Tag archive for McCain

Reasons to love Barack (vol. 9003)

Despite the Obama's inability to nudge this country, far less the world, towards climate sanity, there remain plenty of reasons to love the guy. Here are a couple of examples I've been meaning to post:

In the popular inside account of the 2008 campaign, Game Change, we learn what happened at the crucial meeting on the economy in the fall of 2008, when John McCain canceled a debate appearance to demand a meeting on the economy, and then — at the meeting — failed to act. 

Barack took over.

Joel Achenbach recounts the scene:

Skimming the book, one passage jumped out: The account of White
House meeting of President Bush, Barack Obama, McCain, Nancy Pelosi and
other top officials during the financial crisis of September 2008.
Obama, the authors write, all but ran the meeting, even though McCain
had sought it. McCain said nothing for 45 minutes and then had little
that was helpful to contribute. It's impossible to know who is
channeling the story to the authors, since it's all anonymous, but it
seems to me that Bush was one of the sources (or Rove, Bush's brain?)
and that he gave McCain some payback for all the guff McCain gave him
over the years.

One Republican in the room mused silent, If you closed your eyes and changed everyones' voices, you would have thought Obama was the president of the United States. [p. 388]

… Bush was dumbfounded by McCain's behavior. He'd forced
Bush to hold a meeting that the president saw as pointless — and then
sat there like a bump on a log. Unconstructive, thought Bush. Unclear. Ineffectual. [p. 389]

And in New York, a boy pollster finds the same general reaction to the president in the public at large, despite a tremendous slump in the popularity of Congress and politics in general:

Little boy to dad: Do you like Obama?
Dad: Yes, son, I like Obama.
Boy: You like Obama, mom?
Mom: Yes, I like Obama.
Boy: You like Obama?
Sister: I like Obama.
Boy: Hey, people, you like Obama?
Random people: Yes, we do.

According to a story yesterday on All Things Considered, today the President will deliver a major address about NASA. The administration proposed a new position on rocket development at the agency a few weeks ago, which — all agree, even within the administration — has been poorly explained. 

It's a policy that can be defended, and appears to possibly be a far-sighted approach that could actually be supported by many critics of NASA, but somehow its good points have been lost in translation. 

The solution? The usual one. 

Send the president out to make a speech. Few can resist him, at least in person, it seems… 

Full Story »

McCain Seethes: Obama Keeps His Cool

As a fellow debate watcher said last night, Obama is an "organized thinker" — his small points inevitably lead to large conclusions. (For instance, in the debate last night he noted that the United States consumes 25% of the world’s annual oil production, but only has 3% of the world’s oil reserves. This means that offshore drilling will not solve our energy problems — no matter how many times Republicans call for more drilling.)

As a thinker, McCain is as much a loose cannon as he is a maverick. This explains why he’s good in a town hall format, where he can jump from one point to another, but not so good in speeches, where the speaker needs to build a platform on which to stand and make his logic clear.

This difference leads to frustration for McCain in debates. You saw it against Romney, and we saw it last night against Obama. As he clenches his jaw and glares, you can see him wanting to devastate the younger man, but his shots (such as the jibe about bear DNA research) go wild as often as not. Obama ignored most of them, simply correcting the outright lies (such as McCain’s complaint that Obama would raise taxes on families making $42,000 a year). This only makes McCain madder.

As Larison points out at The American Conservative:

Halperin grades
Obama as having done better than McCain.  The CW [conventional wisdom] has now been firmly
entrenched.  The telling thing is that this has happened in a debate
for which a lot of us assumed McCain wasn’t very well-prepared (he was
busily grandstanding in D.C. saving the world, after
all) and focused on a subject where McCain is supposedly some grand
master and Obama is allegedly a novice.  Obama proved that the idea
that he is somehow not well-versed on foreign policy is nonsense.  From
here on out, McCain is in a lot of trouble.  In future debates he can’t
just keep saying, “Earmark reform, drill, baby, drill, maverick” and
expect people to pay attention to what he says.


Full Story »

McCain Wins Debate, McCain Campaign Says

Believe it or don’t: proof (from an ad placed in the Wall Street Journal) below, which was posted this morning, before the debate.

