Douglas Hibbs' well-regarded "Bread and Peace" model of presidential election outcomes is currently projecting a 46-47 percent share of the two-party vote for John McCain. I don't put a ton of stock on these models, but it basically reiterates what we generally know -- things don't look good for the Republicans.
« Clinton and Obama on Education | Main | Houston, We Have Strikingly Few Problems »
Bread and Peace
13 Mar 2008 02:42 pm
Comments (18)
Completely off topic, but since it's a new thread I wanted to ask Matt why no post about the firestorm surrounding the "sermons" of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose was until recently Obama's pastor at the church he and Michelle attend. He also married them and baptized their children.
The following excerpt is taken from the ABC News' website:
"An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
End of excerpt.
It seems like only last week when Matt got sand in his vagina over McCain's acceptance of the endorsement of James Hagee, an evangelical "leader" who nobody had ever heard of prior to his endorsement of McCain. Does Matt find any fault with Obama given his approval, acceptance and providing of financial support of this man who's a real racist and who obviously harbors a deep hatred of America and its culture?
McCain can win this fall if the Dems self-destruct or something happens in the Middle East that makes people want a vet in the White House.
What are the odds of one or both criteria occuring?
Much better than 47% I suspect.
Why is 46-47% no good? Clinton won twice with numbers like that.
Are you kidding? Those are great numbers for McCain, considering that Democrats now outnumber Republicans 3-2. That means McSame only needs a few percent of the independents to get over the top.
Why is 46-47% no good? Clinton won twice with numbers like that.
From the quote:
Douglas Hibbs' well-regarded "Bread and Peace" model of presidential election outcomes is currently projecting a 46-47 percent share of the two-party vote for John McCain.
WillieStyle - That's my point. Throw in even a couple independent voters, and he's in, as Traven points out.
I think these types of models are totally bogus, but 46-47% of the two-party vote actually seems like a pretty reassuring number for the republicans right now.
The Democrats will have only themselves to blame if they don't win by at least 57-43. Has any part flat-out deserved to lose more than the GOP in 2008?
WillieStyle - That's my point. Throw in even a couple independent voters, and he's in, as Traven points out.
I think these types of models are totally bogus, but 46-47% of the two-party vote actually seems like a pretty reassuring number for the republicans right now.
Sigh!
In this case, the "two-party vote" means the portion of the overall vote that goes to the candidates of the two major parties.
For example, if the general election were to look like:
Hillary: 48%
MCcain: 42%
Nader: 10%
Then the "two-party vote" would constitue 90% of the total vote and McCain would have won 46.67% of the "two-party vote".
WillieStyle - That's my point. Throw in even a couple independent voters, and he's in, as Traven points out.
I think these types of models are totally bogus, but 46-47% of the two-party vote actually seems like a pretty reassuring number for the republicans right now.
My understanding is that the two-party vote refers to the votes cast for either the Republican or Democratic candidates. It has nothing to do with the party affiliation of the voter. A 53-47 breakdown of the two party vote (51-45 overall) is a pretty solid whupping in presidential politics.
"That means McSame only needs a few percent of the independents to get over the top."
That’s an incorrect way to look at these numbers. They’re not the minimum number of votes McCain will get, or what the results of the election would be today. They’re the prediction of a model. The model might be wrong, but doesn’t mean you there is anything useful information gained by pointing out that if you add addition voters then McCain will win.
"That means McSame only needs a few percent of the independents to get over the top."
As mentioned above, this does not mean the percentage of the vote cast by people registered to one of the two parties. It means the percentage of the votes actually cast for one of the nominees of the two major parties. So take all of the votes cast, regardless of who actually cast them. Then break that number down by McCain+Dem vs. Everyone else. That's the two party vote. McCain gets beat by 6% to 8% of that vote (it must equal 100%).
Chicounsel,
No, they won't talk about it. It's preferable to pretend otherwise.
This Hagee issue is their attempt to innoculate the Messiah from the truly disgusting "spiritual advisor" that BO (peace be upon him) listened to and supported for 20 years. Moral eqivalence here, there, everywhere. After all, if Hagee supports McCain in a political race, then BO's (pbuh) 20 year association with a true racist anti-American nutjob is the very same thing.
Chicounsel:
"I wanted to ask Matt why no post about the firestorm surrounding the "sermons" of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose was until recently Obama's pastor at the church he and Michelle attend."
Right, Matt has been pounding the Hagee drum as a pre-emptive attack because he knew that the Wright issue was eventually going to explode in the Mainstream Media. After all, I'd been warning him about Wright for a year. Matt finally read Obama's autobiography, where Wright takes up most of pp. 274-295, and he saw I was right.
And as I've been advising Obama for a year, the solution is to do a Sistah Souljah on Wright.
Re: Right, Matt has been pounding the Hagee drum as a pre-emptive attack because he knew that the Wright issue was eventually going to explode in the Mainstream Media.
It may expldoe in the National Review and the rightwing press, but I doubt it will in the regular media. Black preachers are generally given very wide berth by the press which does not want to appear racist. Even Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been treated with kid gloves, attacked, when at all, on purely political grounds. One owuld barely know they are preachers if "Rev" was not prefixed to their names. (However, Louis Farrakhan, being a member of a Muslim, and aberrant Muslim at that, sect is fair game).
Yeah, get back to me when Jeremiah Wright advocates the US provoking a massive military attack against Israel in order to precipitate the end of the world. For that matter, get back to me when he calls the Roman Catholic Church "the Whore of Babylon." Or when he asserts that God's destiny for America is to violently eradicate Islam. Though I'll admit, declaring that God will curse a nation for doing evil is virtually equivalent to advocating wars of aggression and genocide in Christ's name.
Anyhoo, bringing it more back on-topic from the threadjacking: Enjoy the results of the Bread and Peace analysis, fellas, since it suggests your warmongering, Treasury-emptying band of Constitution-shredding thieves might be on the way out, no matter how much racist bilge and false equivalence you puke up. Man, imagine Steve Sailer's face if a filthy, genetically inferior Negro becomes President.
John McCain was the NVA's best aviator. Crashed 4 planes stateside, set fire to his carrier and got shot down. whoopie dick. My war record is better than his.
I believe the Fair model hit the 2004 election dead-on.
Comments closed March 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think that Ray Fair's model makes a similar prediction.
Posted by Jestak | March 13, 2008 3:28 PM