John McCain is a LOSER

[callipygian]

If that's the case, no presidential candidate has energized the Christian Right because no Republican has a big poll lead 2 weeks before the election.

Not true. John McCain doesn't have the full support of the Christian Right, but he draws a lot of moderates who dislike the Christian Right - atheist or agnostic fiscal conservatives and libertarians who don't really care for the Christian Right's moral agenda.

Usually what happens is that the Christian Right gets out en masse to vote, but a lot of the McCain supporters would normally stay home. The situation is reversed this year, with a lot of the Christian Right sitting out the election, but a lot of moderates coming out to vote or switching from Democrat to Republican.

McCain's loss among fundamentalist/evangelical Christians is partially offset by his gains among mainline Christians and/or non-Christians. The moderates are people who wouldn't have voted for Huckabee, either staying home and not voting or voting for Obama/Clinton.

Polls are nonsense.

Polls have pretty accurately predicted every election in the past 20 years.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

...Polls have pretty accurately predicted every election in the past 20 years.

Sure... the one taken the night before the election. That's the only one the pollsters are judged by in the future. The ones taken in weeks before are propaganda.

 

[Jeff Dubya]

Usually what happens is that the Christian Right gets out en masse to vote, but a lot of the McCain supporters would normally stay home. The situation is reversed this year, with a lot of the Christian Right sitting out the election...

I get to comment on the so-called "Christian Right" because some might see me as one... (then again some might see me as a wannabe)

Any member of the Christian Right who sits at home this election because McCain isn't EXACTLY what they want in a candidate is a ****ing moron and the next 4-8 years of supreme court nominations and politics that they would be 100% in disagreement with is on their shoulders.

Sometimes politics *is* about compromise. McCain is the lesser of two evils. If you are on the fence for this election but opposed to having a President Obama, then you need to get your ass out and VOTE!

 

[SD Padres]

Polls ARE nonsense. Four years ago Bush was down 6% going into election night.....according to the polls.

I don't believe or put much stock in polls.

 

[Jeff Dubya]

I saw a poll the other day that showed Obama up by 7 points, but then it said that it's sample included over 300 democrats, 135 republicans and 30 or so independents.

Based on that sample, the fact Obama was winning by only seven was odd.

I don't know what's going on right now, but my gut feeling isn't great. However, Barney "talks like he has a penis in his mouth" Frank was out calling for increased spending and higher taxes and Biden hit the stump saying they would let the Bush tax cuts expire.

I think McCain should have been hammering away on this instead of the Ayers issue. As a small business owner (and let me tell you, if your business doesn't gross $250K annually, then you are more of a one-person gig or a hobby than a business) then there's a problem. Any tax increase could put me under. Hell, Washington minimum wage is going to $8.55 right now and I am worried about that, let alone taxes.

Additionally, Obama keeps hammering away that he's giving 90% of Americans a tax cut. Weird, because from what I have read, 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. So, in order to give those who pay ZERO a tax cut, he's going to send them a check.

Now what the **** is this about? I work 60-70 hours a week to build my business for ME, MY FAMILY and MY STAFF, not some shmoe who can't or won't go out and improve themselves or aspire to something more than a job at McDonalds. And where is the incentive for the average moron who can't EVER fill my drive through order correctly (idiot!) to go out and try harder or aspire to something better if the extra "tax cut" check they get from my hard earned dollars just GIVES them that extra money?

I have heard a lot of names thrown around in the last few weeks, socialist, marxist, etc. Here's what I think of these income redistribution plans... BULLSH!T. You don't like your standing in life? Fix it. But get the hell out of my way and quit sponging off the hard work I am doing. I'm not doing it for you.

I have talked to a lot of small business owners in the last month who are in the same position, and they're all like "Screw it. If it get's much harder, we're just gonna go get jobs. We won't have bullshit employees to deal with anymore, no more government on our backs, no taxes to file every fricking month at the barrel of a loaded gun... none of it."

So when these shortsighted fools remove the incentive for people like me to work as hard as we do, expect 50% unemployment. Because my 16 employees will NOT be working. The opportunities they have now didn't just appear out of thin air. *I* made them. Me. I have staff who make more than my wife and I do, combined. I think someone out there is in for a seriously rude awakening.