Obvious question: If McCain can win the debate by saying he won the debate, why can’t he win the war in Iraq by saying he won the war in Iraq — and then leave? Worked for Richard Nixon…


Full Story »

Obama Hits McCain with Another Clean Shot

Barack Obama is making a big push in Florida, greatly aided by a $40 million campaign, and a monumentally stupid — politically speaking — quote from John McCain in this month’s issue of Contingencies (see here).

According to John McCain:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide
competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would
provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst
excesses of state-based regulation.

Barack shot back:

So let me get this straight? He wants to run health care like they’ve been running Wall Street!

And McCain can’t claim he was misquoted: he wrote the article.

Chalk up another gaffe for McCain in his increasingly self-destructive run for president. It’s a gaffe that’s going to hurt his chances in Florida, where seniors think a lot about health care, retirement, and Social Security.

Speaking of elections, while going from one fund-raiser to another in Florida, today Obama added:

I’m confident that we’re going to win this thing. But can I
make this point? There are easier ways to win it and harder ways to win
it. It would be really nice for us to win Florida. I’ll tell you, we
can win this thing without Florida, but boy, it’s a lot easier if we
win Florida. If we win Florida, it is almost impossible for John McCain
to win.

Most pollsters give McCain a slight lead in Florida, but experts say it’s very close, and likely to come down to who better is able to get out the vote. According to the Wall Street Journal, the GOP has successfully put in two measures to suppress ballot-casting by younger, more mobile voters. Democrats have vowed, however, to defend the votes, and promise to have 5,000 volunteer lawyers on hand in the precincts.

According to this second piece in the WSJ:

The Obama campaign also says it has registered about 100,000 new
voters this year, part of 250,000 new registrants in the state overall,
and the majority of them are Democrats.

Now comes the bigger task: making sure inexperienced voters can
navigate two new state laws. The first is the so-called "No match, no
vote" law, which requires a match between a voter’s driver’s license or
Social Security number and a government database. Critics say database
records are riddled with errors.

A second law allows citizens to challenge the legitimacy of fellow
voters. Challengers need not prove their accusations. Instead, the
challenged voter has two days to justify his right to cast a ballot.

State Republican lawmakers who pushed the law say it will help combat fraud. Democrats call it a vote-suppression measure.

Gee, why so cynical, Democrats?

Full Story »

Obama Mocks McCain on Fiscal Policy

Two or three days in a row now, Barack Obama has flat-out mocked John McCain’s attempts to stumble through a fiscal crisis that has taken American values — stock, home, and interest numbers — backwards to the 2004 era.

You know the story. Home values are down, stock prices are down. In Southern California, homes are now worth what they were back in 2003. Stocks are where they were in about 2004-5.

The difference is that 2008 has also brought new present-day economic problems. Joblessness is up, gas prices are up, food prices are up.

On Monday, when the Dow took a 500-point header off a cliff, McCain repeated what he has said countless times before, the GOP mantra of "strength." Bush, Cheney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson, they all cling to this word like drowning men to a plank. McCain claimed "the fundamentals of the economy are strong," in a tone not too far removed from Herbert Hoover or Phil Gramm. But this time McCain ran into a buzzsaw named Barack Obama.

Senator – what economy are you talking about?

What’s more fundamental than the ability to find a job that pays the
bills and can raise a family? What’s more fundamental than knowing that
your life savings is secure, and that you can retire with dignity?
What’s more fundamental than knowing that you’ll have a roof over your
head at the end of the day? What’s more fundamental than that?

Then on Tuesday, McCain comes back with a recommendation for a "bipartisan commission," as with 9/11, to study the issue and offer recommendations.

Obama jumped on that and tore it apart. He mocked the suggestion as:

“the oldest Washington stunt in the book — you pass the buck to a
commission to study the problem. But here’s the thing — this isn’t
9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership
that gets us out.

According to the FOX News report, the crowd listening to him in Golden, Colorado cheered loudly.

Then after first saying the government should not bail out AIG, and then saying it should, McCain today suggested firing Christopher Cox, the chairman of the SEC.

Seemingly within the hour, Obama fired right back:

In the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own,
look-the-other-way crowd in Washington who has led us down this
disastrous path. Don’t just get
rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration. Get rid of this
philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem
and put somebody in there who’s going to fight for you.

