TPM Track Composite: Obama's Lead Expands Again
Here's our daily composite of the six major national tracking polls. Barack Obama continues to lead John McCain by a healthy margin, with a slight dip in McCain's support today:
• Gallup: Obama 52%, McCain 42%, with a ±2% margin of error, compared to a 52%-43% Obama lead yesterday.
• Rasmussen: Obama 50%, McCain 46%, with a ±2% margin of error, unchanged from yesterday.
• ABC/Washington Post: Obama 53%, McCain 44%, with a ±3% margin of error, the same as yesterday's numbers. This is the second day of the ABC/WaPo tracking poll, and the first day we're including it in the Composite.
• Hotline/Diageo: Obama 47%, McCain 41%, with a ±3.4% margin of error, compared to a 47%-42% Obama lead from yesterday.
• Research 2000: Obama 50%, McCain 42%, with a ±3% margin of error, unchanged from yesterday.
• Zogby: Obama 50%, McCain 42%, with a ±2.9% margin of error, compared to a 50%-44% Obama lead yesterday.
Adding these polls together and weighting them by the square roots of their sample sizes, Obama is ahead 50.5%-43.1%, a lead of 7.4 points, compared to the 50.5%-43.7% Obama lead from yesterday, when the ABC/WaPo numbers are included in yesterday's total.
THIS
October 21, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS
October 21, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT
October 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT
October 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
DIGITAL DELAY!
October 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
i mean NEWS
October 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS
October 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . n e w s . . .
October 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOR......
October 21, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHOEVER PLAYS JOE BIDEN ON SNL!!!
October 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
AND/OR.....REAL VIRGINIANS...!@@#@!!!
O/T somewhat:
Coates and Sullivan have been commenting on the strong resemblance between Obama and his grandpa.
Check this picture out, and you know where Obama got his ears, shape of his head, body shape and smile from...
Barack and Grandpa
October 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCCAIN!!!
October 21, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm giving up - my comments hang for almost 2 minutes and I've been out of synch every time.
October 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
REALLY EXCELLENT
October 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't get much better.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This can only get better as Palin allows two more interviews. She is a constant reminder of McCain's poor judgment and inpulsivity. Plus her mere media presence reminds everyone of just how truly unserious and incompetent she is.
October 21, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but she's now openly more cocky than she was. And not very nice about it.
She wasn't particularly nice about being made fun of on SNL. And now Josh has that vid up where she's asked about the NR quote wondering whether she's incompetent, stupid, corrupt or all the above and she just says: "Who wrote that? I'd like to talk to that...person."
I'd love to see you talk to someone from the National Review, honey. You'd get your ass handed to you.
October 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, Tena, I thought I noticed a little cocky there as well. And look at that body language, eyes beam down, pretends to straighten out her skirt.
This is one pissed off, arrogant, stupid......
October 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lincoln Chaffee called it best and called it right away:
She's a cocky wacko.
And she's getting uglier as things go along.
October 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must be that McCain's anger is rubbing off on her. Naw, she's probably been like that all along.
October 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me that Sarah is used to getting her way on everything. If flirting and manipulation don't work then, by God, shameless meanspirtedness will.
Not this time my dear. We're not the dumb rubes you've been able to fool in Alaska.
October 21, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
O indeed. That's the name of her game -
October 21, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just went back and looked up the quote from early Sept. and it's clear that Lincoln is a prescient man:
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Former Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee has called vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin a “cocky wacko” and said her selection as John McCain’s running mate has energized supporters of Democrat Barack Obama.
Chafee left the Republican Party last year after losing his bid for re-election and now supports Obama. He told an audience Tuesday at the New America Foundation in Washington that the Alaska governor has revived a “lackluster McCain candidacy.”
“They’ve just thrown this firestorm, this tornado, into the whole presidential election,” Chafee said in response to an audience member’s question about whether the Obama campaign should worry about Palin’s presence in the race.
He said her speech at the Republican National Convention had the unintended effect of energizing Democrats and Obama supporters.
“People were coming into my office, phone calls were flooding in, e-mails were coming in, ‘I just sent money to Obama, I couldn’t sleep last night’ — from the left. To see this cocky wacko up there,” Chafee said to laughter.
October 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he is thinking of running for Governor, but I would like to Lincoln get a job with Obama's administration.
October 21, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We recieved 10 million the day after her speech. DON'T PISS US OFF.
October 21, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That whole exchange reminded me of Spinal Tap...
