Barack Obama or John McCain

[Len Colby]

Sorry Ray, the question was not the AVERAGE of the polls. Its a FACT that zerobama underperformed in MANY of the state polls in the primary.

Here is the evidence I found. Last time I posted it the link did not work properly, but I hope it does now. This chart looks at polls vs actual results in all the primary states and shows that the bold Barack consistently did better in the actual voting than predicted by the polls.

New Hampshire, as we all know, was an exception to the rule.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/per...ley-effect.html

I've shown my proof, Craig, now you show us yours.

Right here Ray. RCP

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...em_results.html

Of real elections, Clinton beat the spread 12 times. Obie beat the spread only 8 times. Both each one one under ths spread.

Result obie underperforms.....

Craig it seems want to exclude the staes where there were cacuses or no campaigns because Obama beat the spread in 3 out of 4. Obama did better than expected in 12 states and less well than expected in 14, that’s essentially a tie especially since we don’t have the results of 25 out of 51 primaries (not counting ones in territories that don’t have electoral votes). Not counting the states Craig wants to leave out it's 9 to 13 still essentially a tie since we don't have info on almost half the contests.

Also isn’t he always going on about margin of error? On several occasions Obama “over” or “underperformed” by less than 3 – 4%. If we disregard those states he did better than expected in more primacies than those did less well than expected..

States in which Obama did better that expected - % by which he beet the RCP average (- after percentage = lost the primary, * won but was projected to loose)

1. IA -6.2

2. MI-8.0*

3. SC -7.3

4. FL -2.9 –

5. GA -17.3

6. MO-7.0*

7. VA -10.5

8. MD -1.2

9. WI -13.1

10. NC -6.7

11. IN -3.6 –

12. OR -5.6

MoE 2% 11 states, MoE 3% 10

States in which Obama did less well than expected - % by which he ‘underperformed’ the RCP average (+ = won the primary, * lost but was projected to win)

1. NH -10.9*

2. NV -1.5

3. CA -10.8*

4. NY -0.3

5. IL -1.5+

6. NJ -2.1

7. TN -0.3+

8. MA-8.4

9. AZ -2

10. OH -3

11. TX -1.8

12. PA -3.1

13. WV -6.3

14. KY-6.6

MoE 2% 8, MoE 3% 6,

States in which he did better v. ones he did worse that expected 12 to 14 ( - 2), but when a margin of error is applied the picture changes.

MoE 2% 11 to 8, +3

MoE 3% 10 to 6, +4

Of course a candidate doing better than expected is not a problem and Obama is ahead by enough of a margin in enough states to do less well than expected is several. If we list states in order of Obama’s margin, starting from where he is strongest, and count the electoral votes, the state that puts him in the White House is Virginia. His current margin there is 7.3%. Obama very rarely underperformed by that much.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma..._mccain/?map=15

I’m not sure how a candidate did in the primaries reflects how well he will do in the election but if we pretend this is the case Obama has an 88% chance of winning.

States in which he was within 3.1% of and/or better than the projected spread 20 of 26

States in which he was within 6.6% of and/or better than the projected spread 23 of 26 (88%).

States with unknown results 24 + DC

But how did McCain fair in the primaries compared to projections? RCP only listed 14 states and he over and underperformed in 7 each but when a margin of error is applied he underperformed in more states than he over performed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...op_results.html

States in which McCain did better that expected - % by which he beet the RCP average)

1. NH-1.9

2. SC-2.3

3. FL-5.4

4. CA-7.4

5. IL-3.0

6. NJ-0.8

7. MA-11.7

MoE 2%: 5 states, MoE 3%: 4,

States in which McCain did less well than expected - % by which he ‘underperformed’ the RCP average (* lost but was projected to win)

1. IA-6.2

2. MI-6.5

3. NV-32.4

4. GA-5.7*

5. MO-4.0

6. TN -6.0*

7. AZ-3.3

States in which he did better v. ones he did worse that expected, 7 to 7.

MoE 2%: 5 v. 7, -2 McCain

MoE 3%: 4 v 7, -3

Remember that Obama only needs to win in states where his current margin is 7.3% or more. States in which McCain beat the spread by 7% or more: 3 out of 14 (21%). Once again the numbers are incomplete and performance in the primaries might not be the same as on Nov. 4 but based on McCain’s record there is a 79% chance he won’t pull it off, this is comparable to 88% based on Obama’s performance. Spliting the diference gives us 83.5%.

States with unknown results 36 + DC

If we apply a margin of error and compare number of states each candidate did less well than expected it doesn’t look good for the Saigon songbird.

Obama v McCain: -2 v. 0 (Obama -2)

MoE 2%: +3 v. -2 (Obama + 5)

MoE 3%: +4 v. -3 (Obama +7)

I see you still have your chair spinning like a top mrgoogle. Oh well, its what you do, as your very long history here shows. But hey, knock yourself out. However your google time might be more productive for you if you were to actually LEARN how election polls are "weighted".

6 days and counting, and then this is settled once and for all. You ready?

Spinning, me? Funny you’re the one who based a conclusion on insufficient evidence, only about half the primaries, and ignored the fact that almost half the times on the RCP page Obama “under performed” it was by 0.3 – 2.0%

The weighing of polls is irrelevant because we are comparing his performance in past elections vs. polls. The fact remains that even if Obama ‘underperforms’ his ciurrent poll numbers by a minimum of 6.9% in every state he wins.

You also ignored the fact that when a MoE is applied to primaries on RCP’s GOP page McLame underperformed as well.

As for your theory on weighing, odd that if it were true you can’t find any backing for it. And no McCain’s pollster saying that 16 -17% party preference advantage for the Dems in 2 polls is too big because it is smaller in others doesn’t count because he’s right most polls even Fox show it to be 6 – 12%.

You’re right we will see, but even if McCain wins your position won’t be vindicated.

Edited October 31, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

" Obama a (Constitutional) Law Professor? "

Don't you know all about the "chosen one" David. Of course the answer to your questionis NO! He was a lecturer, which is about one step up from a teaching assistant....