Pundits are focusing on McCain’s apparent gaffe. Officially the President doesn’t have the right to fire the SEC chairman, and Christopher Cox is a fellow Republican, so if McCain were to try and fire him, he would have to over-rule his own party.

But what stands out to me is the mockery. Once upon a time, it was the GOP who knew how to mock the Democrats and their allies. Ronald Reagan made it look like sport. Right now, it’s Obama. These are clean shots he’s getting in, in a huge campaign, and without apparent effort.

McCain is on his feet, but looks dazed, indecisive, confused. The election still has fifty days to go, but McCain has had a gruesome week. One more mistake, and this could be over.

[AP pic via the Los Angeles Times]


Full Story »

Are You Calling McCain a Liar? Ummm, yes…

"The McCain campaign said Governor Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere,
but now we know she supported it. They said she didn’t seek earmarks,
but now we know she hired a lobbyist to get millions in pork for her
town and her state. They said she visited Iraq, but today we learned
that she only stopped at the border. Americans are starting to wonder,
is there anything the McCain campaign isn’t lying about?"

Tommy Vietor, the Obama campaign, 9/13/08

Full Story »

Is McCain Losing It?

Yesterday, he claimed to a hard-nosed TV reporter from Maine who wanted to know what experience Sarah Palin has in the field of national security that "she knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America."

Today on "The View" he claimed that as governor she never asked nor accepted earmarked money for the state of Alaska, when in fact she asked and accepted nearly $200 million dollars worth. When pressed on this obviously false point, McCain said: "Not as Governor she didn’t."


Then he added, as if to make sure we got it, that his campaign commercials are "not lies." Which will remind some of us of a certain age of Nixon’s "I am not a crook."

What does it say that a Presidential candidate has to make such a statement?

McCain seems to be morphing into a blend of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan right in front of our eyes: the dottiness of Reagan, crossed with a Nixonian willingness to say anything, regardless of the truth. It’s freaking me out. McCain used to be interesting: now he’s acting like a tool. What happened?

Full Story »

Conservative: McCain-Palin is Bushism, not Reform

Daniel Larison, a columnist/blogger for the fascinatingly unpredictable American Conservative, in a column sharply points out (here) that the McCain-Palin ticket represents not reform, but a all-out continuation of "Bushism."

In the warped universe of Bush Republicanism, McCain/Palin was the
relatively moderate alternative to the extreme [Joe] Lieberman option.  In
truth, by choosing Palin McCain made more of a statement of continuity
with the last eight years than if he had chosen any of the other people
frequently named as possibilities.  Naturally, given the Bushist habit
of abusing language, this is being presented as a clean break and a
fresh start.  Rhetorically, McCain and Palin have aligned themselves as
the enemies of the status quo, while Obama and Biden are
setting themselves up as the steady preservers of establishment
interests.  In reality, however, McCain and Palin are reformers every
bit as much as the invasion of Iraq was a war of self-defense.

Wow. Can’t think of any liberal commentator who has been more critical of the McCain-Palin ticket for what it proposes (as opposed to criticizing lies, etc.).

Unfortunately, the typical "low-information voter" pays little attention to reality, as The Los Angeles Times reveals at the end of a story today:

The Republican ticket was intent on introducing Palin in the best
possible terms, even if they occasionally skated past reality. McCain
and Palin have repeatedly claimed that Palin opposed the infamous
"bridge to nowhere"; actually, she backed it while running for governor but later, when it was under fire, killed it off.

Both have cited her as a foe of earmarks, though she actively sought such budgetary benefits for Alaska.

On Friday, McCain exaggerated Palin’s actions regarding the state
airplane. In her speeches, she has said she put the plane up for sale
on EBay, carefully omitting that it didn’t sell there
and was sold, at a loss, through a plane broker. McCain’s version was
that "she took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and
sold it on EBay. And made a profit!"

The details did not matter to many of the voters Friday who streamed to
see Palin. Julie Ness, a 47-year-old mother of three from West Bend,
Wis., said she hadn’t tuned in to the race until McCain selected Palin.

She said she loved the oft-repeated lines about the bridge and the plane because the comments made Palin "believable."

