trusted: pollsters were over-estimating Obama supporter turnout (all those newly registered voters who poured into polling places to vote in the primaries would suddenly disappear), Republicans would manage to invalidate the voting rights of the hundreds of thousands of newly registered voters if they even bothered to turn up in the first place, there would be so many voting machine malfunctions that long lines would prevent most people from voting, and, of course, all those white voters who claimed to be voting Obama were actually going to cast their ballot for McCain.

This became a favorite theme for the GOP as well as Election Day drew near. Don't worry, Republican colleagues introducing McCain would wink, all those voters who tell pollsters they're voting for Obama will do something quite different once they actually get inside the privacy of the voting booth. And yet, as the dust settles from a decisive Obama victory, the Bradley effect is nowhere in sight. The Democratic Senator from Illinoins captured 53% of the vote against the GOP candidate's 46%, giving him a 7% margin of victory (as compared to the final RCP poll of polls which showed Obama gaining an average of 52.1% with McCain at 44.5%, a 7.6 margin of victory). While these numbers may indicate that undecideds (who appear to be at 3.4% in the final RCP calculation) broke slightly for McCain, it shows no evidence that those who said they were supporting Obama secretly slipped a McCain vote into the ballot box.

Among the swing states, Obama frequently did slightly better than he did in the polls (in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Colorado, Obama won by a margin 2-3 points greater than the ones shown in the polls; in North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia, Obama won by a margin of .1 to .8 larger than those predicted on RCP; McCain's margin of victory in Montana was 1.3 points closer than the polls indicated). McCain slightly outdid his poll predictions in New Hampshire (he narrowed Obama's victory by .6 points) and Georgia (where he won by a margin 1.1 points greater than projected). The most striking differences (and probably the only legitimately significant ones) were in New Mexico and Nevada where Obama won by nearly twice the predicted margins. These differences, however, are probably due to the unusually high youth voter turnout, especially in New Mexico where 70% of registered voters 18-29 came out (as opposed to 49% in 2004), rather than some sort of reverse Bradley effect.

So, in the first presidential election involving a major African-American candidate, the Bradley effect appears to have had no major consequences. Does that mean that it will not affect future elections? No. Does that mean that racism is dead? No. Does it mean that all the racists would never vote for a Democrat in the first place? No. But at the very least it means that when the country is facing the greatest economic crisis in a generation, two extraordinarily costly wars and rampant foreign animosity, an intelligent, charismatic, eloquent, personable, handsome black man with no skeletons in his closet who promises a new kind of politics in Washington can attract enough white voters to win the election. Which may not be much, but given the history of racial issues in America, it really is something.

bad news for gay marriage; good news for abortion rights

On such a historic day, one on which so many barriers and prejudices have been broken down, it is sobering to remember that this is also the day when one minority group in America has had significant rights revoked. Three states (Arizona, California, and Florida) had proposals to ban gay marriage on the ballot this year. All three passed. Arkansas residents also approveda proposition prohibiting gay couples from adopting children. The most depressing one, of course, is California where so recently the California Supreme Court passed a ruling to extend equal marriage rights to gay couples. Just a few days ago, LaDoris Cordell, a black lesbian contributor for Salon, wrote a column expressing faith that, despite historic levels of homophobia (and hope on the part of the pro-Proposition 8 movement that the "Obama Effect" would help pass the measure), "black voters, I predict, view same-sex marriage as the constitutional guarantee that it is." This does not appear to have been the case. 70% of black voters in California voted to ban gay marriages compared to 49% of white voters. Homophobia runs rampant in this country regardless of race, but it still appears to run stronger still in many minority communities. These are prejudices that leaders, both black and white, must work to change in the coming months and years.

On a brighter note, Roe v. Wade had a better time of it last night. Both refernda proposing to ban abortion (one in Colorado and one in South Dakota) were (relatively) soundly defeated. And the proposition in California to require parental notification (although not consent) 48-hours prior to performing an abortion on a minor was also rejected by voters.

