Well, the model is a slave to the results of the previous primaries. And right now it appears to me as though Clinton is running probably 3-5 points stronger in the national tracking polls than she has been throughout the recent primaries. If that is the case, that would imply a Clinton win by 5-7 points in Indiana, and an Obama win by 12-14 points in North Carolina.

Dajafi, that 538 site is really awesome. I'm sad that I said the guy was on crack yesterday based on the one thing you posted cause I've been reading more of it, and it's quite interesting. I totally misunderstood what he was doing with his model. Anyway, he mentions the thing I have quoted above in the comments of one of his posts, and I think it addresses what I meant when I said something real has changed (the 3-5 point shift), and I can get behind these numbers as reasonable expectations for tonight.

His county scorecards are really neat that he has posted today. They'll be helpful when the returns start coming in. I'm printing them before I leave my office today.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/north-carolina-scorecard.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/indiana-scorecard.html

It's getting towards that point in the evening where I start to crave exit polls, despite the fact that the early exit polls have proven wildly inaccurate pretty much every time this cycle.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's getting towards that point in the evening where I start to crave exit polls, despite the fact that the early exit polls have proven wildly inaccurate pretty much every time this cycle.

I think for the sake of your mental health, you need to go to graduate school and study library science or something. Or if you must keep your toe in politics, do political philosophy. Then you can always pull back and look at the big picture and quote Hobbes or Machiavelli or Aristotle.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Well, the model is a slave to the results of the previous primaries. And right now it appears to me as though Clinton is running probably 3-5 points stronger in the national tracking polls than she has been throughout the recent primaries. If that is the case, that would imply a Clinton win by 5-7 points in Indiana, and an Obama win by 12-14 points in North Carolina.

Dajafi, that 538 site is really awesome. I'm sad that I said the guy was on crack yesterday based on the one thing you posted cause I've been reading more of it, and it's quite interesting. I totally misunderstood what he was doing with his model. Anyway, he mentions the thing I have quoted above in the comments of one of his posts, and I think it addresses what I meant when I said something real has changed (the 3-5 point shift), and I can get behind these numbers as reasonable expectations for tonight.

His county scorecards are really neat that he has posted today. They'll be helpful when the returns start coming in. I'm printing them before I leave my office today.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/north-carolina-scorecard.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/indiana-scorecard.html

I thought it was cool too, though you're in a much better position to gauge its validity as a predictor than I am (both from having read more of it and knowing this stuff far better than I do).

Meanwhile, some anecdotal good news for Obama: high turnout in NC broadly and in Indianapolis.

I'm doing my stomach a favor and going to the movies with my wife rather than watching the returns. Will check what happened when I get home, then turn on the Phils...

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's getting towards that point in the evening where I start to crave exit polls, despite the fact that the early exit polls have proven wildly inaccurate pretty much every time this cycle.

I think for the sake of your mental health, you need to go to graduate school and study library science or something. Or if you must keep your toe in politics, do political philosophy. Then you can always pull back and look at the big picture and quote Hobbes or Machiavelli or Aristotle.

I like elections, why should I change what I like doing for my mental health?

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's getting towards that point in the evening where I start to crave exit polls, despite the fact that the early exit polls have proven wildly inaccurate pretty much every time this cycle.

I think for the sake of your mental health, you need to go to graduate school and study library science or something. Or if you must keep your toe in politics, do political philosophy. Then you can always pull back and look at the big picture and quote Hobbes or Machiavelli or Aristotle.

I like elections, why should I change what I like doing for my mental health?

You'll end up in a dark place of despair.

Anyway, this is a pretty good meta poll site as well

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/

I like competition, and I probably don't take politics as seriously as I should, at least in comparison with how much I care about sports. I wasn't crushed in 2006, and I won't be crushed when we get stomped this year. I'm not delusional about our chances, and really don't care that much about most public policy. I realize it's probably unhealthy and wrong, but I look at elections as more or less a game. I think it's a game I can be good at. I'm not sure where a dark place of despair comes in.

