No action at the racetrack today
ChimbaChumba’s “PollOfPollAverages” (national polls)
Pollster 46.5 - 44.9 = Obama +1.6% (no change)
CNN 46.0 - 42.0 = Obama + 4.0% (no change)
RCP 47.7 - 43.8 = Obama + 3.9% (y’day +2.9%)
538 EP 48.8 - 47.9 = Obama + 0.9 (y’day +0.8%)
Gallup 49.0 - 41.0 = Obama +8.0 (y’day +6.0)
ChimbaChumbaAverage: Obama +3.68% (y’day +3.06%)
ChimbaChumba says: no change in the national poll averages today (Saturday 23.30 ET time).
Betting market: Obama $1.63, McCain $2.74 (y’day $1.62, $2.62)
“The Handicappers” - Obama’s Win Percentage
Betfair ($1.63 adjusted to 100% price): 62.58% (y’day 61.68%)
538 Electoral Predictions: 58.90% (y’day 58.00%)
Rasmussen Balance of Power Calculator: 60.00% (y’day 59.50%)
ChimbaChumba says: betting market settles down a little, after what might have been an over-reaction to the Sarah Palin VEEP pick. However, so far the punters still favour Palin, because the odds 12 hours before Palin were Obama $1.58, McCain $2.80. And this drift in Obama’s price is at a time when his poll numbers are on the up, so the move in the betting market can only be attributed to Sarah Palin (nothing else happened in that time). Will the punters expectation that Palin is a plus be matched in the poll numbers? We can only wait and see (by about next Friday the polls should provide the answer).
ChimbaChumba’s Daily “PollofPollAverages” in key battleground states, and the Electoral College vote tracker
There was no change to the state polls today, so we will not update the battleground states numbers (look at yesterday’s blog if you want to see the state numbers). The Electoral College Vote tracker is unchanged -
ChimbaChumba’s Electoral College Vote Tracker
Obama: 260 EC votes + New Hampshire(4) + Colorado(9) + Virginia(13) = 286 EC votes (+13)
McCain: 227 EC votes + Ohio(20) + Nevada(5) = 252 EC votes (-13)
Lets take a look a look at the reaction in the press to the Sarah Palin, and try and get a handle on whether it really should effect the odds or is irrelevant. Traditionally VEEPs don’t really count much, but there is some arguing it is different in 2008 because of the factors specific to this race.
Let me first declare my bias - I think Palin is fabulous, and from the little I have seen and read she appears a unique politician - natural warmth, no bullshit, tough and dynamic. And whilst inexperience might undo her, I think its a bold and a good gamble by McCain that maximises his chance to win. McCain was coming from behind in a year that heavily favours the Democrats - his other VEEP options were dodgy or stale, and would not have added anything to his winning chance. Sarah Palin might prove to be the same, or even worse - but at least McCain has rolled the dice, rather than remaining frozen in the spotlight.
What gells with my first impression of Palin is what her 2 opponents who ran against Palin for governor in 2006, said . “Tony and I looked at each other and it was, like, this isn’t about policy or Alaska issues, this is about people’s most basic instincts: ‘I like you (Palin), and you make me feel good.”
Now, if she looks stupid in the debates, then forget it. But what I saw was a natural politician that can connect with people (the new Bill Clinton?). These types are rare, and maybe I will be made look foolish with this appraisal. I see her as a “real and genuine person”, not a politician. And tough to boot, and some concrete achievements notwithstanding a very short resume. Her Alaska record connects with McCain’s anti-Washington platform - and adds reality to the rhetoric.
What I think the Palin-critics overlook is that she is not on the ticket to win feminists or political activists on the left. She is on the ticket to shore up the right, plus hopefully grab 2% in the “middle” or from “anywhere”. The 2% (if they exist), might be Ohio mums in the supermarket, or closet racists who now have an excuse to vote GOP (choosing the “female historic opportunity”, rather than the “African-American historic opportunity”. And from the little polling we have seen it indicates Sarah is more popular with men than women - perhaps that should be no surprise! (a) she looks pretty damn good! (b) and maybe she just impressed blokes on her merits i.e. the dynamic no-nonsense image might go down well with blokes?
Enough of my jaundiced comments - below is a snapshot of the different views in today’s press - you make up your own mind what the post-Palin odds should be.
Sarah Palin - gamebreaker, disaster or neutral?