"She sounds like she’s actually for the people, not for the position or
the money or whatever other status reason they do it for," Ness said.

Great. "A Face in the Crowd" for the 21st century.


Full Story »

McCain Speaks, Nation Yawns

Well, maybe I’m a little biased. But that’s how it seemed to me. Charles Lane, on the Wa-Po’s Post-Partisan blog, called it (here) "a snoozer…easily the worst of this year’s four presidential and vice presidential nomination acceptance speeches."

Another viewer counted at least nine on-air yawns from Republican delegates in the hall.

Notable facts:

Mentions of the word "fight":       28

Mentions of George Bush:             0

Mentions of global warming:         0

Mentions of immigration:              0

My better half saw a lonely man in the crowd of delegates holding up a sign that read: "Environmentalists for McCain." She suggested it really would make more sense without the "s."

Amen. And does anyone really believe that McCain could end "partisan rancor?" After he unleashes his attack dog on Obama the night before, to rapturous applause?

Well…on to the general election. Can’t wait.

Oh wait! I’m not alone in my estimation of the speech. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson found it "…rather typical for a Republican. Pretty disappointing." And Jeffrey Toobin was much tougher. See here:

Full Story »

Ventura Pollster: Obama to Win, Landslide Possible

That’s my headline — the editor had a different version, unfortunately
unsupported by what pollster George Barna actually said. Sigh.
Headlines are so often where newspapers go wrong.

Nonetheless, the story itself (here) is well worth reading. Here’s the crux (highly technical journalism term). I’ll post the rest of the story, without the paper’s headline, below the fold.

“Americans sense that something has gone astray in our political
sphere,” he said. “One of the conclusions widely drawn — especially by
younger voters, — is that attacking one’s opponent more and more
viciously as the campaign progresses, or the farther behind a candidate
falls in the polls is a show of self-interest, not national interest.
Add to that the existing perception that McCain represents the old,
tired politics of Beltway insiders, and you get a public that is not
particularly interested in hearing the old man criticize the younger
man, the white man question the integrity of the black man, or the
career politician challenge the newcomer.”

Barna is a mild-mannered man with
graying hair, and he doesn’t speak in colorful quotes, but the pollster
all but pounds the table on this point.

“People are already
concerned that McCain represents the old way of doing business,” he
said. “They don’t want the next president to be a mud-slinger. They
want him to stay above the fray. They’re worried about the future.”

And here’s the invaluable Supertracker composite of polls via FiveThirtyEight (here). You’ll note that the trend (the red line) is above statistician Nate Silver’s projection, which means the race should tighten, but it’s still looking very good for Obama right now.


George Barna, a Ventura-based national
pollster, projected earlier this month on the basis of hundreds of
interviews with voters around the country that Barack Obama will win
the presidential election in November easily unless his campaign
“commits political suicide.”

Barna said Sen. Obama had taken a
50-35 percent lead over Sen. McCain, and that to win McCain would have
to “sweep all these undecided votes — and then some.” Barna added that
this is a “particularly remote” possibility because most of the
undecided among likely voters are already leaning toward Obama.

Barna’s results jive with two other national polls released weeks later — the Newsweek poll, which found Obama had taken a nearly identical 51-36 percent lead, and the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg
poll, which pegged Obama’s lead at 49-36 percent among all voters. The
best known of all pollsters, Gallup, has the race at a dead even 44-44
percent, but although Barna respects Gallup’s work, he stresses that
his interviewing questions better distinguish likely voters from
registered voters.

He points to the fact that Obama voters are
much more excited about their candidate: 53 percent of Obama voters
believe their man will win, while only 31 percent of McCain voters
expect the same of their candidate. Many of those McCain voters, Barna
said, will never show up at the polling booth.

a follow-up interview conducted in his office, Barna — who moved his
business to Ventura in the early l990s — added that he saw “no reason”
to think that John McCain could win the election, and gave a half-dozen
reasons why he thought Obama could win, quite possibly by a landslide.

mostly polls for large religious organizations, from liberal groups
such as “One,” which is known for its association with Bono, to
conservative groups such as “Focus on the Family,” which is affiliated
with the prominent right-wing evangelical James Dobson. But even among
voters who attend church weekly, the Democratic candidate is doing
unusually well and the Republican unusually poorly, with more than 23
percent of actively practicing Christian voters who voted for George
Bush in 2004 preparing to cross the aisle and vote for a Democrat.

not just Christians. According to Barna’s research, McCain has lost
more than 20 percent support to Obama among a wide range of groups that
voted Republican in 2004, including men (22 percent), residents of the
South (22 percent), conservatives (20 percent) and “downscale” adults
(54 percent).  Downscale adults are voters who have not gone to college
and make less than $20,000 a year.