Anyway, if rooting for the Giants and Phillies for my whole life hasn't prepared me for crushing disappointment, I don't know what would.

I've been satiated. Thank you Drudge and your blaring red headlines.

Polls close at 7:00 in Indiana and 7:30 in NC.

Crazy early poll closing states. This should be all over before the Phils start tonight, I'd guess, unless Indiana is really close.

dajafi wrote:Regarding the neocons, there are only two things one need keep in mind:

1) They're always wrong
2) Being wrong never catches up with them

Read "Rise of the Vulcans," by James Mann, and you'll see that these people didn't come out of nowhere; they had the same bad ideas, applied somewhat differently, in the '70s, '80s and '90s as they did in this decade. (I'm referring here mostly to foreign policy, but the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Addington views on a "unitary executive" have been equally consistent.)

It would be a bit overblown to refer to them as parasites who jump from vessel to vessel, but that's fairly close to the mark. They detested Kissingerian "realism" 35 years ago, just as they detested James A. Baker 3d in the '90s and through to today. They were sure Gorby and the Commies were just trying to get us to lower our defenses before they let fly with the nukes. They're fundamentally non-"conservative" in that they don't let things like empirical, discernible data get in the way of their preconceived ideas, and they don't have the understanding that Grand Plans of governments generally tend to crumble upon contact with reality.

The only reason they never screwed the country as badly as they did under the current dimwit is because Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush41 all had some powers of independent discernment and/or a broader ideological range of advisers than Dubya, who instinctively equates all disagreement with disloyalty. My hope--and, to be honest, my hunch--is that the Republicans will have learned from this mistake and won't soon nominate again anyone as weak, uninformed, and incurious as Bush43... though there are those who believe that McCain is far more of a neocon than Bush was. The press figures most often identified as neocon in orientation--William Kristol, David Brooks--were huge McCain guys in 2000.

Neoconservative foreign policy is basically the cold war version of Wilsonian Progressive foreign policy. And I think even if McCain wins, it's dead. What we'll see going forward is an uncomfortable alliance between left and right-wing isolationists struggling with realists/integrationists. The isolationists will fight against free trade, do what they can to limit immigration, fight to continue to turn corn into fuel (because the goal will be energy independence, not environmentalism or even cheaper gas) and pull back from overseas involvement, both military and diplomatic/economic. On the fringe, you'll continue to hear noises about pulling out from the UN. Issues like Zimbabwe or Somalia will receive little attention.

On the other side, you'll see people continue to argue for more integration in terms of economics and diplomacy, and probably more willingness to work with allies and through bodies like NATO and the UN. Rather than serve some nebulous democracy neo con project, foreign policy will largely serve trade interests.

Of course, I could be wrong.

jerseyhoya wrote:I realize it's probably unhealthy and wrong, but I look at elections as more or less a game. I think it's a game I can be good at. I'm not sure where a dark place of despair comes in.

It is a game, in that most of the time little usually changes. But where "unhealthy and wrong" might come in is with the consequences of who wins the game. A stronger grasp of policy gives you a better understanding of what exactly you're working for and what the consequences are beyond the adrenaline rush of seeing your team win. That's a responsible step, though admittedly deeper understanding often does lead to a dark place of despair.

What I always wonder about with you is how you balance your personal social liberalism with the culture-war tactics of your workplace. I doubt I could pull that off.

elections are a game. government isn't. we unfortunately use elections as a way to fill our government, and that where problems arise.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:Regarding the neocons, there are only two things one need keep in mind:

1) They're always wrong
2) Being wrong never catches up with them

Read "Rise of the Vulcans," by James Mann, and you'll see that these people didn't come out of nowhere; they had the same bad ideas, applied somewhat differently, in the '70s, '80s and '90s as they did in this decade. (I'm referring here mostly to foreign policy, but the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Addington views on a "unitary executive" have been equally consistent.)