Marty: The review for "Shark Sandwich" was merely a two word review which simply read "Shit Sandwich".
Band: Who said that?! You can't print that!
(Except, to Tena's point, Palin was far more snotty about it.)
October 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh hell yeah!
But you can't really dust for vomit...
October 21, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a fine line between cleverness and stupidity.
October 21, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That whole exchange reminded me of Spinal Tap...
Marty: The review for "Shark Sandwich" was merely a two word review which simply read "Shit Sandwich".
Band: Who said that?! You can't print that!
(Except, to Tena's point, Palin was far more snotty about it.)
October 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid nodes...
October 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was funny both times.
October 21, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she actually READ the NRO, she would know who wrote it. Too funny.
I can't remember who said it, but it was something to the effect that we are supposed to believe that Palin is qualified because she wills herself to be qualified. We have to take her word for it.
I cannot wait for that woman to go back to Wasilla where she belongs. 2 weeks more of snide and surly Sarah.
October 21, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS
October 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as Obama's over 50%, game over.
(being far oversimplistic, but it's true right? Anyone know the Gore/Bush popular vote percentages in 2000?)
October 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
47.9% Bush; 48.4% Gore
October 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, you beat me to it!
October 21, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, hey, it totally wasn't Nader's fault.
October 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hulk SMASH Nader!!
Sorry *blink* what? (personality disorder's revealing itself or something)
October 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooo - that reminds me - Bob Barr is on the ballot in Texas.
:)
That ain't gonna help McLame.
October 21, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
2004:
50.7% Bush; 48.3% Kerry
October 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok it was 48.4% vs 47.9%.
October 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
More tiny movements, but no real change in weeks. This has the feel of concrete setting.
October 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I likes me this kinda concrete. Gimmie a 10 point win! Baby needs a new pair of leaders!
October 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
Word up!
October 21, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are Zogby's polls so erratic? One day Obama leads by 8 the next day its 4.
October 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nate Silver explains it:
"There is one very, very significant concern with Zogby, which is that he has a longstanding rule to set his party weightings based on the exit polls from the most recent election. In this case, that means 2004, when a roughly equal number of Democrats and Republicans turned out. However, according to essentially every available poll, Democrats now have somewhere between a 5-point and a 10-point advantage in party ID.
This particular procedure has bitten Zogby in the ass before. Between 2000 and 2004, there was a shift in party ID toward the Republicans; as a result, Zogby's numbers were 2-3 points high for Kerry across battleground states."
October 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, at the risk of exposing a possible hole in my recollection of classes I took a quarter of a century ago, why is it you weight by the square root of the sample size instead of, well, the sample size?
October 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think simply to make it appear more difficult to numbskulls like myself, and therefore more "scientific."
October 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess would be to create a more logarithmic weighting to each poll. That way it takes a greater amount of those polled to carry more weight. Just my humble guess.
October 21, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol Ya feel me?
October 21, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why aggregate them at all?
I'm not a huge fan of meta-analysis.
Aggregating different polls, with different methodologies, and different strengths and weaknesses seems like an exercise in trying to find clarity at the expense of validity.
Shorter: garbage in, garbage out, not matter how the samples are weighted.
that being said, man, those results are fabulous!
October 21, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad. It really is. After whining for months about a preview function, we now have it, and I don't use it.
That should read "Shorter: garbage in, garbage out, no matter how the samples are weighted."
October 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
When sampling a population (generally assumed to be normally distributed), the prediction error (also known as margin of error) equals the standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size. Thus, weighting by the square root of the sample size is equivalent to weighting by their prediction error.
October 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't the population in this case a binomial distribution, rather than normally distributed?
I thought the reason had to do with how the standard error is computed (as you mention), but they're only weighting by the sample size indicator, and not by any variability indicator.
Forgive my ignorance: I suck at non-parametric statistics.
October 21, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between binomial distribution and normal distribution is only significant for small populations. For large populations (hundreds is large for this purpose), the binomial distribution approaches a normal distribution.
The standard error is the standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size. The standard deviation is a property of the overall population, not the sampling method, so it's assumed to be the same for all polls. Thus, weighting by the square root of the sample size is the same as weighting by standard error.
October 21, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I get it. Thanks for that very straightforward explanation.