“The nation feels insecure and
uncomfortable,” Barna said. “Voters want a candidate they can trust,
someone who is steady, someone who can bring us into the new
millennium. McCain doesn’t have that persona. People see him as cranky,
irascible. That’s the image that comes through the media filter, and
that’s not what people want.”

Barna stresses the image we see of candidates in the media may have little to do with reality.

worked for a lot of these guys, and I know that the media portrayal is
not necessarily accurate,” he said. “Obama is much more liberal than
most Americans realize. But most people do not vote on issues. People
vote on how a candidate makes them feel. And Obama makes people feel
good right now.”

Can we trust a June poll on a November election?

will point out that national polls for presidential elections in June
have not demonstrated much statistical skill. In four out of five of
the last elections, the leader in the June polls went on to lose in
November, and that includes the last election. John Kerry had a narrow
lead over George Bush in the polls of June 2004, but lost in November
in crucial swing states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.

biggest swing came in l988, when Michael Dukakis, who had a substantial
lead of more than 8 percent in June over George H. W. Bush, went on to
lose by nearly the same 8 percent margin. 

In that election, the
Republican campaign manager Lee Atwater targeted Dukakis as a liberal,
mocked him as a phony elitist, and attacked him with ads linking him to
the release of rapist Willie Horton.

Could the same strategy —
portraying the Democratic candidate as a pretentious liberal — work
again this year? It seems an obvious possibility, because Obama is
already considered a liberal by most voters, and is a professor
besides, and so vulnerable to charges of elitism.

Bush’s former campaign adviser Karl Rove launched just such an attack
shortly after the Barna interview. Speaking to a reporter for ABC, the
famous politico compared Obama to a wealthy country club member with a
drink and a cigarette, making “snide remarks about everyone who passes

But Barna doesn’t think that kind of attack will work on Obama.

sense that something has gone astray in our political sphere,” he said.
“One of the conclusions widely drawn — especially by younger voters, —
is that attacking one’s opponent more and more viciously as the
campaign progresses, or the farther behind a candidate falls in the
polls is a show of self-interest, not national interest. Add to that
the existing perception that McCain represents the old, tired politics
of Beltway insiders, and you get a public that is not particularly
interested in hearing the old man criticize the younger man, the white
man question the integrity of the black man, or the career politician
challenge the newcomer.”

But Barna firmly rejected that kind of
attack on Obama. He’s a mild-mannered man with graying hair, and he
doesn’t speak in colorful quotes, but the pollster all but pounds the
table on this point.

“People are already concerned that McCain
represents the old way of doing business,” he said. “They don’t want
the next president to be a mud-slinger. They want him to stay above the
fray. They’re worried about the future.”

A day after Rove’s
attack on Obama, McCain’s chief political adviser Charlie Black was
quoted in an interview with Fortune magazine saying a terrorist attack
could be a “big advantage” to McCain.

Although many independent
election observers believe such an attack could in fact play to
McCain’s strength — polls consistently show that one issue in which the
public has more confidence in the Republican is in his ability to
handle terrorism — immediately McCain disavowed the comment. A second
campaign official repudiated it, and Black himself apologized for it.

Was this a deliberate move, despite the backtracking? Barna thinks so.

statement may have been a strategic move, intended to remind people
that in a time of insecurity, people should support the candidate who
is more likely to keep the nation secure,” he said. “Notice that the
man who said it was not released from his position, even though the
McCain campaign has released dozens of staff over the course of the

Why Obama will win the Christian vote

is confident Obama will win because McCain has lost millions of voters
from the coalition of voters that helped elect George Bush in 2000 and
2004. McCain still is projected to win 78 percent of likely evangelical
voters, and 75 percent of registered Republicans. But in an era when
the Republican Party has been severely damaged by the unpopularity of
President Bush, Barna points to “a huge degree of support” that has
been lost to the Democrat among other constituencies, including
Catholics, Protestants and non-evangelical born-again Christians.