It would be a bit overblown to refer to them as parasites who jump from vessel to vessel, but that's fairly close to the mark. They detested Kissingerian "realism" 35 years ago, just as they detested James A. Baker 3d in the '90s and through to today. They were sure Gorby and the Commies were just trying to get us to lower our defenses before they let fly with the nukes. They're fundamentally non-"conservative" in that they don't let things like empirical, discernible data get in the way of their preconceived ideas, and they don't have the understanding that Grand Plans of governments generally tend to crumble upon contact with reality.

The only reason they never screwed the country as badly as they did under the current dimwit is because Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush41 all had some powers of independent discernment and/or a broader ideological range of advisers than Dubya, who instinctively equates all disagreement with disloyalty. My hope--and, to be honest, my hunch--is that the Republicans will have learned from this mistake and won't soon nominate again anyone as weak, uninformed, and incurious as Bush43... though there are those who believe that McCain is far more of a neocon than Bush was. The press figures most often identified as neocon in orientation--William Kristol, David Brooks--were huge McCain guys in 2000.

Neoconservative foreign policy is basically the cold war version of Wilsonian Progressive foreign policy. And I think even if McCain wins, it's dead. What we'll see going forward is an uncomfortable alliance between left and right-wing isolationists struggling with realists/integrationists. The isolationists will fight against free trade, do what they can to limit immigration, fight to continue to turn corn into fuel (because the goal will be energy independence, not environmentalism or even cheaper gas) and pull back from overseas involvement, both military and diplomatic/economic. On the fringe, you'll continue to hear noises about pulling out from the UN. Issues like Zimbabwe or Somalia will receive little attention.

On the other side, you'll see people continue to argue for more integration in terms of economics and diplomacy, and probably more willingness to work with allies and through bodies like NATO and the UN. Rather than serve some nebulous democracy neo con project, foreign policy will largely serve trade interests.

Of course, I could be wrong.

The problem with the isolationists -- is that it isn't consistent with global economic power interests that see nation states merely as markets and territories. The US can't really afford to withdraw from the world, for a variety of reasons. And it could get very ugly here dometically, if that started to occur.

The issues will continue to surround Peak Oil, the debt, and perception of the mainstream populace who believes in a facade, that reality won't ever change. Ask the people in EU prior WWII and Hitler's rise what they thought could happen. There's no one left and very little historical memory for the Civil War. I have a friend who is preparing to become what is termed " a fortified homesteader " -- these people are preparing for what they consider the inevibale, food rations, power rations, and very very tight militaristic control of the population.

Jericho may not have been that far off...

You sir are a certified nutbag.

Obama won NC. And it's cutting into my Jeopardy. STOP TALKING CHARLIE GIBSON.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I realize it's probably unhealthy and wrong, but I look at elections as more or less a game. I think it's a game I can be good at. I'm not sure where a dark place of despair comes in.

It is a game, in that most of the time little usually changes. But where "unhealthy and wrong" might come in is with the consequences of who wins the game. A stronger grasp of policy gives you a better understanding of what exactly you're working for and what the consequences are beyond the adrenaline rush of seeing your team win. That's a responsible step, though admittedly deeper understanding often does lead to a dark place of despair.

What I always wonder about with you is how you balance your personal social liberalism with the culture-war tactics of your workplace. I doubt I could pull that off.

I'm not that socially liberal. I don't care much about abortion, but if pushed, I'd probably describe myself as moderately pro life. I'd be fine with Roe v. Wade being overturned. I keep referring to myself as pro gay marriage, and I guess if I thought there was a shot in hell of a constitutional amendment passing congress I'd have some qualms maybe, but it doesn't so I don't.

In any case, I do care about some issues. I really think social security should have options for private accounts. I'd trade raising the income cap for them. I think the retirement age should be raised and/or indexed to life expectancy. I think the option of indexing benefits to prices instead of wages should at least be explored, or possibly some sort of hybrid of the two to slow the rate of growth of future benefits owed.

I think we should do a lot about energy independence. Drill in ANWR and off the coasts. Raise fuel economy standards. Tax incentives out the wazoo for things like electric cars and other things to cut back on consumption.