October 21, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Confidence in the result of a poll increases with sample size (number of participants), but a lot faster when going from small to modest sample sizes than when adding to a large sample. Confidence in polls of smaller size is lower than polls of larger size. The weighting seems to reflect the relative confidence in the various polls being aggregated.
October 21, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to be redundant. Some good explanations above. I should have followed the full thread.
October 21, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Champaign* at the back of my fridge is looking sort of... "antsy".
*The author is speaking metaphorically. Since alcohol makes him speak too loudly, and say things he wished he hadn't, Martinelli's Sparkling Cider is what will actually be used in any upcoming celebrations that may occur.
October 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Zogby just makes up his numbers. Anyway, it's clear just by eye-balling and looking the reality in IA, NM, CO, VA, Obama is clearly winning this right now.
The other night a few neighbors (all of them 40+ AA, 2 W, 4 M) were having conversation about Obama and I stepped right in.
I was taken back by the amount of concern and worry they share. They frankly didn't have much faith in "White America" to elect a black man and they were deeply worried for Obama's life with the threats thrown at him at these McCain/Palin rallies.
I wondered how the outcome of this election would impact racial relations in this election? How it will impact the psyche of this nation?
While they're only a case study, perhaps not a pattern, their anxiety made me nervous as well.
It's not the most important reason, I found another good reason to vote for Obama.
October 21, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
October 21, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to burst a bubble, but White America hasn't elected him yet.
After that task's done, then we'll see what racial implications it'll have. (I think that long-term result may be phenomenal. But it already is: We had a legitimate woman, black, and Hispanic candidate this go round. A kid can have a lot of non-sport heroes now)
October 21, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
HusseinIsMyName - Zogby polls are erratic because Zogby polls suck. I pay no attention to Zogby polls as they have a dreadful track record. Even at 538 Zogby is rated as one of the worst pollsters.
October 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
With O, we'll only increase, expand, widen, and include all kinds. They will only decrease, contract, narrow and exclude them.
-----------------------------------
TPM missed one important thing in the today's PEW poll: battleground states.
Obama leads 52% to 37%, i.e. by 15% in the battleground states, one point better than the margin in its national poll. Notably, Bush won 10 of these 15 states in 2004, by margins ranging from less than 1% (Iowa and New Mexico) to 21% (Indiana).
On Oct. 9-12 On Oct. 16-19
Republican States---41(O)--51(M)----42(O)--49(M)
Democratic States---61(O)--29(M)----61(O)--30(M)
Battlegrounds-------48 (O)-41(M)----52(O)--37(M)
Battleground: CO, IN, FL, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI.
Link: http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1405
October 21, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those numbers are incredible. They give me goosebumps.
Whether they are precise or not - they are all expanding. Whether it's 2 or 4 that is the real number, it's just increasing all the time.
If you see what I mean.
October 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Craziest/funniest/pathetic thing is "Drudge and National Review's Campaign Spot -- with a measure of conscious self-parody -- link the Nickelodeon Kids poll, which has Obama up by only two points.
"It's an online poll. Of kids.
" 'The Nickelodeon Kids' Poll is one of those polls that is always interesting to keep an eye on,' writes National Review's Geraghty" (Ben Smith).
October 21, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
O my god you're kidding me? O god that's funniest thing I've heard yet...LMAO!!
October 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want the shivers, go to 538 and look at the state polling in the right-hand column. The projection in EVERY battleground is now Obama.
The only reason the media is able to pretend this isn't at a Nixon/McGovern or Reagan/Mondale type washout is because McCain leads by 15-25% in all of the deep red states. If a handful of those were closer, he'd be down 12-15% in the national polling, and the post-mortems would already be being written in the MSM.
October 21, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My favorate was "McCain looses FL/OH, wins election--------------0.00%"
October 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me put a message here: Seeing the numbers in Missouri, why isn't anyone polling Arkansas? I bet it's within the margin of error.
October 21, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Arkansas. Obama has better chance in West Virginia than in Arkansas. And it's very likely he will loose WV by a margin.
October 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is putting tons of money into Missouri. The campaign is well organized and deep. I don't think they have devoted any real time to Arkansas. Anyway MCain's strength in Missouri is outstate and in Springfield. Obama is doing really well in the urban and suburban counties. With two major cities Missouri is slightly more urban than rural. Arkansas not so much.
October 21, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have spent the day debating with some Republicans. Their concern for the welfare of people at the top marginal rate are moving. I wish they cared as much about the folks in the middle or at the bottom. It is amazing to read about the problems of the rich oppressed minority.