It was cracking me up yesterday when Barney "I blew so many men that I am punished with a speech impediment the likes of Elmer Fudd" Frank was calling for his INCREASED federal spending, he also specifically called for more Keynesian economics. This blowhard should read the forgotten man by Amity Shlaes. In 1929 when the market crashed, that isn't what led to the Great Depression, it was all the BS Keynesian government intervention that followed that did! That's why most countries rebounded in 4-5 years and why the US was mired in it for nearly a decade.

If I sound pissed off I am. I am scared to death of losing everything I have, and unless one of the biggest leftists in the senate decides to govern from the center (and with a filibuster-proof majority of democrats in both houses, there would be no incentive to) then I fear our economy is toast.

I am also angry that the best the fricking Republicans could offer is John McCain. Obama has been effectively running for the presidency since his 2004 convention speech. We saw him destroy Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful democrat politicians who has ever lived. Love him or hate him, you have no choice to admire the political machine Obama has created.

Yet with these serious, substantive issues we're shooting spitwads at a guy in full combat gear.

There are times in the past when I would wave the white flag and just say, screw the stupid Republicans. They messed this up six ways from sunday, maybe a resounding defeat is exactly what they need to get their **** in order. After all, how bad can the dems screw things up in 4 years?

Unfortunately, this time around, I think they can do way more harm than normal in four years. This could be a very serious situation for our country. Iran, Venezuela and Russian economies are now on the brink - they need $70-75 barrels of oil to support their interests. Yesterday oil was $67. Iran's gonna have nukes and if you think they won't use them on us and on our allies then you are a moron with your head in the sand. The world is a dangerous, dangerous place right now.

I think either way we're screwed. But with Obama it could be much, much worse. Dear God help us all.

 

[Brock Windsor]

I do not believe Obama will be elected....

Hey AM, that opion is paying between 6:1 and 7:1 on intrade right now, might be a good chance to cash in on your beliefs. I think Obama will win but am longing McCain and planning to take it out when the political markets whipsaw around at poll closing.
BW

 

[ccibball50]

I saw a poll the other day that showed Obama up by 7 points, but then it said that it's sample included over 300 democrats, 135 republicans and 30 or so independents.

Based on that sample, the fact Obama was winning by only seven was odd.

I don't know what's going on right now, but my gut feeling isn't great. However, Barney "talks like he has a penis in his mouth" Frank was out calling for increased spending and higher taxes and Biden hit the stump saying they would let the Bush tax cuts expire.

I think McCain should have been hammering away on this instead of the Ayers issue. As a small business owner (and let me tell you, if your business doesn't gross $250K annually, then you are more of a one-person gig or a hobby than a business) then there's a problem. Any tax increase could put me under. Hell, Washington minimum wage is going to $8.55 right now and I am worried about that, let alone taxes.

Additionally, Obama keeps hammering away that he's giving 90% of Americans a tax cut. Weird, because from what I have read, 40% of Americans don't pay taxes. So, in order to give those who pay ZERO a tax cut, he's going to send them a check.

Now what the **** is this about? I work 60-70 hours a week to build my business for ME, MY FAMILY and MY STAFF, not some shmoe who can't or won't go out and improve themselves or aspire to something more than a job at McDonalds. And where is the incentive for the average moron who can't EVER fill my drive through order correctly (idiot!) to go out and try harder or aspire to something better if the extra "tax cut" check they get from my hard earned dollars just GIVES them that extra money?

I have heard a lot of names thrown around in the last few weeks, socialist, marxist, etc. Here's what I think of these income redistribution plans... BULLSH!T. You don't like your standing in life? Fix it. But get the hell out of my way and quit sponging off the hard work I am doing. I'm not doing it for you.

I have talked to a lot of small business owners in the last month who are in the same position, and they're all like "Screw it. If it get's much harder, we're just gonna go get jobs. We won't have bullshit employees to deal with anymore, no more government on our backs, no taxes to file every fricking month at the barrel of a loaded gun... none of it."

So when these shortsighted fools remove the incentive for people like me to work as hard as we do, expect 50% unemployment. Because my 16 employees will NOT be working. The opportunities they have now didn't just appear out of thin air. *I* made them. Me. I have staff who make more than my wife and I do, combined. I think someone out there is in for a seriously rude awakening.

