adsfasdf

Podcast

http://1984watch.com/?feed=rss2&p=173

Test Vid

Back from an extended vacation. I’ll find more projects. Promise.

I look at the CNN electoral map, and confusion ensues. Perhaps it’s just not updated, but the wisdom of these metrics eludes me. Here’s a breakdown of the strange CNN cartography:

Safe Obama-153 (CA, IL, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI, MD, HI)
Safe McCain-125 (AZ, UT, ID, WY, ND, SD, NE, KA, OK, TX, MS, AL, KY, TN, SC, AL)

Leaning Obama-37 (OR, WA, ME, NJ)
Leaning McCain-69 (MT, NM, AK, LO, GA, NC, WV, IN)

Toss Up-154 (NV, CO, MO, IA, MN, WI, MI, OH, VA, PA, FL)

First off, what separates “toss-up” from “lean”? It’s currently blurrier than the line between “gaffe” and “flub.” Obama is ahead by 13% in the latest Wisconsin poll, but somehow Farvetown is completely up in the air (Yes, I know that Kerry took WI by the slimmest of margins, but still, 13 points!). The same can be said for Meen-ah-soh-tah, where Obama leads by 15 points in the latest Rasmussen.

New Mexico is probably a T-up, though Obama leads by 9% in the last Rasmussen poll. Somehow it lies in McCain’s lean column. Some of McCain’s safe states seem quite poachable. South Carolina, and some of the oft forgotten plains states are currently competitive (It’d be nice if I could actually find recent polling from the urban futurevilles of North Dakota).

And there is one big decision that helps Obama’s numbers. The gator state is in the T-up column, when it should really be spotted to McCain—maybe even as a “safe” state.

So what does this all mean? Is CNN trying to augment the argument for a close ‘horserace?’ Are they just lagging on their numbers? Are they over-relying on the 2004 map? Do I need to get out more?

Some rehashed numbers, here. I’m recycling them in hopes of getting a broader context. For those new to the program, I’m going through the stats on my grueling 50 day binge of Washington Post Op-Ed pieces (I read Novak so that you can escape uninjured). Here are some numbers regarding the most popular topics in my 139 tracked editorials (2/14-5/6). Again, these are from a sampling of all the presidential race related pieces written in that time frame.

Reverend Wright-28

The Suicidal Nature of the Democratic Primary battle-11

Obama’s Condescension-4

Hillary’s Condescension-2

How Little We Know About Obama-4

Since I’m reading Rick Perlstein’s “Nixonland,” I decided to focus on the “Liberal condescension” trope. Perlstein has posited that it is really the only way older conservatives know how to talk about liberals. He could be on to something. Oh, and of the 139 presidential race editorials, 49 were on the specific, pressing topics, of Reverend Wright, primary hand wringing, perceived liberal condescension, or Obama’s unknown quantities. And those are only the dumb topics I had time to chart this morning.

Big ups to the Huffington Post for adding us to their esteemed Off the Bus blogroll. I’m nerdily stoked on this. Here’s to hoping it bodes well for the future!

Primary Doom

A major trope in the 50 days (2/14-5/6) of WaPo presidential race editorial tracking was the “suicidal Dems” theme. I often found myself snickering at this repetitive, hyperbolic, primary handwringing. Of the 139 total Op-Ed pieces (28 in February, 47 in March, 52 in April, and 12 in May), 11 had the specific message of, “The Democrats are hurting themselves with this protracted primary battle.”  This very narrow topic comprised a whopping 8 percent of all tracked articles.

Now, intuitively, this thinking made sense. The fight between Clinton and Obama often seemed ugly and counter productive.  But these pundits did not make a compelling case for the damaging impact of an extended primary fight. More importantly, aren’t there other pertinent issues to harp on?

Some horserace pundits had serious addictions to this chicken little special. Most amusingly, David Broder (who led all pundits with 3 primary concern pieces) wrote about this topic on 4/20, and then wrote about the exact same thing on 4/24. Sigh, here are the listed doomsayers.

February

2/25 Bob Novak

March

3/6 Harold Meyerson

3/6 David Broder

3/6 Bob Novak

3/11 Richard Cohen

3/17 Bob Novak

April

4/15 E.J. Dionne Jr.

4/20 David Broder

4/24 David Broder

4/25 Eugene Robinson