The case for euthanasia was also advanced last night; Washington passed (59% to 41%) a proposition permitting doctor-assisted suicide which would allow terminally ill, adult residents to request and self-administer lethal medications prescribed by a physicain as long as the person is deemed to have six months or less left to live.

what an amazing world we now live in

Yes, we did. Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the united states. He will be the first African-American president. He will be the first president to be born outside the Continental 48. He will be the first senator to become president since JFK and the first non-Southern Democrat to enter the office since then. He is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter n 1976, and received the highest percentage of the vote of any Democrat since LBJ. He attracted more votes than any other candidate in history. He is the first Democrat to carry Indiana or Virginia since 1964. For today, at least, the united states of america seems like a place where all things are possible. Never has a country more drastically changed the world's opinion in of it in the space of a few short hours. The United States has a unique opportunity to break from the last eight years of alienating our allies via military intervention under the guise of misguided "democracy building" and destroying our credibility through our toleration of dishonorable conduct during the "war on terror." Perhaps, with obama at the helm, America can begin to re-earn the trust and admiration that we once enjoyed. It will take hard work and we still have a long road ahead of us, but a strong victory for Obama, a black man with a Muslim father elected by a predominately white Christian nation, is a first step toward demonstrating what true American exceptionalism should be.

Another ringing endorsement for McCain

So, when asked by reporters whom she cast her ballot for, Sarah Palin bizarrely replied that she was "exercising her right to privacy" (apparently, not a right that she would want to extend to, you know, women's bodies' or anything, but you know let's not get too crazy here) and refused to answer the question. Joan Walsh's explanation seems to be that perhaps Sarah wrote in her own name at the top of the ticket. Whatever the case, it does seem a strange moment to decide not to make a ringing endorsement of your presidential candidate.

Dixville Notch goes for Obama

Dixville Notch, the small town of 75 (with 21 registered voters) in New Hampshire where polls open at midnight on Election Day, cast 15 votes for Obama and 6 for McCain.  Unfortunately, this appears to be predictive neither of national nor state-wide electoral outcomes.  However, I can't help but find it somewhat encouraging that this town, which has voted Republican in the last four presidential races, has produced such a large margin for Obama.

the final day

So, as we all brace ourselves for tomorrow, suffering from an intense mix of elevated excitement, trepidation, and abject terror, the polls yielded up some interesting changes. Gallup published its final estimate for the outcome of the presidential election: 55% Obama 44% McCain based on their final traditional voter poll which showed 53% for Obama and 42% for McCain. These numbers reflect the largest margin of victory for Obama recorded by Gallup throughout the campaign. Rasmussen's number remain somewhat less optimistic, showing Obama ahead 52-46. This week's Marist poll shows Obama ahead by 9 points (53-44), up from a 7-point margin last week. The RCP national average is back up to 7.5 points (51.7 to 44.2), indicating a reversal of any potential narrowing trends. Most importantly, the RCP average shows Obama to be drawing the absolute highest percentage of the vote that he has since they began tracking head-to-head McCain-Obama match-ups (that would be back in September 2007).

There have also been some new developments in the predictions of who will actually be voting in the election. Gallup polls indicate that despite the seemingly rampant Obamania among today's youth, there is no solid evidence that the percentage of young registered voters will be significantly higher than in 2004, although there will be even more of them due to Obama's registration drives. Pollster.com also notes that in polls which reach cellphone only respondents, Obama's lead is 3% greater than it is in polls that do not reach these voters. More importantly, the polls which have included cell-phone only users have shown no tightening of the national race whatsoever. Many analysts have claimed that if landline only pollsters reach a proportionate number of 18-30 year olds (the major demographic affected by the lack of cell-phone only users being polled), then it should not significantly effect poll outcomes. This assumes, however, that there are no significant demographic differences (such as educational level, religiosity, marital status, etc) between cell-phone only 18-30 year olds and non-cell-phone only 18-30 year olds. I find this somewhat difficult to believe; this might be unfounded, but I would assume that 18-30 year olds who are more "settled" (married, have children, etc) would be more likely to have landlines than those who are single and childless. There is also a relationship between educational attainment and age of marriage and age at birth of first child. My (relatively unscientific) assumption based on these factors would be that 18-30 year olds who rely entirely on cell phones would be more likely to vote for Obama than their land line owning counterparts. Regardless of which way these voters end up leaning, I am relatively sure that there are significant demographic differences (if only based on the fact that not a single person I know between 18 and 30 actually has a landline) between the two groups that should be taken into account by pollsters in the future.