It was cracking me up yesterday when Barney "I blew so many men that I am punished with a speech impediment the likes of Elmer Fudd" Frank was calling for his INCREASED federal spending, he also specifically called for more Keynesian economics. This blowhard should read the forgotten man by Amity Shlaes. In 1929 when the market crashed, that isn't what led to the Great Depression, it was all the BS Keynesian government intervention that followed that did! That's why most countries rebounded in 4-5 years and why the US was mired in it for nearly a decade.

If I sound pissed off I am. I am scared to death of losing everything I have, and unless one of the biggest leftists in the senate decides to govern from the center (and with a filibuster-proof majority of democrats in both houses, there would be no incentive to) then I fear our economy is toast.

I am also angry that the best the fricking Republicans could offer is John McCain. Obama has been effectively running for the presidency since his 2004 convention speech. We saw him destroy Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful democrat politicians who has ever lived. Love him or hate him, you have no choice to admire the political machine Obama has created.

Yet with these serious, substantive issues we're shooting spitwads at a guy in full combat gear.

There are times in the past when I would wave the white flag and just say, screw the stupid Republicans. They messed this up six ways from sunday, maybe a resounding defeat is exactly what they need to get their **** in order. After all, how bad can the dems screw things up in 4 years?

Unfortunately, this time around, I think they can do way more harm than normal in four years. This could be a very serious situation for our country. Iran, Venezuela and Russian economies are now on the brink - they need $70-75 barrels of oil to support their interests. Yesterday oil was $67. Iran's gonna have nukes and if you think they won't use them on us and on our allies then you are a moron with your head in the sand. The world is a dangerous, dangerous place right now.

I think either way we're screwed. But with Obama it could be much, much worse. Dear God help us all.

AMEN I am 100% with you. I am working for a company that I plan on taking over one day. We net more than a$1,000,000 a year, but have a low profit margin. We have about 15 employees and tons of expenses. We went through an investment periof for the last 3 years and now we are out on the uprise of making decent money. Although profits are not over $250,000 this year, by next year they should be. So we had to suffer for 3 years and next year when we make good money, we get taxed more. It is rediculous. We are not the type of business who can just let an emplyee go just to make up the differences in taxes. The business is debt free and the owner does not have much retirement and he is about 60 years old. So basically he is going to have to work longer just for a decent retirement. The tax cuts will make him work even longer and harder. It is rediculous.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Hey AM, that opion is paying between 6:1 and 7:1 on intrade right now, might be a good chance to cash in on your beliefs. I think Obama will win but am longing McCain and planning to take it out when the political markets whipsaw around at poll closing.
BW

Me too! The day to get your action in is TODAY! There is a reason why Obama is planning to be at his grandmother's house Thursday and Friday, and has bought a block of prime time TV for Sunday.

To be (so to speak) conservative, take your McCain longs out at around 75. Don't short Obama though, because if the problem has to do with his birth or citizenship he might be off the ticket and who knows how Intrade will arbitrate those contracts.

 

[Jeff Dubya]

Ha... when I am in Vegas I might just have to put a bet on McCain, and a decent sized one too. After all, if Obama is elected I will probably lose my money anyhow. LOL We're doomed...

 

[callipygian]

The ones [polls] taken in weeks before [the election] are propaganda.

So what would the incentive be?

And if the numbers are fabricated, how do you explain that there's no sudden changes from day to day leading up to the final poll (which you agree is accurate)?

Here's a historical sample of polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

And if polls are a product of the liberal media, why hasn't the RNC conducted its own polls to show how biased the other polls are?

 

[callipygian]

I saw a poll the other day that showed Obama up by 7 points, but then it said that it's sample included over 300 democrats, 135 republicans and 30 or so independents.

Based on that sample, the fact Obama was winning by only seven was odd.

You misunderstand how polls work.

The numbers you see are not raw percentages of who voted for Obama and who voted for McCain; the numbers on the polls are extrapolated based on the demographics surveyed and then multiplied by the number of people who fit that demographic.

Ethnic minorities are intentionally overrepresented in the polling sample because they need enough data points to get an accurate sampling of the entire group. Other adjustments need to be made - on an Internet poll, the voting preferences of people without Internet need to be factored in; in a phone poll, the correlation between unemployment and being at home to answer the phone needs to be factored in.