Actually depending on which dictionary you use the term professor could have applied to Obama. Some define it as someone who teaches at a college or university.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professor

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professor

Of course we could look at all of his articles published in the HArvard Law rewiew or other law journals...oh wait I don't thnk there are any.

Or we could even look at his law licence, oh wait thats gone too...

And now it seems there is a question about who actually wrote "his" book Dreams of my Father" It's said it just might have been written on William Ayers dining room table.

Its simily amazing what kind of political and media butt coverage hundreds of million of dollars of illegal credit card donations can buy.

I don't suppose any evidence for the above is forthcoming?

BTW, where has that 15 point lead gone Dave?

If you looked at the poll averages rather than individual polls he never had a 15 % lead, he topped out at 8% and 6 days later is down to 6%. But the race is won at state level and the shift in the battleground states has been small, up in some down in others. Along as he caries the states were his lead on average is 7% or more he wins.

[Craig Lamson]

Sorry Ray, the question was not the AVERAGE of the polls. Its a FACT that zerobama underperformed in MANY of the state polls in the primary.

Here is the evidence I found. Last time I posted it the link did not work properly, but I hope it does now. This chart looks at polls vs actual results in all the primary states and shows that the bold Barack consistently did better in the actual voting than predicted by the polls.

New Hampshire, as we all know, was an exception to the rule.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/per...ley-effect.html

I've shown my proof, Craig, now you show us yours.

Right here Ray. RCP

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...em_results.html

Of real elections, Clinton beat the spread 12 times. Obie beat the spread only 8 times. Both each one one under ths spread.

Result obie underperforms.....

Craig it seems want to exclude the staes where there were cacuses or no campaigns because Obama beat the spread in 3 out of 4. Obama did better than expected in 12 states and less well than expected in 14, that’s essentially a tie especially since we don’t have the results of 25 out of 51 primaries (not counting ones in territories that don’t have electoral votes). Not counting the states Craig wants to leave out it's 9 to 13 still essentially a tie since we don't have info on almost half the contests.

Also isn’t he always going on about margin of error? On several occasions Obama “over” or “underperformed” by less than 3 – 4%. If we disregard those states he did better than expected in more primacies than those did less well than expected..

States in which Obama did better that expected - % by which he beet the RCP average (- after percentage = lost the primary, * won but was projected to loose)

1. IA -6.2

2. MI-8.0*

3. SC -7.3

4. FL -2.9 –

5. GA -17.3

6. MO-7.0*

7. VA -10.5

8. MD -1.2

9. WI -13.1

10. NC -6.7

11. IN -3.6 –

12. OR -5.6

MoE 2% 11 states, MoE 3% 10

States in which Obama did less well than expected - % by which he ‘underperformed’ the RCP average (+ = won the primary, * lost but was projected to win)

1. NH -10.9*

2. NV -1.5

3. CA -10.8*

4. NY -0.3

5. IL -1.5+

6. NJ -2.1

7. TN -0.3+

8. MA-8.4

9. AZ -2

10. OH -3

11. TX -1.8

12. PA -3.1

13. WV -6.3

14. KY-6.6

MoE 2% 8, MoE 3% 6,

States in which he did better v. ones he did worse that expected 12 to 14 ( - 2), but when a margin of error is applied the picture changes.

MoE 2% 11 to 8, +3

MoE 3% 10 to 6, +4

Of course a candidate doing better than expected is not a problem and Obama is ahead by enough of a margin in enough states to do less well than expected is several. If we list states in order of Obama’s margin, starting from where he is strongest, and count the electoral votes, the state that puts him in the White House is Virginia. His current margin there is 7.3%. Obama very rarely underperformed by that much.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma..._mccain/?map=15

I’m not sure how a candidate did in the primaries reflects how well he will do in the election but if we pretend this is the case Obama has an 88% chance of winning.

States in which he was within 3.1% of and/or better than the projected spread 20 of 26

States in which he was within 6.6% of and/or better than the projected spread 23 of 26 (88%).

States with unknown results 24 + DC

But how did McCain fair in the primaries compared to projections? RCP only listed 14 states and he over and underperformed in 7 each but when a margin of error is applied he underperformed in more states than he over performed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...op_results.html

States in which McCain did better that expected - % by which he beet the RCP average)

1. NH-1.9

2. SC-2.3

3. FL-5.4

4. CA-7.4

5. IL-3.0

6. NJ-0.8

7. MA-11.7

MoE 2%: 5 states, MoE 3%: 4,

States in which McCain did less well than expected - % by which he ‘underperformed’ the RCP average (* lost but was projected to win)

1. IA-6.2

2. MI-6.5

3. NV-32.4

4. GA-5.7*

5. MO-4.0

6. TN -6.0*

7. AZ-3.3

States in which he did better v. ones he did worse that expected, 7 to 7.

MoE 2%: 5 v. 7, -2 McCain

MoE 3%: 4 v 7, -3

Remember that Obama only needs to win in states where his current margin is 7.3% or more. States in which McCain beat the spread by 7% or more: 3 out of 14 (21%). Once again the numbers are incomplete and performance in the primaries might not be the same as on Nov. 4 but based on McCain’s record there is a 79% chance he won’t pull it off, this is comparable to 88% based on Obama’s performance. Spliting the diference gives us 83.5%.

States with unknown results 36 + DC

If we apply a margin of error and compare number of states each candidate did less well than expected it doesn’t look good for the Saigon songbird.

Obama v McCain: -2 v. 0 (Obama -2)

MoE 2%: +3 v. -2 (Obama + 5)

MoE 3%: +4 v. -3 (Obama +7)

I see you still have your chair spinning like a top mrgoogle. Oh well, its what you do, as your very long history here shows. But hey, knock yourself out. However your google time might be more productive for you if you were to actually LEARN how election polls are "weighted".

6 days and counting, and then this is settled once and for all. You ready?

Spinning, me? Funny you’re the one who based a conclusion on insufficient evidence, only about half the primaries, and ignored the fact that almost half the times on the RCP page Obama “under performed” it was by 0.3 – 2.0%

The weighing of polls is irrelevant because we are comparing his performance in past elections vs. polls. The fact remains that even if Obama ‘underperforms’ his ciurrent poll numbers by a minimum of 6.9% in ever state he wins.