The state polls look slightly less promising. Pennsylvania has clearly broken for McCain in a big way over the past few weeks, cutting Obama's lead in half, but I think that an average 7.6 point margin for Obama still looks fairly unbeatable as McCain is essentially out of time. Virginia and Ohio have both been unnervingly switched to the toss-up pile on realclear, but the latest polling in both shows a slight uptick for Obama, which hopefully indicates at least an end of McCain's gains. Florida polls remain very tight, but it's important to note that not a single poll poll has found McCain ahead since one taken by Strategic Vision (a Republican affiliated pollster) from 10/20 to 10/22. Finally, most state polls in VA and PA have 11/1 as the most recent polling date (the exception is the Reuters/Zogby poll which shows a 14-point lead for Obama in PA and the 6-point lead in VA both of which were recorded from 10/30 through 11/2); if there is in fact a widening in the national polls reflected primarily at the very beginning of November, then there might be improvement (or at least an end of any alleged narrowing of Obama's lead) in individual states on electiion day.

the latest (?) palin embarrassment

So, evidently, Palin spent five minutes on the phone yesterday speaking to a person with an absurd French accent whom she believed to be President Sarkozy. Turns out, she had been prank called by my now favorite Quebecois comedy duo, the Masked Avengers. First off, let's give credit where credit's due, both Palin and her assistant (Bexsy?) seem to know who President Sarkozy is, or at least that he is a real and not fictitious important person. Beyond that, Joan Walsh, of Salon.com, notes that Palin:

Might have known she was being pranked by Quebec comedy duo Masked Avengers when a comedian posing as French president Nicolas Sarkozy talked about going hunting with Palin by helicopter, and exclaimed, "I just love killing those animals, taking away life, that is so fun!" He also asked if Joe the Plumber was her husband, and told her he enjoyed "the documentary they made on your life, 'Nailin' Palin,' that was really edgy," a reference to a recent Palin-inspired porn film.

So, should Palin have been able to figure out that it wasn't Sarkozy? Perhaps not. After all, Palin's cardinal belief about influential world leaders seems to be that they don't need to (or perhaps shouldn't) have any knowledge about influential domestic court cases or prominent national newspapers let alone have any curiosity, intellectual or otherwise, about what goes on outside the borders of their own state. I'm sure that she found Sarkozy's confusion about her relationship to Joe the Plumber and the genre of "Nailin' Palin" to be not only understandable, but the undeniable mark of positive, uninformed leadership.

noise convert

Anyone who checks pollster, fivethirtyeight and realclearpolitics a minimum of 15 times a day will have heard a lot of talk about "sampling noise" over the last week or so. The concept is that, shockingly enough, random samples of several hundred of people or so may show slight differences that do not actually reflect any national trend. As this idea is primarily invoked to dispute the notion that Obama's lead is in the polls is shrinking, my immediate reaction to any references to such "noise" is something along the lines of "SHIT, the lead IS narrowing and the liberally bent websites like pollster and fivethirtyeight are trying to deny the reality of the imminent doom the impending election will bring when McCain some how manages not only to hold on to all the Republican states, but also miraculous to win Pennsylvania!" However, after yesterday's panic (spurred primarily by the Rasmussen poll shrinking to 3 points, the closest it's been in over a month), the polls seem to have returned more or less to normal. Obama's back to leading McCain 51-46 in Rasmussen, bringing it back to the range where it's been for the past 35 days or so. Zogby shows Obama ahead by 7 (50-43), up from their 5 point margin yesterday. his lead in the traditional voters model on Gallup is also back up to 5 points (50-45).