Of course, as Monkey pointed out, this does leave a lot of room for charges of bias - even if polls showed that black females supported Obama over Hillary Clinton 60-40, each polling agency still has to determine how many black females are going to show up to actually vote. This is one of the reasons the polling agencies have different numbers, and also sometimes why we get surprises - 75% of conservative Christians show up to vote instead of the anticipated 70%, or it's rainy and poor urban blacks don't want to walk to their polling place.

And, of course, if someone thinks the pollsters are biased (and there's no shortage of bias charges), the reasonable course of action is to make your own poll - which many people do.

Since this is a blackjack board, let me use a blackjack analogy.

Let's say you're forming a team with a friend and you want to see if he knows basic strategy perfectly. One option is to go through every single combination of cards and test every combination. This is the most accurate method, but the most time consuming. Testing every single combination is the equivalent of the actual election, when every single vote is actually counted.

Now, another way to test would be to take a completely random sample of, say, 20 hands. The problem with this method is that a lot of hands aren't diagnostic. Everyone's going to stand on hard 20's vs. dealer 10, and hit hard 5's. "Polling" in this fashion is very simple, but it has a very large margin of error. This is equivalent to how you think polls are done.

The best way to test your friend, akin to the best way to poll, is to take a randomIZED (but not completely random) sample of hands - pull 10 "standard" hands and 10 "tricky" hands at random, and then normalize by the number of "standard" vs. "tricky" hands in the total. This is what polls do.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

So what would the incentive be?

And if the numbers are fabricated, how do you explain that there's no sudden changes from day to day leading up to the final poll (which you agree is accurate)?

Here's a historical sample of polls:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

And if polls are a product of the liberal media, why hasn't the RNC conducted its own polls to show how biased the other polls are?

if the polls are accurate, how do you explain one poll giving a candidate a 14 point lead with a 3 point margin of error, while another poll gives a 1 point lead with a 3 point margin of error. Obviously someone is wrong. Until you can tell me which one is wrong, I do not believe polls.

Never said they were the product of the liberal media. Some are undoubtedly partisan propaganda for the party that >90% of media people support. Pew and Newsweak have a long history of issuing polls to support or build momentum for a Democrat candidate. Other polls are just intended to create publicity for the pollster.

 

[callipygian]

if the polls are accurate, how do you explain one poll giving a candidate a 14 point lead with a 3 point margin of error, while another poll gives a 1 point lead with a 3 point margin of error.

Can you link to an example where this is the case?

Pew and Newsweak have a long history of issuing polls to support or build momentum for a Democrat candidate.

How would a poll be used to support to build momentum? If poll numbers are artificially high, then you should see a large drop in popularity on Election Day; if poll numbers are artificially low, then you should see a large rise in popularity on Election Day.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Can you link to an example where this is the case?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

The problem with these polls is they calculate their margin of error based on number of participants and disregarding sampling error, because no one wants to admit to a systematic problem with their poll. Obviously someone has a systematic problem with their poll.

These days there is a systematic problem with all polls, even exit polls. About half of people approached for exit polls refuse to respond. Can you tell me with any certainty whether this group is more likely to include Democrats or Republicans? We also have a race relations problem mixed up with this year's election. If I told a pollster I had voted or was planning on voting for McCain, I'd be damned sure they didn't know where I parked my car. It is not my party that has created this climate.

How would a poll be used to support to build momentum? If poll numbers are artificially high, then you should see a large drop in popularity on Election Day; if poll numbers are artificially low, then you should see a large rise in popularity on Election Day.

Very simply- people like to associate themselves with popular trends and with winners. A belief that most to all of your friends and neighbors support a candidate is enough, for many people, to support that candidate. Conversely, a belief that a position or candidate is unpopular or unseemly is sufficient for may people to abandon it, or at least not openly promulgate it. It also discourages people from making political contributions if they believe their candidate's chances are hopeless.

Historically, we have seen large decrease in performance of Democrats between opinion polls and election results. The habitual explanation these days- "The election was rigged!" Newsweak had both Gore and Kerry leading Bush by margins of 20 percentage points, and exit polls showed both candidates winning by significant margins. In the primaries between Obama and Hillary Clinton, Obama got a 7 point boost in exit polls as compared to actual results, and a much higher boost in opinion polls.