You also ignored the fact that when a MoE is applied to primaries on RCP’s GOP page McLame underperformed as well.

As for your theory on weighing, odd that if it were true you can’t find any backing for it. And no McCain’s pollster saying that 16 -17% party preference advantage for the Dems in 2 polls is too big because it is smaller in others doesn’t count because he’s right most polls even Fox show it to be 6 – 12%.

You’re right we will see, but even if McCain wins your position won’t be vindicated.

Yea, you..spinning. And WHY? Because you are trying to average and gee, thats not how it works now is it, If you underperform in a state you underperform. You don't get to say, well gee I did better in the next state over so lets combine the two and average so it "looks' like I really did better than I really did. Your "analysis" is pure bs, but I suspect you know that already. And if you didn't well, strike two on mrgoggle.

If zero underperforms in the by 6% in the general election he is TOAST!

My position is SPOT on, and heck you have not even figured out how a poll works yet, Oh and I suggest you read the latest about party id by McCains chief pollster and the get back to us. That I haven't done your homework by no means suggest sI don't have the material, it just means I'm not interested in posting it for you. You ARE mrgoogle, and its NOT that hard to find. I'll be happy to accept your admisison of error then, that is if you have the stones....

Edited October 31, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

" Obama a (Constitutional) Law Professor? "

Don't you know all about the "chosen one" David. Of course the answer to your questionis NO! He was a lecturer, which is about one step up from a teaching assistant....

Actually depending on which dictionary you use the term professor could have applied to Obama. Some define it as someone who teaches at a college or university.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professor

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professor

Well at the univ where he lectured, he was NOT given nor dod he earn the title "professor" THATS the defination that matters, but nice goole mrgoole.

Of course we could look at all of his articles published in the HArvard Law rewiew or other law journals...oh wait I don't thnk there are any.

Or we could even look at his law licence, oh wait thats gone too...

And now it seems there is a question about who actually wrote "his" book Dreams of my Father" It's said it just might have been written on William Ayers dining room table.

Its simily amazing what kind of political and media butt coverage hundreds of million of dollars of illegal credit card donations can buy.

I don't suppose any evidence for the above is forthcoming?

Sure, here you go, its all right here:

www.google.com

BTW, where has that 15 point lead gone Dave?

If you looked at the poll averages rather than individual polls he never had a 15 % lead, he topped out at 8% and 6 days later is down to 6%. But the race is won at state level and the shift in the battleground states has been small, up in some down in others. Along as he caries the states were his lead on average is 7% or more he wins.

There you go with"averages" again. If you have a few 15 point polls in the average, and its NOT really 15 points, don't you think that just MIGHT screw up the average? You are playing a fools game. And lets not forget the pollsters are mixing in their own brand of "special sauce" to affect party id and other weightings. Weightings I might add even the pollsters admit, they don't know will be vindicated.

You might want to check the stats for the "battleground" states, or better yet for a MUCH clearer picture just look at the remaining event schedule to see where they are going. That will tell you WHAT states are still in play far better better than public polls with really screwy weightings.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

NEWSFLASH

THE BOLD BARACK HIMSELF ENDORSES MAGOO

Magoo cain't POSSIBLY lose now.

WATCH The funniest television ad ever; guaranteed, or your money back.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi...ad_obama_1.html

Edited November 1, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[William Kelly]

No one has really discussed the consequences of an overwhelming landslide that would not only give the Democrats the White House and control of the Senate and House, but also the tidal wave of local Democrats riding the back of the top of the ticket.

While LBJ's landslide over Barry Goldwater in 1964 set the stage for Conservative Republicans to take over the Republican party and the government and maintain control until now, can George W. Bush be blamed for destroying Conservative Republicanism?

And with such a popular mandate, can the next president live up to the billing without cowtowing to the special interests?

BK

[Len Colby]

" Obama a (Constitutional) Law Professor? "

Don't you know all about the "chosen one" David. Of course the answer to your questionis NO! He was a lecturer, which is about one step up from a teaching assistant....

Actually depending on which dictionary you use the term professor could have applied to Obama. Some define it as someone who teaches at a college or university.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professor

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professor

Well at the univ where he lectured, he was NOT given nor dod he earn the title "professor" THATS the defination that matters, but nice goole mrgoole.

LOL don’t you tire of being continuously wrong, do you? I suspect you’ve been reading too much Jerome Corsi and Ann Coulter or other bottom feeders of their ilk or worse.

According to the University of Chicago Law School (one of the best in the country BTW):

“From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama

served as a professor

in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors,

although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times

during his 12 years as a professor

in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”

According to an author at the St. Petersburg Times:

“His schedule from the school shows him teaching two or three classes in the fall and winter terms — usually Constitutional Law III: Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process; Voting Rights and the Democratic Process; and Current Issues in Racism and the Law.”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...ars-experience/

Some American dictionary definitions of ‘professor”

Webster’s online

“2 a: a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education b:

a teacher at a university, college

, or sometimes secondary school”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/professor

Word Net (from Princeton University – perhaps they know more about the subject that a college drop out)

“someone who is a member of the faculty at a college or university”

Webster’s Revised Unabridged

“One who professed, or publicly teaches, any science or branch of learning; especially, an officer in a university, college, or other seminary, whose business it is to read lectures, or instruct students, in a particular branch of learning; as a professor of theology, of botany, of mathematics, or of political economy.”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/professor

- note a few definitions from this page seem to limit the title to someone above lecturer but also say it can apply to a “teacher”

Of course we could look at all of his articles published in the HArvard Law rewiew or other law journals...oh wait I don't thnk there are any.

Or we could even look at his law licence, oh wait thats gone too...

And now it seems there is a question about who actually wrote "his" book Dreams of my Father" It's said it just might have been written on William Ayers dining room table.

Its simily amazing what kind of political and media butt coverage hundreds of million of dollars of illegal credit card donations can buy.

I don't suppose any evidence for the above is forthcoming?

Sure, here you go, its all right here:

www.google.com

I almost missed that you forgot to color code it. Let’s try again shall we? Not being able to back up your claims makes it look like you’re making stuff up.

