If the polls show Obama has a lead, then write a post describing why the polls constitute a leading indicator that  portends victory in November.

If the polls show the race tied or McCain in the lead, then write a post describing why the polls constitute a lagging indicator that tells us nothing at all about the future.

And if the polls show simultaneously a lead for Obama and a tie, then throw up your hands in exasperation and blame lazy American voters.

The polls are diverging, Tep, as Nate said, not converging around a tie or a McCain lead. That is to say, they don't mean sh*t right now.

For a bit of data to go along with that, I include here a link to Alan Abramowitz's analysis of the Gallup Tracking poll, which has been remarkably stable over the past 2 months, especially if you get rid of some of the noise.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../is-obamas-lead-in-gallup_n_117058.html

Tep, Nate's approach is the mirror image of yours, your evil (or good, depending) twin.

"they don't mean sh*t right now"

Other than offering a chance for us to wind each up, what's the point of the Nate Silver show here?

My guess is that's yet another opportunity for TNR to ingratiate itself with the Obama team in hopes of scoring better access and higher Google rankings/readership/blogbuzz in the Obama era. It might make more sense to judge whether Obama a) is actually going to win-- not terribly likely IMHO, and b) whether becoming fanboys and fangirls is such a good thing for a political journal whose distinct identity is tied to refreshing, ornery, no-BS analysis. Hint: in the Bush era the Weekly Standard has gone straight downhill.

Ah, but elf, I don't pretend to be a pollster. I just read the news, and laugh (or weep) www.nytimes.com/.../06bundlers.html

tep, this post says that the polls show Obama with a lead.  That being the case, what on earth are you talking about?

I took Tep's bait and read the piece about how Obama has raised about one-third of his money from large donors and bundlers.  The piece says Obama has raised more in absolute dollars from these donors than McCain or Hillary, but it's the level of dependence on large donors that should cause a reform-minded person to worry, not the absolute dollar amounts.  Obama can piss off one or more of the industries from which he's receiving large contributions and shrug it off.  The others, not so much,

More importantly, the piece does not identify any favors Obama has done for the donors other than the usual dinners with them and backstage access.  I know what that backstage access means from a friend:  You stand in a receiving line and shake his hand with about ten words of pleasantries exchanged, like "go get 'em, keep it up, thanks."  Where Obama differs from other pols is that he also has dinner with randomly selected small donors, and selects small donors for "backstage" events as well.  Admittedly, you have to win a lottery to be in that category, but since this piece is more about symbolism than substance, it's worth noting.

Lastly, there is something else the piece leaves out.  Obama does not just remember details and flatter large donors, he -- in an underreported aspect of his political rise -- takes time to learn details about less "exalted"people as well.  I happen to be in the world of labor unions, and a local union invited Obama to speak at a meeting early in the primary season.  Obama's team said the union should send over materials about what it had been up to.  Among the things sent to Obama was a recent NLRB decision in which the board found that one of the local's members had been wrongfully terminated in retaliation for union activity.  No one thought he'd read that.  But then Obama gave his talk and then asked the person who had been fired to stand up, and he praised her for her courage based on the facts recited in the board decision.  Then, after he concluded his remarks and people mobbed him for autographs and cell phone pictures and the like, he took the time to write a 2 or 3 page handwritten letter to the fired union member elaborating on his admiration for what she did.

So he's kissing up to bigshots and ordinary folks.  I have no problem with that.  

Tep, Nate doesn't claim to be a pollster. And he adjusts his estimate of Obama's odds up and down in response to new data, which also is a distinction. I understand and share your wish that the Dems had nominated Joe Biden (I'd love a veep spot for him as well). But the incessant seeking out of any and all bad news and completely ignoring the bad does sometimes make your usually wise posts come off a little pccostello or dcshungu

I have an answer for tep ("Other than offering a chance for us to wind each up, what's the point of the Nate Silver show here?"). The FAQ at Nate's site is a great business plan and when McCain and Obama faced off Nate seemed to be the guy who would provide Electoral College results before a vote was cast. For people like me who are bored into a coma by baseball, it was refreshing to see Bill James or Billy Beane confirm all the people who sat through 161 game with a score card were wrong. They had a recipe for success and a window into the future. I am the electoral equivalent of a baseball junkie so it made sense that I'd salivate at being presented with the outcome of the election this Summer. I think that was the pitch if not the point.