 

[Guynoire]

The most accurate poll last election was the IBD poll and currently that poll is a statistical tie between McCain and Obama. A lot of people this year are saying that the polls will be inaccurate due to things like increased voter turnout and the Bradley effect. People say stuff like that every election, but you gotta admit this is a very unusual presidential election. I have very little confidence in any poll right now and think it's best to ignore them. They're not going to change anything, neither campaign is going to give up or declare victory based on the polls.

 

[callipygian]

Obviously someone has a systematic problem with their poll.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you look at response percentages (Obama + McCain), you can see they drift all over the place. It's quite possible that the differences you see are due to differences in the way the question was asked, not systematic error in the polling.

And make no mistake about it, the way the question is asked is VERY important - if you notice in the link I posted before (and I post later in this message), you notice they actually reproduce the question that was asked. Almost everyone randomizes which name is said first (which has an effect); almost everyone has strict criteria on how to deal with "undecided" voters.

Very simply- people like to associate themselves with popular trends and with winners. A belief that most to all of your friends and neighbors support a candidate is enough, for many people, to support that candidate.

Why did polls show McCain leading at the beginning of September, then? If what you say is true, then Republicans should NEVER lead in the polls.

Historically, we have seen large decrease in performance of Democrats between opinion polls and election results. The habitual explanation these days- "The election was rigged!" Newsweak had both Gore and Kerry leading Bush by margins of 20 percentage points, and exit polls showed both candidates winning by significant margins.

I would contest this entire paragraph.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

The polls leading up to the 2004 election showed a slim Bush lead, not a large Kerry lead; exit polls showed 51% Bush, 48% Kerry; the actual results were 50.7% to 48.3%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

The polls leading up to the 2000 election showed a slim Bush lead, not a large Gore lead; exit polls showed 48% Bush, 49% Gore; the actual results were 47.9% Bush to 48.4% Gore.

If anything, it was the Democrats in 2000 that got a boost on election day.

 

[callipygian]

A lot of people this year are saying that the polls will be inaccurate due to things like increased voter turnout and the Bradley effect.

This was a legitimate concern a few months ago; the early polls between Clinton and Obama were wildly speculative because people really didn't know the demographics that would come out and vote.

Given 50 sets of data from the primaries, though, the polls are more likely to be correct now than they were in January. Whether that's good enough is to be seen, but I am willing to bet that the Bradley effect will be low, and that 2008 election results will track as well as it did in 2004 and 2000 with exit polls and polls conducted in the last few days of the campaign.

They're not going to change anything, neither campaign is going to give up or declare victory based on the polls.

Not entirely true. Both the McCain and Obama campaigns have made strategic cuts in states where they're falling behind in the polls - off the top of my head, Obama pulled out of Montana and McCain pulled out of Michigan. Both campaigns have also used polls to try and capitalize on what they think are shifts in momentum - Obama started campaigning in North Carolina, McCain in Wisconsin, when both states were previously considered safe for the opponent.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you look at response percentages (Obama + McCain), you can see they drift all over the place. It's quite possible that the differences you see are due to differences in the way the question was asked, not systematic error in the polling.

And back in school we used to call errors associated with a method of acquiring data, such as the way you ask a question, "systematic errors."

And make no mistake about it, the way the question is asked is VERY important - if you notice in the link I posted before (and I post later in this message), you notice they actually reproduce the question that was asked. Almost everyone randomizes which name is said first (which has an effect); almost everyone has strict criteria on how to deal with "undecided" voters.

The biggest problem seems to be sampling error. You can only ask a couple of thousand people, and who you ask is ultimately important. And the more polarizing an election is, the more significant sampling error becomes. This election is polarizing and unpredictably so.

Imagine walking into a casino and asking people how they feel about gambling. Whether you ask people standing in line at the cashier's cage or ask people standing in line at the ATM will make a difference. I can go to a rifle range or gun show and find support for McCain approaches 100%. In a gay bar or crackhouse support for Obama will approach 100%. To a member of the leftist media, a Starbucks might seem like a perfectly reasonable place to query perfectly average people, but a realist is going to know that place is going to be heavily skewed to the left. Likewise, a truckstop, fishing pier, or even a supermarket is going to have a rightward tilt because they are full of working men, sportsmen, and parents of families respectively.