BTW, where has that 15 point lead gone Dave?

If you looked at the poll averages rather than individual polls he never had a 15 % lead, he topped out at 8% and 6 days later is down to 6%. But the race is won at state level and the shift in the battleground states has been small, up in some down in others. Along as he caries the states were his lead on average is 7% or more he wins.

There you go with"averages" again. If you have a few 15 point polls in the average, and its NOT really 15 points, don't you think that just MIGHT screw up the average? You are playing a fools game.

But of course if you have a few that are 2 – 3 % and it’s really 7 - 8% the extremes would cancel each other out, that’s the whole point of averaging. RCP averages the 9 - 12 most recent polls for the national averages thay are currently using the last

And lets not forget the pollsters are mixing in their own brand of "special sauce" to affect party id and other weightings.

I’m still waiting for any evidence in support of your theory, why would even Fox News do this?

You might want to check the stats for the "battleground" states, or better yet for a MUCH clearer picture just look at the remaining event schedule to see where they are going. That will tell you WHAT states are still in play far better better than public polls with really screwy weightings.

You don’t expect either candidate or their supporters to sit the last couple of days out do you? Of course they will campaign as hard as they can till the last minute. As for battle ground states McLame is down to a 4.4% lead in AZ two polls had him only 1 – 2 % in front. But it seems they are sticking to states carried by Bush where Obama has small leads.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081101/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

All poll data in this and my next post from:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma...bama_vs_mccain/

[Len Colby]

Sorry Ray, the question was not the AVERAGE of the polls. Its a FACT that zerobama underperformed in MANY of the state polls in the primary.

Here is the evidence I found. Last time I posted it the link did not work properly, but I hope it does now. This chart looks at polls vs actual results in all the primary states and shows that the bold Barack consistently did better in the actual voting than predicted by the polls.

New Hampshire, as we all know, was an exception to the rule.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/per...ley-effect.html

I've shown my proof, Craig, now you show us yours.

Right here Ray. RCP

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...em_results.html

Of real elections, Clinton beat the spread 12 times. Obie beat the spread only 8 times. Both each one one under ths spread.

Result obie underperforms.....

Craig it seems want to exclude the staes where there were cacuses or no campaigns because Obama beat the spread in 3 out of 4. Obama did better than expected in 12 states and less well than expected in 14, that’s essentially a tie especially since we don’t have the results of 25 out of 51 primaries (not counting ones in territories that don’t have electoral votes). Not counting the states Craig wants to leave out it's 9 to 13 still essentially a tie since we don't have info on almost half the contests.

Also isn’t he always going on about margin of error? On several occasions Obama “over” or “underperformed” by less than 3 – 4%. If we disregard those states he did better than expected in more primacies than those did less well than expected..

States in which Obama did better that expected - % by which he beet the RCP average (- after percentage = lost the primary, * won but was projected to loose)

1. IA -6.2

2. MI-8.0*

3. SC -7.3

4. FL -2.9 –

5. GA -17.3

6. MO-7.0*

7. VA -10.5

8. MD -1.2

9. WI -13.1

10. NC -6.7

11. IN -3.6 –

12. OR -5.6

MoE 2% 11 states, MoE 3% 10

States in which Obama did less well than expected - % by which he ‘underperformed’ the RCP average (+ = won the primary, * lost but was projected to win)

1. NH -10.9*

2. NV -1.5

3. CA -10.8*

4. NY -0.3

5. IL -1.5+

6. NJ -2.1

7. TN -0.3+

8. MA-8.4

9. AZ -2

10. OH -3

11. TX -1.8

12. PA -3.1

13. WV -6.3

14. KY-6.6

MoE 2% 8, MoE 3% 6,

States in which he did better v. ones he did worse that expected 12 to 14 ( - 2), but when a margin of error is applied the picture changes.

MoE 2% 11 to 8, +3

MoE 3% 10 to 6, +4

Of course a candidate doing better than expected is not a problem and Obama is ahead by enough of a margin in enough states to do less well than expected is several. If we list states in order of Obama’s margin, starting from where he is strongest, and count the electoral votes, the state that puts him in the White House is Virginia. His current margin there is 7.3%. Obama very rarely underperformed by that much.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ma..._mccain/?map=15

I’m not sure how a candidate did in the primaries reflects how well he will do in the election but if we pretend this is the case Obama has an 88% chance of winning.

States in which he was within 3.1% of and/or better than the projected spread 20 of 26

States in which he was within 6.6% of and/or better than the projected spread 23 of 26 (88%).

States with unknown results 24 + DC

But how did McCain fair in the primaries compared to projections? RCP only listed 14 states and he over and underperformed in 7 each but when a margin of error is applied he underperformed in more states than he over performed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...op_results.html

States in which McCain did better that expected - % by which he beet the RCP average)

1. NH-1.9

2. SC-2.3

3. FL-5.4

4. CA-7.4

5. IL-3.0

6. NJ-0.8

7. MA-11.7

MoE 2%: 5 states, MoE 3%: 4,

States in which McCain did less well than expected - % by which he ‘underperformed’ the RCP average (* lost but was projected to win)

1. IA-6.2

2. MI-6.5

3. NV-32.4

4. GA-5.7*

5. MO-4.0

6. TN -6.0*

7. AZ-3.3

States in which he did better v. ones he did worse that expected, 7 to 7.

MoE 2%: 5 v. 7, -2 McCain

MoE 3%: 4 v 7, -3

Remember that Obama only needs to win in states where his current margin is 7.3% or more. States in which McCain beat the spread by 7% or more: 3 out of 14 (21%). Once again the numbers are incomplete and performance in the primaries might not be the same as on Nov. 4 but based on McCain’s record there is a 79% chance he won’t pull it off, this is comparable to 88% based on Obama’s performance. Spliting the diference gives us 83.5%.

States with unknown results 36 + DC

If we apply a margin of error and compare number of states each candidate did less well than expected it doesn’t look good for the Saigon songbird.