- Senior Clinton advisers said there had always been one big card that McCain could play to exploit the rift between Clinton and Obama supporters — and McCain played it. Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s former communications director, said Palin could peel away some votes from Obama and Biden. “Both campaigns seemed to have decided that Hillary Clinton’s 18 million voters represent a key swing bloc in this election — both Barack Obama’s speech and John McCain’s pick were at least partially aimed at them,” Wolfson said in an e-mail. “The fact that Palin is pro-life and pro-gun will be a block for many of Senator Clinton’s supporters — but not all. And it will raise the question for many why Senator Obama didn’t pick Senator Clinton as his running mate.”
- Political pandering that insults women.
- Hillary Clinton’s statement - “While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.” I reckon the underlined part was a not very subtle dig at Obama - I don’t think TeamObama will be pleased. It is going to be interesting to watch Hillary and Bill during the campaign.
- The pro-gun, antiabortion Palin won’t flip Hillary-supporters.
- Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, described Palin as a politician “with a compelling story” who is likely to be an effective campaigner. But, he said, she will be campaigning on McCain’s agenda, which he argued is a continuation of Bush’s. “Our view is that Obama’s and McCain’s agendas are on the ballot,” he said.That is always the case in presidential campaigns. In the end, vice presidential candidates generally make little difference. But Friday’s uproar over Palin — positive and negative — says this is one pick that, at least in the short term, might make a difference.
- …an inexperienced right-winger. She really destroys the ‘Obama not ready’ mantra,” another strategist noted.
- what tipped the balance toward Palin was that she gives McCain a partner with a record of challenging the establishment in her own party and in Anchorage, reinforcing the case that he would be more fearless and effective than Obama in taking on special interests in Washington. “I have found the right partner to help me stand up to those who value their privileges over their responsibilities, who put power over principle, and put their interests before your needs,” McCain said in introducing Palin on Friday. “I found someone with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies; someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past.“
- McCain’s advisers predicted weeks ago that the presumptive Republican nominee would use his national convention week to try to recapture his image as a maverick reformer and shake up the presidential race. He did just that Friday with his surprise choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Though indisputably Alaskan, she rose to prominence by bucking the state’s rigid Republican hierarchy, impressing voters more with gumption, warmth and charm than an established record in government.
- It was a combination that dumbfounded her rivals. “She wouldn’t have articulated one coherent policy and people would just be fawning all over her,” said Andrew Halcro, a Republican turned independent, who along with Tony Knowles, a Democrat, ran against Ms. Palin for governor in 2006. “Tony and I looked at each other and it was, like, this isn’t about policy or Alaska issues, this is about people’s most basic instincts: ‘I like you, and you make me feel good.’ ”
- from Slate - “All the papers lead with John McCain’s surprise selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin for his running mate. He shocked election-watchers and scrambled the presidential race with a “Hail Mary pass“–eschewing more conventional choices for the inexperienced, socially conservative, corruption-fighting “hockey mom.” Appearing together in Ohio, McCain lauded her reform credentials, while Palin framed her candidacy as an extension of Hillary Clinton’s quest to “shatter [the] glass ceiling.”The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal call it a risky play to revitalize John McCain’s “maverick” image. Choosing Palin undercuts the argument that Barack Obama is too inexperienced, raising questions about John McCain’s age and judgment. But it could pay off: Palin–an NRA member and staunch pro-lifer–is energizing evangelicals and tempting Hillary Clinton voters to defect. An LAT analysis piece worries it’s a sign that McCain relies on short-sighted “gut-checks,” while an early version of the WSJ lead called it a “calculated bet.” It’s likely a bit of both–McCain’s a high-stakes gambler who knows the odds.
August 31st, 2008 at 6:38 am
As Roe vs Wade is potentially at risk, the chances of a pro-life conservative dragging away anything more than a token share of women from the Democrats are pretty slim.
The Hilary supporters may not like him, they may even hate him. But they’ll get over it and punch in for him on election day rather than risk Roe vs Wade.
August 31st, 2008 at 6:59 am
I think you are right that not one female “left” or “politically active” types will shift. I also doubt any/many women with an IQ over 120 will shift. But that leaves 95% of women up for grabs! About 55% turnout is achieved in most Prez races. So that includes some women in moccasins in the Ohio supermarkets, and some subconscious racists. If only 1% of registered DEMs and Independents shift on the gender issue that could tip a close race. And the drongos now have the opportunity to sell out based on an “intellectual decision” (choosing the “female historic opportunity”, rather than the “African-American historic opportunity”.