I just got done watching the premiere of AMC's new Zombie Miniseries "The Walking Dead", and I am NOT disappointed.

I'm not familiar with the source material, but when I heard that Frank Darabont ("The Shawshank Redemption") was going to be the director I figured that it would be worth watching. After sitting through the 90 minute premiere, I'm looking forward to the next episode in the six-episode run.

Since some of you probably missed this episode, I'm not going to go into the whole plot, but I am going to address some nitpicky little details I have with the premiere in the extended entry. Not really what I'd call "spoilers" since the trailers have pretty well covered all the high points, but you might want to skip the next part if you want to experience it for the first time in a later airing. more...

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 08:43 PM | Comments (159)
Post contains 1212 words, total size 7 kb.

I began wondering tonight if polls were overstating Republican support.

Polls generally understate Republican support, of course, to the tune of 3-4 points. But not always.

In Nate Silver's cover-your-ass column explaining that Republicans could gain a lot more than the 50 or so seats he's predicting (worth reading for the Democratic Doomsday Scenario laid out in the beginning, and that's not even a real CAC-level doomsday scenario), he mentions this:

If Republicans tend to overperform expectations in some races, they will probably also overperform in many, most, or maybe even almost all races. The same holds true for Democrats. (The most recent time something like this occurred was 1998, when polls underestimated the standing of Democrats by 4-5 points nationwide and in almost all individual races.)

I've been thinking like this: Why do polls usually include too many Democrats? Because people don't want to answer political questions if they're Republicans, as they know their answers will tend to be disfavored -- that is, they'd rather keep those answer to themselves.

This would tend to explain the 1998 aberration in which Democrats, rather than Republicans, polled more poorly than their ultimate performance. Consider that in 1998, people decided, yes, Bill Clinton had perjured himself, not once but several times, and obstructed justice. But they had also decided to give him a pass on serial lawbreaking because the economy was too good and vote for Democrats (in an effort to stop impeachment).

Some people might feel ashamed to take that position, putting, as it did, filthy lucre ahead of principle and legality -- and in that case, they might have decided their answers were the disfavored ones, and thus avoided pollsters, resulting in Republican support being overstated.

In most years, one can imagine liberals are more eager to talk with pollsters, as they expect a Scooby Snack, as it were, for mouthing the socially-favored answer. This might account for the persistent understating of conservatism's popularity.

But this year, conservatives might be so eager to proclaim their political views, and liberals so sheepish about it (their god is exposed as a weakling charlatan) that the typical situation is reversed, as was the case in 1998, and polls overstate rather than understate conservative strength, and understate rather than overstate liberal strength.

Even if this eeyore speculation is true, it wouldn't mean the GOP is in for a bad night -- just that they'd be in for a very good night rather than an epochal one. Republicans would still lead by 7-10 or so (which is itself unprecedented or almost so). But it would mean that the lead of 10-15 is overstated.

In addition, if any of this is true, of course it's also true that you can't tack on the typical "and give the Republican 3-4 points to offset polling's traditional understatement of Republican performance" corrective, as you'd really need to correct in the exact opposite way.

So what does this mean?

It means you have to vote. No matter what the polls say, you need to vote, and vote party-line, straight ticket.

Posted by: Ace at 07:05 PM | Comments (197)
Post contains 536 words, total size 3 kb.

Based on their models -- that is, how many points of a polling advantage translates into how many seats gained, and subject to the caveat that the safest seats are well gerrymandered to be all but election-proof, Gallup's prediction as to seats... starts at 60 as a floor.

Gallup's historical model suggests that a party needs at least a two-point advantage in the national House vote to win a majority of the 435 seats. The Republicans' current likely voter margin suggests that this scenario is highly probable, making the question of interest this election not whether the GOP will win the majority, but by how much. Taking Gallup's final survey's margin of error into account, the historical model predicts that the Republicans could gain anywhere from 60 seats on up, with gains well beyond that possible.

It should be noted, however, that this year's 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations. This means that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory, in which past relationships between the national two-party vote and the number of seats won may not be maintained.

BTW, I don't know how much gerrymandering helps you in this situation -- I suspect it actually hurts you. Because those super-Democratic seats are safe, sure, but what about the many others gerrymandered to have "merely" a 60-40 split?

The cobloggers are noting Biden's campaigning tomorrow in Vermont -- Vermont!!! -- and are wondering, well, is Vermont in play?

Senator Elect Len Britton?

Suffice to say if anything like that comes close to happening, Christine O'Donnell should pull it out.

Whoops! The double-post. Dang. A poll so nice I posted it twice.

Well, then, let me give you Drew's advice and suggest you check out page 2 of the report, the demographic breakdowns.

Key stuff: Republicans lead in all areas of the country -- 50-43 in the midwest, 52-44 in the east, 59-38 in the south, and 57-36 in the west. Although GOP candidates fare better in the west and south, those midwest and east leads are nothing to sneeze at -- pretty big leads in the Democrats' safety-school areas.

Men favor Republicans 59-36 -- which is huge -- but the stake in the hear of Democrats is the lead with women, too: 50-44. Again, not as eye-popping a lead, but a good lead nonetheless.