Farm subsidies make me mad. Protectionism bothers the hell out of me.

In general I support Bush's foreign policy. I'm not gonna get into a debate here in Iraq because some of you surely know more about it, and I also think some of you are genuinely incapable of having a productive discussion of it. It's not worth it.

On balance I'm a lot closer to Republicans than Democrats. And my level of caring on issues where I agree with Democrats is generally low (like gun control) or conflicted (like I agree with them on some energy things, but not others).

In the end though, elections really interest me. Public policy debates don't. I'm better informed than 99% of people. I don't have despair over what I do for a living.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I realize it's probably unhealthy and wrong, but I look at elections as more or less a game. I think it's a game I can be good at. I'm not sure where a dark place of despair comes in.

It is a game, in that most of the time little usually changes. But where "unhealthy and wrong" might come in is with the consequences of who wins the game. A stronger grasp of policy gives you a better understanding of what exactly you're working for and what the consequences are beyond the adrenaline rush of seeing your team win. That's a responsible step, though admittedly deeper understanding often does lead to a dark place of despair.

What I always wonder about with you is how you balance your personal social liberalism with the culture-war tactics of your workplace. I doubt I could pull that off.

I'm not that socially liberal. I don't care much about abortion, but if pushed, I'd probably describe myself as moderately pro life. I'd be fine with Roe v. Wade being overturned. I keep referring to myself as pro gay marriage, and I guess if I thought there was a shot in hell of a constitutional amendment passing congress I'd have some qualms maybe, but it doesn't so I don't.

In any case, I do care about some issues. I really think social security should have options for private accounts. I'd trade raising the income cap for them. I think the retirement age should be raised and/or indexed to life expectancy. I think the option of indexing benefits to prices instead of wages should at least be explored, or possibly some sort of hybrid of the two to slow the rate of growth of future benefits owed.

I think we should do a lot about energy independence. Drill in ANWR and off the coasts. Raise fuel economy standards. Tax incentives out the wazoo for things like electric cars and other things to cut back on consumption.

Farm subsidies make me mad. Protectionism bothers the hell out of me.

In general I support Bush's foreign policy. I'm not gonna get into a debate here in Iraq because some of you surely know more about it, and I also think some of you are genuinely incapable of having a productive discussion of it. It's not worth it.

On balance I'm a lot closer to Republicans than Democrats. And my level of caring on issues where I agree with Democrats is generally low (like gun control) or conflicted (like I agree with them on some energy things, but not others).

In the end though, elections really interest me. Public policy debates don't. I'm better informed than 99% of people. I don't have despair over what I do for a living.

The fascination with elections over substance of politics is an interesting phenomena. Certainly, it is shared by many in political science. There are some reasons for that. One, the vote is a nice, easily operationalized variable that lends itself to statistical and behavioral analysis. Second, it is relatively easy to this kind of politics and remain value neutral.

On the other hand, it's rendered what many political scientists do largely irrelevant to really understanding politics.

Could we see some results from Bloomington and Gary, so CNN can call Indiana? Cause she won it.

I don't know anything about this stuff, but isn't Gary predominantly African American?

Woody wrote:I don't know anything about this stuff, but isn't Gary predominantly African American?

Yes. But she's winning the state by 55,000 votes right now with 53% of the vote in. Only 102,000 people live in Gary. They're waiting to see what the turnout is like in Gary and in Bloomington and maybe South Bend before they feel certain Hillary won the state.

It looks like just about everything left in the state is Obama stuff, but the vote gap keeps staying about the same.

mpmcgraw wrote:You sir are a certified nutbag.

I'm nothing of the sort, and these barbs are getting tiresome... y a w n i n g...

did you see the part where I said "my friend...." -- I'm not preparing for Mad Max, but I will say this -- just because you can't imagine something, doesn't mean it can't happen. There's a "tipping point" in many things and once it tips....

I think I'm more informed than most.... what i've done with that info, how I choose to live or what preparations i make or not, that could be debated, I'm sure...