The fact that Rasmussen shows Obama's lead returning to a 5-6 point margin is particularly relieving. They are one of the more reputed pollsters, they use the largest sample size, have had the least fluctuations and Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight considers them to be one of the best (certainly the most reliable daily tracker), which surely has some effect on my opinions. Moreover, Rasmussen remains the only site I have visited recently (perhaps ever) that regularly displays McCain/Palin advertisements, giving me a strange sense of confidence in the accuracy of reports I read of Obama gaining or holding steady in the polls. So, in conclusion, I am beginning to have some degree of confidence in this whole noise theory and will try, in future posts, not to react in sheer panic to slight day-to-day changes which occur only in some portion of the polls.

thank you, rasmussen

Obama's up 54-44 in New Mexico.

Obama's lead in the national polls is shrinking - will the state polls follow? Also, why is no one polling New Mexico?

Much as I am loathe to say it, with Obama ahead by a scant 3% in Rasmussen's national poll today (the closest McCain has come to the Democratic candidate in over a month), the national lead may in fact to be shrinking (although the Zogby poll shows Obama's margin up a point . The state polls, however, seem to paint a much rosier picture (which is perhaps the primary reason why I am not having an epileptic fit at the moment). Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado have all had at least two polls come out in the last two days showing Obama up by 7 points or more. A recent Nevada poll by the Associated Press shows Obama up by an unprecedented 12 points and one by Suffolk shows him up by 10 (although the Rasmussen only has him up by 4). Given the fact that Obama needs only to win one of these states if he holds on to Pennsylvania and New Mexico (which looks fairly likely at this point), although he would be left with a dreaded 269-269 tie (which would be decided in his favor by the Democrat-led House) if he picked up just Nevada, things are not looking so bad. Furthermore, despite the claims that "no really guys, Pennsylvania is SUPER close, I promise" by conservatives and liberals alike, five of the last eight polls released show Obama up by 12 points or more (the other two have him ahead by 9). Rasmussen alone has him up by a modest 7 points (53-47), but notes that almost all of the tightening in the race is due to increased support for McCain rather than declining backing of Obama (and the 53% majority clearly surpasses Mr. Greener's over 50 threshold in order to secure an Obama victory); perhaps all those undecideds are merely breaking for the white guy a bit early. New Hampshire, despite McCain's declaration of love last week, was shown to be favoring Obama to the tune of 18 to 25 percentage points in the two latest polls (margins closer to those in the traditionally liberal bastions of Massachusetts and California than to those in your average swing state).

But the question remains: are the state polls going to follow the national ones? Probably not. Or, at least not in Ohio, Florida or Pennsylvania. The reason state polls tend to be slow on picking up national trends is because they are (typically) taken less frequently than the national ones. As the election nears, the poor voters in OH, FL and PA are probably being asked about their presidential preferences nearly as often as voters on the national level (these should be at most a day behind, since the polls released from those states reflect people who were polled as recently as Monday, versus yesterday for the national polls) . The places where we should be more concerned are the less traditional swing states, such as Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and Missouri where polls reflect voter preferences from around two days prior to the most recent national polls. And then there might be some real surprises, such as North Dakota and New Mexico, neither of which has data more reflecting opinions more recent than October 15th. North Dakota, I admit, I somewhat understand, who would have thought that a state whose major population trends are an increasing elderly population paired with a high level of out-migration of young people (although there has also been some consolidation of population in cities) which hasn't voted for a Democrat since LBJ trounced Goldwater in 1964 would be in play? The lack of polling in New Mexico, on the other hand, seems a bit bizarre (especially considering that it has a history of being a competitive state in recent years). Although New Mexico has trended toward Obama since every poll since mid-September and all but three since last February, a lot has change in the past two weeks. I'd like to see some polls reassurance that the October 13th Rasmussen poll indicating a 13-point Obama lead is part of a continuing trend.