But Chuck Todd and Ron Brownstein only needed a dozen minutes last night to dilute, distill and end up with three or four states that will matter on the big night. <http://tinyurl.com/5kxskh>  They didn't use graphs, charts or race forms but their short and sweet package seemed plausible. Rarely does a news program make a point as promised but that bit was true to the offer. Are, NH, VA, CO and OH the last of the swinging states? They dared to say it. Not a timid call for 8-5-08...

It isn't the polls that are diverging so much as the poll methodology.  If you look at the RCP spread this morning, you see six polls.  Four of them have Obama up by 4, 5, 6 and 7 % respectively.  Two, Rasmussen and USA Today, give McCain the edge by 1 and 4.  BUT, the latter two polls are polls of "likely voters."  These outcomes are therefore highly dependent on the way in which the pollsters determine who is a likely voter, whether they handicap or weight voter pools by likelihood to vote (a much better representation than simply declaring someone likely or unlikely to vote), and by the added uncertainly of any determination of likely voter at this stage.  In short, Rasmussen and USA Today are garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.  The polls of registered voters, about as clear a reading as you are going to get right now, show a pretty decent preference for Obama.

That said, I still think Obama has been ceding ground and/or opportunity for gains by allowing McCain to smear him and by focusing on foreign affairs rather than the economy.  "It's the economy, stupid!"  My prediction is that Obama is ultimately going to win in something approaching a landslide, although it will happen suddenly near the end after seeming close for almost the entire campaign.  I base this primarily on the condition the economy will be in in October.  But Obama had better do the job between now and then of framing McCain and keeping everyone's attention on economics.  Than nature will take its course and the Republicans will receive a generational thrashing.  A 60-vote majority in the Senate is possible, not likely but possible.

Oh, my god, the tide has turned. After two days of being behind McCain by a point in the rasmussen daily, Obama is now ahead by one. In the face of this stunning development...

etc.

Silly, isn't it?

humm...Obama's numbers back up...perhaps Nate...this 7 day McCain boomlet was in reality, a classic Dead Cat Bounce....

The point of the Nate Silver show, tep, is not to ingratiate themselves with Obama.  I think it is to provide a fresh look at the numbers and actually analyze them.  Do me a favor, teppy- tell me where Nate is wrong, rather than just why he annoys you.   It is a cool, analytical perspective.  It is a billion times more interesting than the normal punditocracy.   This has nothing- but nothing- to do with an Obama love-fest.   Yes, Nate is an Obama supoorter, but he is also a staunch rationalist.   Really, tep, this should be the kind of dude you like.  

I wish someone were bundling for me. Mice, you available?

nb, it's a four year job, and almost full time. Now we know why Obama hasn't done anything significant in his Senate term.

Oh, and re favors to the Wall Streeter clowns who have nearly destroyed this country's financial system through their pyramid schemes, can you say Fannie 'n' Freddie?

Where do you think Jim Johnson made his gazillions? Is Obama calling for his former pal to give them back?

Also, where is Obama on the carried interest scam? There's about $50bn by my reckoning that's stolen from the people's treasury each year by this one favor for the Friends of Schumer and Barack.

I'm sure there are plenty of others, incl for Obama's real estate friends--- he does seem to have some interesting ties to the developer community-- and the lawyers and to that "bundler" highlighted by the Times article who is a fomer director fo the FCC and is now described as a "technology executive". We'll find out, maybe, if the press does its job.

miceelf raises a very important question.  Namely, what the hell ever happened to pccostello and dcshungu?  I really miss their posts.  I do find it interesting that despite his vociferous and repeated claims that he was NOT a paid troll for the Clinton campaign, the second she ran out of money dc disappeared from these parts.

In more important matters, or trivial depending on your point of view, does any poll taken in early August, when a sizable portion of the country is on vacation (or mentally preparing for their vacation) really tell us anything.  I know where my mind is at, and it ain't here at the office or really on the campaign.  Now, if either candidate were to propose a beach-trip tax cut, I'd be all ears...