Christian community in the U.S. has largely shifted its loyalty to the
Democratic nominee in this year’s race,” Barna declared. “Among the
non-evangelical born-again adults, 52 percent supported President Bush
in 2004. Only 38 percent are now supporting Sen. McCain, while 48
percent side with Sen. Obama. And notional Christians, who supported
John Kerry by an 11-point margin in 2004, today support Obama over
McCain by 26 percent.”

Barna’s poll defines Christian voters
differently than other pollsters, categorizing evangelicals not by
their attendance in a particular church, such as the Southern Baptists,
but by seven tests of belief, including whether a Christian believes in
Satan, whether the Bible is accurate in all it teaches, and whether
they believe in a personal responsibility to share the faith with
non-Christians. By this stringent criterion, evangelical voters — who
are universally agreed to be much more conservative than most voters —
only represent about 9 percent of the electorate.

pollsters, such as the Pew Research Center, who do classify voters by
the church they belong to, see evangelical voters as a much larger
group — more than 25 percent of American voters.

Barna is
unshaken by the contrast to Pew and other better-known pollsters.
Although all pollsters have found a rise in support for the Democratic
candidate in 2008, he is confident that his results better explain the
division within American Christianity. In his analysis, truly
evangelical voters are a relatively small group, smaller even than the
“Skeptics,” which he counts at about 16 percent of the population. So
the Republican candidate can win his base of party members and
Evangelicals and still lose by a wide margin.

How McCain could win

who betrays not a hint of personal preference among the candidates,
doesn’t entirely rule out McCain’s chances. He offers a half-dozen
possibilities that could allow McCain to come back.

Obama could
commit “a major political blunder.” Pollsters now agree that McCain
took a lead in March when Obama was tarred by the radical statements of
his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Republican Party led
by as much as 5 percent points in a consensus of national polls, but
since Obama disowned Wright, he has regained a substantial lead —
larger than any margin registered by John Kerry.

“People will be watching closely to see who Obama associates himself with,” Barna said.

possibilities: Sen. Obama’s voters, expecting a landslide victory,
could fail to show up. A terrorist attack or national security issue
(such as the Bin Laden interview released just before the 2004
election) could remind voters of McCain’s experience in international
affairs. “A massive number of people either not currently registered,
or registered voters who are not currently likely to vote in November,
could actually turn out to vote and select Sen. McCain by a substantial
margin,” he adds, with a hint of skepticism.

But despite
Barna’s attempts to be even-handed, his research leads him back toward
the prospect of an Obama victory, with a good chance of a landslide.
Not only would McCain have to win all the undecided voters to pull
even, but those who plan to vote for McCain are less committed. Among
McCain voters, 59 percent say they are “absolutely certain” to vote for
their candidate; among Obama voters, the figure is 73 percent. Among
registered voters who are likely to vote, 48 percent of Democrats are
“excited” about the campaign, but only 30 percent of Republicans say
the same.

Barna points out that in 2000, George Bush was a much
more conservative candidate than most Americans realized, but that
didn’t become apparent until long after he was elected. Obama could
benefit from the same lack of scrutiny.

“The only people who
pay attention to the details of the issues are journalists,” he said.
“We live in a sound-bite society. We hear the Federal government budget
is $3 trillion and we want to understand that in 15 seconds.”

Barna points out a large number of young adults are newly registered
and have “no track record” in a national election. If they show up and
vote for Obama as they did in the primaries in states such as Iowa,
Virginia, Wisconsin and Colorado, chances of an overwhelming landslide
look good.

Nate Silver, a Chicago-based statistician who
applies probability theory to polls by running their published results
through a computer thousands of times for The New Republic and his
site, FiveThirtyEight, backs Barna’s research. Silver lists outcome
possibilities by percentage, from low possibilities, such as chance of
an Electoral College tie (.023 percent), to high possibilities, such as
the chance of Obama winning all the Kerry states (65 percent).

The statistician sees no scenario of a McCain victory at more than a 13 percent probability.

The chance of an Obama landslide?

32 percent.   

Full Story »