the al qaeda candidate

So, I was fairly shocked to hear that Al Qaeda was endorsing John McCain for president. Naturally, this is excellent news for Obama (Barack gets Powell endorsement; McCain gets that of the most hated group in the country, not to mention the fact that it undermines his "tough stance" on the terror issue). I wasn't surprised because i don't think Al Qaeda would clearly benefit from his presidential policy with an influx of new recruits due to the continued war hawk policies of the Bush presidency (they almost certainly would), but rather because i thought they were a heck of a lot cleverer than that. After all, in 2004, the Osama Bin Laden endorsement video may have lost Kerry the election (it clearly didn't help). At the time, I assumed this was a rather brilliant move on the part of Bin Laden to ensure that Bush would get reelected; the man's no idiot, he knows his support of a the automatically weak-on-terror Democrat would be potentially crushing to the campaign, resulting in the reelection of W. and the continuation of war hawk policies that drive alienated and disenfranchised Arab and North African youth further into the arms of Islamist militant groups. so, what does it mean that Al Qaeda endorses John McCain? Are they secretly pushing for an Obama victory (which, according to at least some in this country, would lead to some sort socialist Islamist state) or are they genuinely hoping for a McCain presidency? I would probably say the latter (and only partially because I'm a leftist pinko from an anti-American part of the country). While the Osama Bin Laden tape was widely released, this endorsement was listed only on a password protected website. Clearly, some dissemination must have been intended (otherwise why post it at all?), but had they wanted to have the same effect on the American population at large, they obviously could have staged something more dramatic (and may still, for all I know, but let's certainly hope that they won't).

Are all those "undecideds" really closeted McCainites?

We were all wondering who they were (God knows, I was), those undecided voters, and Bill Greener gives us an interesting, if infuriating, answer in his article today in Salon. He suggests that they are all going to vote for McCain. Further, he declares, unless Obama is attracting at least 50% of the vote in key swing states, he is likely to lose them because all the undecideds are white racists who are unwilling to admit that they're actually voting for McCain (I think he phrases it more along the lines of how undecideds "trend" toward the white candidate, but be that as it may); he cites two gubernatorial and two senatorial races where two non-incumbents (one black, one white) were running against each other in 2006. The problem, of course, with his argument is that much of it isn't exactly true. First of all, Greener cites a single poll in two of the cases (he refers only to a single Survey USA taken the day before the election when discussing the Ken Blackwell-Ted Strickland gubernatorial race and again with the Harold Ford vs. Bob Corker senatorial race) as opposed to referring to any sort of general trend in the polls. Furthermore, Greener's claim that "as of this writing, Barack Obama is not polling consistently above 50 percent in a number of electoral-vote-rich swing states, including Ohio and Florida" is misleading at best. Four of the last six polls in Ohio show Obama receiving between 50 and 53% of the vote (the remaining two show him at 49%). The polls in Florida are much tighter and less conclusive, but also potentially irrelevant (as are those in Ohio). Obama has been doing so well in Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia, where all but one of the last seven polls show Obama receiving between 51 and 54% of the vote that he doesn't actually have to win either Ohio or Florida to carry the election. Nate Silver also gives an excellent rebuke of Greener's argument here.

Undoubtedly the Democrats could still blow this election, but I doubt that it will be because of flocks of undecided voters secretly fall asleep musing dreamily about the prospect of McCain and Palin in the White House.

Assassination attempt envy?

In more frightening news, two skinheads are now being held by the Feds on charges of plotting to go a national killing spree in which they would murder 88 black people (14 by decapitation), culminating in an assassination attempt on Barack Obama. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist movement, 88 standing for Heil Hitler (H being the 8th letter of the alphabet) and 14 as representing an influential white supremacist mantra: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." The Obama campaign has yet to comment on the development, but the big question is how the McCain camp may react. After Ashley Todd's attempt to link Obama supporters with racial/political violence and McCain's claim that he has heard himself be called a terrorist at Obama rallies (really, John? Which rallies were these, exactly?), I can only imagine what kind of story may be concocted about anattempt to murder John McCain, undoubtedly involving some militant anti-American black power movement led by Reverend Wright or perhaps a resurrected Weathermen movement headed by Ayers.