So I think a lot of pollsters, if they have a background in journalism, might honestly not know what environment they would find a typical sample in.

Why did polls show McCain leading at the beginning of September, then? If what you say is true, then Republicans should NEVER lead in the polls.

Why would you think that? A bias is a just a bias, not an absolute. How can you explain the large discrepancies between the various polls, and why would you think averaging them would necessarily reduce the error of any one of them?

I would contest this entire paragraph.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

The polls leading up to the 2004 election showed a slim Bush lead, not a large Kerry lead; exit polls showed 51% Bush, 48% Kerry; the actual results were 50.7% to 48.3%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

The polls leading up to the 2000 election showed a slim Bush lead, not a large Gore lead; exit polls showed 48% Bush, 49% Gore; the actual results were 47.9% Bush to 48.4% Gore.

If anything, it was the Democrats in 2000 that got a boost on election day.

It depends. The exit polls in Ohio showed Kerry winning easily. There were polls in the weeks before the election that showed Kerry with a double-digit lead. Plus don't forge that the pollsters are going to massage their historical data to maintain credibility.

Besides we're not talking about polls the days before the election, we are talking about polls weeks before the election. Also, the primary data shows that conventional wisdom does not hold for Obama. We have never had a black candidate who has been declared to be the Messiah before, so all bets are off regarding accuracy of polls.

 

[callipygian]

I think a lot of pollsters, if they have a background in journalism, might honestly not know what environment they would find a typical sample in.

I think you underestimate the amount of trial and error that has been done in the past on this subject. Polling is not a new technology, and people have been doing it for many decades.

But even if you wanted to complain about the leftist media and their polls, how do you explain that places like Fox News also have polls that show an Obama lead?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/10/22/fox-news-poll-obama-grabs-nine-point-lead-over-mccain/

Or is Fox News also part of the leftist media?

The exit polls in Ohio showed Kerry winning easily. There were polls in the weeks before the election that showed Kerry with a double-digit lead.

Opinion polling leading up to the Ohio race in 2004:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/oh_polls.html
Average of polls: Bush 48.8%, Kerry 46.7%

The biggest lead for Kerry in the polls was +6%, two weeks before the election. A CNN poll showed a 4% Kerry lead a week before the election. Every other poll showed a tie or a Bush lead (+0.9% to +6%).

CNN exit polling in Ohio, 2004:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Poll: 51% Bush, 48% Kerry

The final tally in Ohio:
Bush 50.8%
Kerry 48.7%

we're not talking about polls the days before the election, we are talking about polls weeks before the election

Well, people change their minds in the weeks leading up to the election. That polls in August don't match polls in October isn't an argument against the accuracy of polls, as you have two variables: whether the poll accurately represents public opinion at the time, and whether public opinion changes.

Plus don't forge that the pollsters are going to massage their historical data to maintain credibility.

Well then I suggest that you quickly take a snapshot of current polls so that you have hard evidence as to this retroactive revising when (according to you) after the election in November all the polling companies and the media start revising their polls from October to fit the actual result.

Do you have, saved, reports of polls from September/October 2004 that you can post and show a discrepancy between what you had saved in 2004 and what is now accessible on the archives?

If not, might I suggest an alternative explanation - recall bias. You're simply remembering all the Kerry-leaning polls, and forgetting all the Bush-leaning polls.

 

[Brock Windsor]

Me too! The day to get your action in is TODAY! There is a reason why Obama is planning to be at his grandmother's house Thursday and Friday, and has bought a block of prime time TV for Sunday.

To be (so to speak) conservative, take your McCain longs out at around 75. Don't short Obama though, because if the problem has to do with his birth or citizenship he might be off the ticket and who knows how Intrade will arbitrate those contracts.

Im not actually long McCain vs Obama, I'm playing each state longing traditional Republican strongholds and avoiding traditional blue states altogether (except 1). Im also long a few swing states because the price was just too good IMO. Missouri, Georgia, Arizona, Montana, North Car, and North Dak all look really cheap right now. Florida, Ohio, Nevada and New Mexico also look to have some upside potential longing the Republicans. Not looking for a Rep win with the last four, just trying to make 15-20 points on the swing keeping my exposure small though if the momentum shifts in the days prior I might hold them. For completeness New Hampshire is the only state I'm still holding long for the Democrats but it is overpriced at the moment.
BW