Let me play eeyore for a moment and suggest that part of this lead could be that conservatives and those opposed to Obama (including bitter, clingy Democrats) are really psyched and affirmatively wish to be polled, responding a lot more frequently than their Obama-supporting counterparts.

So... like, vote and stuff. To make sure this happens.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:18 PM | Comments (204)
Post contains 478 words, total size 4 kb.

Honey, I know you get excited for polls that sample more Democrats than what showed up in 2006 or 2008, but really... more...

Posted by: CAC at 06:11 PM | Comments (107)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

This is how it's done, President Awesome.

Saddened me a little to see George H.W. Bush looking a little frail, did he have hip surgery and I missed it?

Not looking so good for my Rangers in the top of the 5th, but there's still a game on.

Also, I'll never, ever forget this one.

Twitter, Kim Priestap RT by Darcysport

also, for shits and giggles..

ALSO: as long as we're piling on (via commenter random)

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:02 PM | Comments (59)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

BOO!

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:01 PM | Comments (457)
Post contains 389 words, total size 6 kb.

Likely Voters, 45% turnout model:

Democrat 40% more...

Posted by: CAC at 05:25 PM | Comments (156)
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

There was little worry about Toomey about 10 days ago. Seems it was just part of a natural but temporary tightening or a MFM attempt to pull their guys over the line.

Either way....

In the Senate race Pat Toomey leads Joe Sestak 51-46 and in the race for Governor Tom Corbett is up 52-45 on Dan Onorato. The story here is an inordinate number of Democrats unhappy with Barack Obama- and voting Republican because of it. The President's approval rating within his own party is only 73% in Pennsylvania, with 21% of Democrats disapproving of him. Those Democrats unhappy with Obama are leaning strongly Republican, planning to vote for Toomey by a 68-23 margin and for Corbett by a 69-25 spread.

What that leads to overall is 15-19% of Democrats voting Republican in these two races. Meanwhile GOP voters are extremely unified, giving each of their nominees 88%. Independents are splitting pretty evenly so it is that party unity advantage that has the GOP candidates in a position to win here.

Since it's Halloween and you've all been so good, here's one more bit of candy....the tears of professional Democratic operatives.

There is nearly uniform consensus among Democratic campaign professionals that the House is gone — the only question, it seems, is how many seats they will lose.

While few will say so on the record for fear of alienating party officials or depressing turnout, every one of nearly a dozen Democratic House consultants and political strategists surveyed expect a GOP majority to be elected Tuesday — the consensus was that Democrats would lose somewhere between 50 and 60 seats.

A senior party consultant who was on the low end with his predictions said the party would lose between 40 and 50 seats. On the high end, one Democratic consultant said losses could number around 70 seats.

All spoke to the grimness of the mood.

“It sucks,” said Dave Beattie, a Florida-based Democratic pollster who is working on a slate of competitive House races and who acknowledges that the lower congressional chamber is lost. “I’m resigned to the fact that it sucks.”

Tasty, so damn tasty.

Added: Kentucky? Say hello to Senator Rand Paul.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:43 PM | Comments (154)
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.

We went to Murray HQ yesterday and the place was packed with enthusiastic volunteers. The head of the office says it's been like that for over a month. Maybe Jim Moran's time has come.

We were given the names of veterans in the precincts and a door knocking we did go. Many of the vets we spoke to had never heard of Moran's disrespectful statement about military service. I suspect that they'll do their own networking amongst themselves with this new information.

When we came back with our walkbooks the HQ was even MORE crowded with people making calls, compiling information. The place was a hive of activity. I have worked in other campaign offices before, but the level of electricity was more than I'd ever seen.

Nate Silver doesn't even have Jim Moran on his list. I think he ought to.

Drudge teases:

NYT LEAD MONDAY: Both parties see possibility of bigger Republican wins in House than either side was talking about -- even few days ago... Developing...

Posted by: Ace at 03:53 PM | Comments (233)
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

As you probably know, I am (for myself) defining a real victory as the Super Wave. I know that's expectations-raising and all but that's what I want.

Is it coming? It's hard to say; it would be, as everyone keeps saying, "unprecedented." But our president is pretty unprecedented too, as he keeps informing us; and it was truly unprecedented that a Congress stand united to tell their constituents to Go Fuck Themselves (in all-caps, actually) on a crucial vote in which the public was strongly engaged.

Geraghty notes that some races, which should be safe for Democrats, keep leaning to the GOP. (Including one of the Maine races Slublog highlighted Friday, Dean Scrontas.)

The Loughlin race in Rhode Island for Patrick Kennedy's former seat -- well, I mean the People's Seat; oh you know what I mean -- is one to watch. If Loughlin wins -- and we'll know he's probably going to win when the networks refuse to call it -- the Democrats are in for a truly horrific night.
I like how Sharron Angle puts it.

Oh: This post by Nate Silver is awesome. He organizes the Congressional races by closing time (earliest first) and then by degree of difficulty for the GOP to flip -- upshot is, if at 7:30 ET PM Andy Barr is beating incumbent Chandler, the GOP is looking for at least a 62+ gain night.

If Sean Bielat beats Barney Frank, we're looking at... 111 seats.

But that of course is a big if.

But...

If...

Posted by: Ace at 01:41 PM | Comments (368)
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.