Obama v McCain: -2 v. 0 (Obama -2)

MoE 2%: +3 v. -2 (Obama + 5)

MoE 3%: +4 v. -3 (Obama +7)

I see you still have your chair spinning like a top mrgoogle. Oh well, its what you do, as your very long history here shows. But hey, knock yourself out. However your google time might be more productive for you if you were to actually LEARN how election polls are "weighted".

6 days and counting, and then this is settled once and for all. You ready?

Spinning, me? Funny you’re the one who based a conclusion on insufficient evidence, only about half the primaries, and ignored the fact that almost half the times on the RCP page Obama “under performed” it was by 0.3 – 2.0%

The weighing of polls is irrelevant because we are comparing his performance in past elections vs. polls. The fact remains that even if Obama ‘underperforms’ his ciurrent poll numbers by a minimum of 6.9% in ever state he wins.

You also ignored the fact that when a MoE is applied to primaries on RCP’s GOP page McLame underperformed as well.

As for your theory on weighing, odd that if it were true you can’t find any backing for it. And no McCain’s pollster saying that 16 -17% party preference advantage for the Dems in 2 polls is too big because it is smaller in others doesn’t count because he’s right most polls even Fox show it to be 6 – 12%.

You’re right we will see, but even if McCain wins your position won’t be vindicated.

Yea, you..spinning. And WHY? Because you are trying to average and gee, thats not how it works now is it, If you underperform in a state you underperform. You don't get to say, well gee I did better in the next state over so lets combine the two and average so it "looks' like I really did better than I really did. Your "analysis" is pure bs, but I suspect you know that already.

Funny that you suddenly seem to have forgotten the concept of margin of error. If you don’t count the states where the MoE was 0.3 he over and underperformed in an equal number of states. Youcontinue to ignore that we only have data on about half the primaries.

If zero underperforms in the by 6% in the general election he is TOAST!

As I’m sure you are aware the election is not decided by popular vote it that were the case Gore would have been elected in 2000, Obama’s current RCP lead is 6.5% though

My position is SPOT on, and heck you have not even figured out how a poll works yet,

Funny this coming from someone who has been unable to cite any evidence backing his theory.

Oh and I suggest you read the latest about party id by McCains chief pollster and the get back to us. That I haven't done your homework by no means suggest sI don't have the material, it just means I'm not interested in posting it for you. You ARE mrgoogle, and its NOT that hard to find. I'll be happy to accept your admisison of error then, that is if you have the stones....

Just as the last thing you posted from him didn’t prove your case, this one doesn’t either. He wrote:

“…what we're seeing in that last week or ten days is intensity increasing with some of the core Republican coalition, so that they are finally kicking in and going up, and as that happens we're seeing a closing in party identification. And I believe that party ID on election day in the exit polls, and then of course incorporate early voters is going to be in that kind of historic norm of minus three to minus five…CBS has got minus eight on party ID. FOX has got two points. Or my friend Andy Kohut at Pew has got a fifteen point party identification spread.”

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...mUyNGY4YjAyZjc=

So he is saying that party ID, like poll numbers is narrowing not that the polls (except Pew perhaps) are wildly wrong, he has it pegged on election day plus early voters at 3 – 5% and CBS had it 10/25 – 29 at 8% not a very significant difference especially since he is arguing the number is shifting in the GOP’s favor thus he would presumably expect a higher advantage for the Dems 6 – 10 days before the election. But even if you shave 5% off Obama’s CBS lead he is still ahead by 6%. On 10/28 – 9 Fox had the party ID gap below what even he expects on 10/4 but even they have Obama +3%. No where does he back your ‘special sauce’ theory or anything remotely like it.

Your swearing by a theory you can't find any backing for reminds me of Fetzer desprately clinging to his EMF weapon theory for the Wellstone crash. He too cited credible sources that when you took a look didn't really back his position. He was also able to find crackpot sites [tinfoil hat (literally)/Nostodamous (sp?) sites, marijuana.com etc] that backed his theory you can't even do that.

[Ron Ecker]

Regarding the Obama’s place of birth brouhaha he has indeed produced a birth certificate.

Not exactly. Two Hawaii government officials have announced that the health department is in possession of the certificate. It cannot be released to anyone without a "tangible interest." I guess the questioned bonafides of someone running for the U.S. presidency (such as his status as a natural born citizen) is not of "tangible interest."

Anyway, I have no reason to doubt that the certificate is genuine. But to be sure, the Clintons long ago should have sent Sandy Berger to the Honolulu health department to stuff the certificate in his sock and bring it to them. Now it's too late.

The most amazing thing about this election (besides Sarah Palin) is how the Clinton crime family has given up its turn in power without a fight, indeed with a show of support for the nominee. If Hillary really thinks she can run in 2012 against her own party's incumbent, good luck with that. But I think it remains true that no one is safe as long as the Clintons are around.

[Craig Lamson]

Funny that you suddenly seem to have forgotten the concept of margin of error. If you don’t count the states where the MoE was 0.3 he over and underperformed in an equal number of states. Youcontinue to ignore that we only have data on about half the primaries.

I"ve not forgeten the MOE at all. But lets take your numbers, zerOBAMA underperformed by 50%. Spin your way out of that one. Oh thats right ...you can't. If you think it gets better as you add more states, be my guest and add them.

If zero underperforms in the by 6% in the general election he is TOAST!

As I’m sure you are aware the election is not decided by popular vote it that were the case Gore would have been elected in 2000, Obama’s current RCP lead is 6.5% though

Wow! a stroke of GENIUS by mrgoogle, her understand the electorial college. Too bad he fails so bady at understanding weighting.

My position is SPOT on, and heck you have not even figured out how a poll works yet,

Funny this coming from someone who has been unable to cite any evidence backing his theory.

Unable? No not at all. Jus UNWILLING to provide it for YOU. Besaides I offered the sources. That you have not looked is not my problem.

Oh and I suggest you read the latest about party id by McCains chief pollster and the get back to us. That I haven't done your homework by no means suggest sI don't have the material, it just means I'm not interested in posting it for you. You ARE mrgoogle, and its NOT that hard to find. I'll be happy to accept your admisison of error then, that is if you have the stones....