The really good part of Nate Silver's post was the mention that voters largely ignore the press and the pundits. Pundit is the name for "uninformed, stupid, sheep-mentality person with an outsized ego and complete inability to understand statistical statements - who also grovels before strongmen and dictators".  

They, and the press in general, are the ones who groveled before George W. Bush because they liked his "natural folksy ways", not Gore's "wooden personality". This is the mistake they made in the past and will continue to do in the future. It is not accident at all, rather a structural characteristic of the press.

The press people are a lazy and largely stupid cohort who will NEVER go for the record or the positions of the candidate - they will ALWAYS go for the looks and rhetoric, the personality and the charisma (the key word of their impoverished mental world). Why?

Because examining record and positions takes time and judgment, while folksiness and charisma can be seen in five minutes on TV (much closer to their sorry attention time span).  So  they will go for the demagogue, every time they have a chance. It is thus good news that the press is somewhat ignored by voters - it would even better if it were ignored completely.

I don't miss pccostello or dcshungu at all.

To borrow from Nate Silver's other, far more serious world: a baseball team cannot win a pennant in April or May.  It is far easier to lose one, however.  My entirely uninformed hunch is that something similar applies to a general election campaign; neither Obama nor McCain could "win" the election now, but either could very well lose it through some sort of disastrous misstep or failure.  (It's probably much harder to do that in a campaign, though, whereas my poor Royals managed to eliminate themselves quite nicely in May.)  What Mr. Silver's reports are telling us, in short, is that neither candidate has managed to eliminate himself yet, but it's still early.  But that's just my guess.  And that's about as much worth as I see in these results at this point, roughly the value of the AL Central standings in May.

Cspencef, your "poor Royals" are one of only a handful of teams with the ability to lose a season in the first week.  Congratulations!

(Go Twins!)

Cool, its now an AL Central thread.    cspencef, I love that you guys are ahead of Cleveland.  bigifsh, do you know we (ChiSox) don't play your Twins again until the second-to-the last series of the season?   I have a bad feeling it will come down to that.  

I sorta miss pccostello and dcshungu...just like I miss occasional bouts of soul cleansing botulism and tetanus...

tep, tep, tep...Obama really gets you going doesn't he? You seem to attribute every possible negative cliche about poltiicians upon his silken hide. Tep, Obama is the nominee, he beat a hardened and dedicated foe in the primaries, and he will most likely beat the Wrinkling Old Dude (great line by a most unlikely source) in November. Does this mean that you are going to be in a snit for the next four years, constantly scolding all of us for being gullible and inattentive to human and developmental voids apparently visible only to the tep like laser decoder?  Tep, groupthink is always a danger and we need hetereodox viewpoints for sure but to be brutally honesty, on the subject of Obama, you're becoming something of a bore...

And I say that as a friend....

I spend time reading TNR and others 'around the political loop' and I'm not even paying attention to the campaigns right now.  Seriously.  It's August.  The Twins are sputtering to get into first place against the White Sox in the AL Central.  The ground is dry enough to leave the city for the countryside and not have to call a farmer to borrow a tractor to get pulled out of the mud or off a mud ridge in the road (you city dwellers do know there's an 'other' to the city don't you?).  I don't have to mow my lawn twice a week anymore.  There's sweet corn and July peaches to be picked and eaten along with other quickly maturing garden vegetables.  And I'm supposed to care about a McCain ad involving Paris Hilton?

I know we're all supposed to be more interested than average in politics if we're subscribers, but honestly, some of the most exciting news on this site this summer was that Noam had to travel to Israel for a wedding.  Lucky ducky, he can afford overseas travel!

So along with others above that have suggested that it's summer for heavens sake, turn off your cell phones (Blackberries in the case of the TNR staff) and go have a picnic with friends and family.  No, have two before the middle of September.  After all the outdoor fun, I bet Nate's data will still be up, ready for hard, fast, 'inciteful' analysis in late September and early October.

ha, bone, cspencef, I just posted about the Twins above too.  Nice timing guys!

In response to Nate&#39;s daily roundup of the latest polls, commenter roidubouloi reassured worried