Wait, seriously? Pollsters don't call cell phone users?

So... just when I had almost been convinced that Obama's lead in the polls was not merely some figment of our collective liberal imagination, and that we might in fact be headed not only toward victory, but perhaps toward some sort of colossal land slide (yes, that blue state sandwiched between Ohio and Illinois would be Indianna) where even Arizona is no longer completely safe for McCain, a poll comes out showing Obama ahead in Minnesota by a scant five points in a St. Cloud State University survey. More terrifying still is the fact that the poll shows him ahead 42-37 - is this really suggesting that 21% of Minnesotans are actually undecided or voting for third party candidates? To my relief, the poll appears to have been taken from 10/14 to 10/22 and the two more recent polls by Rasmussen and Big10 Battleground show Obama's lead comfortably into the double digits (with him receiving well over half the vote). However, the most perplexing part of the entire thing remains the fact that 15% of those polled on the St. Cloud survey were cell phone users (apparently no one else has picked up on the fact that most people who graduated high school or college in the post-cell phone era never bothered to get landlines). So, the one poll that actually talks to a representative sample of 18-30 year olds is the one who shows a shrinking lead for Obama? Confusing to say the least (although, evidently the cell phone users polled did strongly prefer Obama). But who knows, maybe McCain will manage to pull in the youth vote after all.

Meanwhile, although Gallup and Rasmussen are finally showing Obama to be pulling even farther ahead in the polls, the Reuters/Zogby/CSPAN poll shows that his lead has shrunk from 10% to 5%. Anyway, my faith in all of these groups has been so severely undermined by their inability to take into account the telephonic preferences of my generation that perhaps I should just start ignoring the polls altogether, the way McCain seems to be doing.

But the most important development for the Obama campaign in this week of surprise endorsements is, of course, the one he received from the New York Times on Thursday. Never saw that one coming (but apparently Obama is only the eight straight Democrat the Times has endorsed for presidency, so you know, must have been a close call).

A startled Ken Adelman throws his support behind Barack Obama

Of all the bizarrely bad things that could have happened to the Republicans today, I think few people saw Ken Adelman's endorsement coming (Adelman, evidently, could hardly believe it himself). Adelman, a lifelong arch-conservative and typical Republican foreign-policy war heavyweight/war hawk (depending on how partisan we want to get here), has been palling around with the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz since he campaigned for Goldwater (although if his effect on the LBJ-Goldwater election is any indication of his political clout, this may in fact be a blessing in disguise for the McCain campaign). Regardless, this is not an endorsement that the right can brush off as merely another "black guy supporting the black guy" or an embittered member of the Bush Administration trying to rectify his legacy. But the kicker, perhaps, is the rationale behind Adelman's support (shockingly enough, does not appear to be due to a wild change of political philosophy after over 40 years as a devoted member of the right-wing faithful). George Packer of the New Yorker reports that, in a series of email correspondences, Adelman cites concerns about McCain's temperment and judgment as the major reasons for his decision to support Obama, despite his broad disagreements with virtually all of Obama's policies. What better way to drive home the Obama campaign's subtle or not-so-subtle tactic of painting McCain as too erratic to lead the nation in crisis.

Despite declarations from some conservative blogs that this endorsement means that the end is nigh for the McCain campaign, I am not nearly so optimistic. Endorsements rarely have much of an impact at all (Oprah's evidently seems to be the exception, but I remain skeptical) and the primary effect of this one may just be to dishearten/enrage the Republican base, or at least create some level of righteous indignation. Moreover, as part of the generation who was weaned on the bitter, bitter defeats (?) of 2000 and 2004, there are few things I believe more strongly in than the Dems ability to blow any election under any circumstances. But here's hoping that Adelman will swing a couple of staunch conservatives in Ohio with reservations about Obama's foreign policy credentials...