Just as the last thing you posted from him didn’t prove your case, this one doesn’t either. He wrote:

“…what we're seeing in that last week or ten days is intensity increasing with some of the core Republican coalition, so that they are finally kicking in and going up, and as that happens we're seeing a closing in party identification. And I believe that party ID on election day in the exit polls, and then of course incorporate early voters is going to be in that kind of historic norm of minus three to minus five…CBS has got minus eight on party ID. FOX has got two points. Or my friend Andy Kohut at Pew has got a fifteen point party identification spread.”

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...mUyNGY4YjAyZjc=

So he is saying that party ID, like poll numbers is narrowing not that the polls (except Pew perhaps) are wildly wrong, he has it pegged on election day plus early voters at 3 – 5% and CBS had it 10/25 – 29 at 8% not a very significant difference especially since he is arguing the number is shifting in the GOP’s favor thus he would presumably expect a higher advantage for the Dems 6 – 10 days before the election. But even if you shave 5% off Obama’s CBS lead he is still ahead by 6%. On 10/28 – 9 Fox had the party ID gap below what even he expects on 10/4 but even they have Obama +3%. No where does he back your ‘special sauce’ theory or anything remotely like it.

Well lets see, Ras has party id at -7.something, SEEbs has it at -8, Pew at -15 and Zogs is unknown unless you pay to see it. Sadly you can't even read. Of course he supports my special sauce theory. Read the rest of his statemet where he tells you that weighitng is a crap shoot this year. IN fact thats a COMMON thread in MANY articles about the polling process this year. EACH POLLING CO. has its OWN special sauce. He backs my claim that many of the polls are grossly oversampling dims. That this BLOWS right over your head is no suprise to me. Whats even MORE funny you think 3 to 8 is "not a very significant difference " or even 5 to 8 "not a very significant difference" Swill some more koolaid mrgoogle, you need it BADLY! Y

Your swearing by a theory you can't find any backing for reminds me of Fetzer desprately clinging to his EMF weapon theory for the Wellstone crash. He too cited credible sources that when you took a look didn't really back his position. He was also able to find crackpot sites [tinfoil hat (literally)/Nostodamous (sp?) sites, marijuana.com etc] that backed his theory you can't even do that.

I've found plenty of backing, you can find it too, providedyou have the ability to READ and COMPREHEND. The link for your enlightenment is www.google.com. Oh wait you have that one memorized, but sadly you can't figure out what to do with the material it provides.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Poll released this morning. Does anyone know why it is wrong?

Gallup Daily: Obama 52%, McCain 42% Among Likely Voters

Largest lead for Obama among likely voters to date

* USA

* Election 2008

* Gallup Daily

* Americas

* Northern America

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama leads John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviewing conducted Wednesday through Friday by an identical 52% to 42% margin among both traditional likely voters and expanded likely voters. Obama leads by a similar 52% to 41% margin among all registered voters.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-D...ely-Voters.aspx

[Len Colby]

Funny that you suddenly seem to have forgotten the concept of margin of error. If you don’t count the states where the MoE was 0.3 he over and underperformed in an equal number of states. Youcontinue to ignore that we only have data on about half the primaries.

I"ve not forgeten the MOE at all. But lets take your numbers, zerOBAMA underperformed by 50%. Spin your way out of that one. Oh thats right ...you can't. If you think it gets better as you add more states, be my guest and add them.

You’re really don’t understand probability do you, applying a minimal MoE (+/- 0.3) he breaks even, doing better in half and worse in half. That is expected, except for the rare occasions when they are exactly right half the time a poll will under predict a candidate’s percentage and the other half they will over estimate it. If you apply a MoE of 1.5% or more he did better in more primaries that he did worse. Don’t forget that based on the data available on RCP it was McCain who underperformed more than he did better than expected when a MoE is applied.

If zero underperforms in the by 6% in the general election he is TOAST!

As I’m sure you are aware the election is not decided by popular vote it that were the case Gore would have been elected in 2000, Obama’s current RCP lead is 6.5% though

Wow! a stroke of GENIUS by mrgoogle, her understand the electorial college. Too bad he fails so bady at understanding weighting.

How do you think being an infantile ass advances you’re case? Hate to break it to you but party ID is not used in weighing not at least in the way you think. There are two types of weighing. The first is demographic it is used in both registered (RV) and likely voter (LV) polls, if a group (women, African-Americans etc) is over or under represented compared to census data, those respondents are weighted accordingly. The second is to determine likely voters and yes each company has its “secret sauce” to determine who is a LV. Generally this math works against Democrats because the people who tend to vote for them are less likely to go to the polls. That said most nonpartisan surveys including Fox, at least until recently, whether they be RV or LV had the gap in the 6 – 9 % range, a few had it in the double digits.

But your theory that poll numbers are tweaked to have the respondent meet some predetermined target of party ID is nonsense. Cite me a source that says this is the case. Why would pro-GOP Fox go along with this? If it were true why do these numbers change? Let’s compare the numbers in May/June compared to now: CBS 14%/8%, Fox 7%/2%, Rasmussen 6.3%/7%, PEW 9%/15%.

My position is SPOT on, and heck you have not even figured out how a poll works yet,

Funny this coming from someone who has been unable to cite any evidence backing his theory.

Unable? No not at all. Jus UNWILLING to provide it for YOU. Besaides I offered the sources. That you have not looked is not my problem.

Unwilling is a lame excuse for unable, Jack tried pulling that one as well. You need to stop emulating your erstwhile adversaries’ worst habits

Oh and I suggest you read the latest about party id by McCains chief pollster and the get back to us. That I haven't done your homework by no means suggest sI don't have the material, it just means I'm not interested in posting it for you. You ARE mrgoogle, and its NOT that hard to find. I'll be happy to accept your admisison of error then, that is if you have the stones....

Just as the last thing you posted from him didn’t prove your case, this one doesn’t either. He wrote:

“…what we're seeing in that last week or ten days is intensity increasing with some of the core Republican coalition, so that they are finally kicking in and going up, and as that happens we're seeing a closing in party identification. And I believe that party ID on election day in the exit polls, and then of course incorporate early voters is going to be in that kind of historic norm of minus three to minus five…CBS has got minus eight on party ID. FOX has got two points. Or my friend Andy Kohut at Pew has got a fifteen point party identification spread.”

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...mUyNGY4YjAyZjc=

So he is saying that party ID, like poll numbers is narrowing not that the polls (except Pew perhaps) are wildly wrong, he has it pegged on election day plus early voters at 3 – 5% and CBS had it 10/25 – 29 at 8% not a very significant difference especially since he is arguing the number is shifting in the GOP’s favor thus he would presumably expect a higher advantage for the Dems 6 – 10 days before the election. But even if you shave 5% off Obama’s CBS lead he is still ahead by 6%. On 10/28 – 9 Fox had the party ID gap below what even he expects on 10/4 but even they have Obama +3%. No where does he back your ‘special sauce’ theory or anything remotely like it.

Well lets see, Ras has party id at -7.something, SEEbs has it at -8, Pew at -15 and Zogs is unknown unless you pay to see it. Sadly you can't even read. Of course he supports my special sauce theory. Read the rest of his statemet where he tells you that weighitng is a crap shoot this year.

You’re partially right for once I did miss where he said:

“I don't see how you have a poll showing party ID at minus 8, 12, 15, that's just not America, that's not America anywhere in the last generation and a half." But be said earlier in the same spiel he expected it to be 3 - 5% after having narrowed which means he believes it had been higher. This raises the question of what he thought is was, presumably in the 6 – 7 % range which is what Fox and Rasmussen said a few months ago. you claimed that Rasusen could not be believed because it had the gap at 6.3%. Six –seven percent is not that different from the 9% Newsweek had it at in a poll you claimed was unreliable due to the party ID as well gap,.

The guy backtracked a bit because in June he said he thought it was around 9%. But of course he had to change his tune, because being down 6 – 7 % on average 4 - 5 months before the election is one thing, still being down by that amount 4 – 5 days before election day is far more dire. He ignored two obvious reasons for party ID changing from its 1984 – 2004 norm of about 4% to 8 – 9%, 1] extreme dislike of Bush and 2] the huge number of new voters, even he said he expected an increase from about “104 million people” in 2004 to “130 135 million people” this time, that’s a 25 - 30% difference.

But I didn’t see him push anything like your ‘special sauce’ theory, that polls are weighed to fit preconceived notions of how many Democrats there are.

Other conservative commentators accept party ID gap numbers closer the one McInturff used to back than his current ones. Jim Geraghty from the arch-conservative National Review said he thought it would be around 6 – 7 % and said veteran conservative political commentator Michael Barrone thought it could go as high as 8 – 9%. Lets not forget that Fox had it at 7%.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jllODAyNmUwNjE=

IN fact thats a COMMON thread in MANY articles about the polling process this year. EACH POLLING CO. has its OWN special sauce. He backs my claim that many of the polls are grossly oversampling dims. That this BLOWS right over your head is no suprise to me. Whats even MORE funny you think 3 to 8 is "not a very significant difference " or even 5 to 8 "not a very significant difference"

Didn’t you just berate Raymond for supposedly changing one of your quotes? But now you feel free to take one out of context. I indicated that A 4% gap vs and 8% one is not that big or significant for 2 reasons

1) the pollster said “the number is shifting in the GOP’s favor thus he would presumably expect a higher advantage for the Dems” when the poll was taken

2) even if you corrected for the difference the poll would still show Obama 6% (or more) in front.

If you look just at the numbers for the gap 8 v. 4% might look big but the would come out to one poll coming up with lets say 36% Democrat, 36% independent 28% GOP and another saying that was 34% Democrats, 36% independent and 30% GOP

(these numbers were based on the earlier PEW survey which McInturff accepted as accurate)

Your swearing by a theory you can't find any backing for reminds me of Fetzer desprately clinging to his EMF weapon theory for the Wellstone crash. He too cited credible sources that when you took a look didn't really back his position. He was also able to find crackpot sites [tinfoil hat (literally)/Nostodamous (sp?) sites, marijuana.com etc] that backed his theory you can't even do that.

I've found plenty of backing, you can find it too, providedyou have the ability to READ and COMPREHEND. The link for your enlightenment is www.google.com. Oh wait you have that one memorized, but sadly you can't figure out what to do with the material it provides.

Oh, yes the “I've found plenty of backing” but can’t be bothered to show it to you “defense”. Let’s try something less transparently BS.

I’m done with this unless you say something so absurd/offensive it can’t go unreplied, presumably by Tuesday night or Wednesday morning we’ll see.

[John Simkin]

And now it seems there is a question about who actually wrote "his" book Dreams of my Father" It's said it just might have been written on William Ayers dining room table.

This is one of the online dirty tricks that the Republicans have been using. What they will not tell you is that the Republican Party approached Dr Peter Millican, a professor at Oxford University. Millican has devised a computer software program that can detect when books and articles are by the same author. He was offered $10,000 to assess alleged similarities between Obama's Dreams from My Father, and Fugitive Days, a memoir by William Ayers. Millican insisted that the results of the test had to be made public, even if no link to Ayers was proved. The McCain camp refused and so Millican was not paid for the test. However, he decided to test it himself and found that the books were not written by the same man. The test results were then published and this has been reported in the British media. I suspect that Fox News has not carried the story.

[Len Colby]

I suspect that Fox News has not carried the story.

Fox is so desperate that yesterday they falsely reported that PEW had McCain 1 point in front of Obama 46% - 45% when the actual results were 49 - 42% for Obama.

http://people-press.org/report/468/obama-l...n-in-final-days

The race is narrowing but Obama still seems likely to be the winner.

Yet another prominent Republican backs Obama. the "far left" candidiate who was aactually one of the more consevative Democratic senators

(CNN) — Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein told CNN's Fareed Zakaria this week he intends to vote for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday.

Duberstein said he was influenced by another prominent Reagan official - Colin Powell - in his decision.

"Well let's put it this way - I think Colin Powell's decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...endorses-obama/

[Craig Lamson]

And now it seems there is a question about who actually wrote "his" book Dreams of my Father" It's said it just might have been written on William Ayers dining room table.

This is one of the online dirty tricks that the Republicans have been using. What they will not tell you is that the Republican Party approached Dr Peter Millican, a professor at Oxford University. Millican has devised a computer software program that can detect when books and articles are by the same author. He was offered $10,000 to assess alleged similarities between Obama's Dreams from My Father, and Fugitive Days, a memoir by William Ayers. Millican insisted that the results of the test had to be made public, even if no link to Ayers was proved. The McCain camp refused and so Millican was not paid for the test. However, he decided to test it himself and found that the books were not written by the same man. The test results were then published and this has been reported in the British media. I suspect that Fox News has not carried the story.

You REALLY should start telling the TRUTH John. You habit of telling FALSEHOODS has totally destroyed what bit of character your had left.

First off it was not the REPUBLICAN PARTY, it as a single person, Strike one. The McCamp was never involved and they REFUSED nothing Strike two. Millican never ran the full test on the book. Strike three. And the full test results were never published. Strike four. How do we know this? Its what Peter Millican tells us....

How they tried to tarnish Barack Obama

Peter Millican reveals how he was drawn into a plot to link the Democrat to a former radical

Last Sunday I received an urgent call from Bob, a man close to a Republican congressman in the American west. He wanted to enlist my services to prove a scandalous allegation against Barack Obama, which would surely affect his prospects in the forthcoming election. Namely, that his famous 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, on which so much of his reputation was built, was in fact written largely by Bill Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist.

Many Republican attacks, in the mainstream media, websites and blogs, have focused on this connection, described by Sarah Palin as Obama’s “palling around with terrorists”. The new scandal held the promise not only of proving that Obama was a pal of Ayers, but even that he was, in a sense, Ayers’s creation, groomed for high office by his mentor’s ghost-writing hand.

Viewed from Britain all this seems like fantasy, but in some US circles it is taken very seriously indeed. If the charge against Obama could be made to stick, with objective evidence of Ayers’s involvement in his famous book, then perhaps it could sway significant numbers of voters back to the Republican side.

So where do I come in, an Oxford philosopher and 18th-century scholar? Well, until three years ago I taught at Leeds University in a job that combined philosophy with computing. While there I wrote several software systems (available online) designed to make the study of computing more attractive and relevant for students in the humanities.

One of these, called Signature, performs “stylometric” analysis for literary detection. The idea is that by analysing different texts one can try to identify the distinctive authorial fingerprint or stylistic “signature” of each writer and thus decide questions of disputed authorship. Did St Paul write the Epistle to the Hebrews? Did Shakespeare write Edward III? Who wrote various anonymous political works, such as the Federalist Papers of 1787 or the 1996 novel Primary Colors?

Investigators have hoped to answer all of these questions – and many others – by such means and have sometimes been very successful (although more often wildly overoptimistic and naively uncritical).

My Signature system acquired some publicity this year through its involvement in a heated debate about Coleridge’s alleged authorship of a translation of Goethe’s Faust. So some Republicans were keen to make use of my expertise to help them in their quest to unmask Ayers as the hidden puppet master behind the Obama of 1995.

The person who came up with this strange theory is Jack Cashill, an American author who claimed to find striking similarities between Dreams from My Father and Ayers’s 2001 memoir Fugitive Days.

The trouble with these sorts of claims is that they are far too easy to make: take any two substantial memoirs from the same era and you are likely to be able to pick out a fair number of passages that have some similarities. Unless the similarities are really close (and they weren’t), just listing them makes no case at all, even if it might be enough to persuade some readers.

Cashill and friends – who were convinced but aware that more evidence would be needed to convince others – enlisted teams of analysts to try to give the theory a solid statistical basis. All of these analyses supposedly delivered positive results, but they seem badly flawed.

One pair of university engineers tested frequencies of words in the two books against a “random control”; but the book chosen for this role was a 1919 road novel which just happened to be easily available on the web. Hardly surprising, then, that the two contemporary memoirs came out relatively similar: they were always likely to be closer to each other than to a novel written 80 years before.

Another “team” – consisting of a private engineering consultant – used my own Signature software but didn’t get beyond the first primitive test for word-length frequencies (proportions of one-letter, two-letter, three-letter words, etc). Although he did rigorous statistics with more appropriate “controls”, his results were rather weak. But even if they had been stronger, using such limited data is like trying to argue that two houses were constructed by the same builder purely on the basis that they contain roughly similar proportions of different bricks.

Finally, the third analysis that I have seen used far more sophisticated measures, built into a proprietary software system for helping aspiring writers to develop their style. But it records no “control” measurements at all, so the results produced are impossible to assess.

The author of the analysis describes some of his results as “striking”, but this looks very exaggerated to me. Without any comparable statistics involving other texts, we have no way of assessing their true significance. So his claim to have made “a strong case for the likelihood that the author of Fugitive Days ghostwrote Dreams from My Father” is completely unsubstantiated.

Bob – the man who brought me into all this – seemed sincerely interested in getting to the truth about Cashill’s dramatic allegation. He supplied me with the relevant texts and a number of appropriate “controls”.

Some preliminary tests, using various data measures and a range of powerful statistical facilities that were recently added to Signature, indicated nothing that would give Obama any cause for concern. So I felt that any analysis I did would be far more likely to put an end to the story than to substantiate it, by providing objective data against what looked like partisan allegations.

The Republicans were apparently keen to press for a full-scale investigation, which would take a good deal of my time but for which they were prepared to pay through Oxford University Consulting’s personal consultancy arrangements.

Oxford University Consulting, on my behalf, insisted quite properly that any such arrangement would have to be agreed before the results were known: there could be no question of carrying out an analysis that would be paid for only if the results came out in their favour. And I insisted that the analysis, once produced, would have to be in the public domain and thus made available to the Democrats also.

Having got to this stage, with texts and controls carefully prepared and special facilities added to Signature for the purpose, my little adventure into US politics ended. I was left with the impression that payment for propaganda was fine; but payment for objective research was quite a different matter.

Maybe one day I’ll go back and do the analysis in detail, but I doubt it. I would rather spend my time on serious research questions than on improbable theories proposed with negligible support.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle5062890.ece