October 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lives of the rich and the famous,
they're always complaining, always complaining.
If money is such a problem,
I think we should help them, we should all go rob them.
;)
October 21, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is true. Don't alienate Republicans for Obama, me among them. :D.
October 21, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Darlin', you presume a lot. You don't know how many Democrats are rich, too, apparently.
It's not just Republicans.
October 21, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And some of us even have guns, too.
;)
October 21, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
October 21, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's fair. Don't alienate Republicans for Obama, me among them :D. And it's true Arkansas is not exactly like Missouri, but I'm just trying to figure up how's it gonna break on election day, and I think we're headed for some big surprise... maybe in Georgia, maybe in West Virginia, maybe in Indiana... or Arkansas. Arkansas is the kind of place where the "who's the real Obama" thing should work. But I just think the Powell endorsement blew that up.
October 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Powell had the effect you state.
Let's face it, we all care about marginal tax rates, but there are bigger things in this election and I believe that R's and D's both recognize that. The economy, for one.
October 21, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer is quite simple. The people at the top have too little money and the people at the bottom have too much. See?? I told you it was simple.
October 21, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, just to be crass about it - Mr. Tena and I did very well under George Bush - I mean very well. That easy money just left - totally. My husband is forgoing his bonus this year so that the lower tier employees get theirs.
And I fought and fought and fought for this - to roll back those ridiculous goddamn tax cuts that have broken this country and helped lead to the complete breakdown of everything.
October 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet you did better under Bill Clinton. Me, too. :)
This really isn't that hard to figure out. The supply-siders think the people at the top drive the economy, so giving them more money means more for everyone. That they cling to this belief with such zeal in the face of all the historical evidence to the contrary is mind-boggling. The most protracted period of sustained growth was from the end of WWII to the early 70's. During this period the top tax rates were astronomical compared with what they are today. Thanks to the New Deal, the rise of unionism and progressive taxation, the middle class was taking home a bigger share of the pie, and this drove the economy. It's the middle class that drives growth. They do most of the working and producing and spending. This doesn't mean investment isn't important - it is. But things have to be kept in balance, and things right now are seriously out of whack.
The old maxim is that if you tax it you get less of it. So then why do they want to tax only work and not unearned income?
October 21, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats govern much better than Republicans but one Dem does somewhat bad and we are paying for it for 30 years!
October 21, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT They just did a piece on sign stealing (the cardboard political ones, not baseball signs) on CNN and they actually interviewed an accused sign stealer who "wished to remain anonymous." They shot him from the back with a baseball cap on, and used a voice changer.
I know it's not a nice thing to do, but I'm rolling on the floor over here.
October 21, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Replace the words "sign stealer" with "McCain supporter" and it's considerably funnier.
October 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You always make things funnier bvd!
October 21, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, let me say this too: i would be so proud of American women if they go for Obama 60-40 on election day. I think McCain is mocking women in this country.
October 21, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word. Though more like hating.
October 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
O word. He is the most miserably misogynistic son of a bitch evah!
The whole Sarah Palin thing is 100% Sexist. Just pure and simple.
and god I love American women - we didn't fall for it and I just had loads of faith we wouldn't.
Men on the other hand...*sigh*
October 21, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now c'mon, Tena. I took my poster of Caribou Barbie off my bedroom wall well before the Couric interview....lol
October 21, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other night I was at a kids birthday party at my neighbors house. A mix of white and Latino. My Obama button started the conversation - not many were enthused about Barack (I was, frankly, surprised) but all were voting for him. One woman told me she's a Republican - but McCain picking Palin was the deal breaker. She got seriously angry talking about it - "How stupid does he think we are!?!" She was actually shouting.
Other women were saying things like, "Oh God, wouldn't it be to have someone like her be the first woman elected VP?" These were working and middle class women. Some college educated, some not.
I think the women's vote may well go 60-40 for Obama. There are a lot of women who feel personally insulted over McCain picking Palin.
October 21, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gallop global poll has Obama leading 4:1.
"Gallup Polls conducted in 70 countries from May to September 2008 reveal widespread international support for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain in the U.S. presidential election. Among these nations, representing nearly half of the world's population, 30% of citizens say they would personally rather see Obama elected president of the United States, compared with just 8% who say the same about McCain. At the same time, 62% of world citizens surveyed did not have an opinion.
In individual countries, only Georgia and the Philippines prefer McCain to Obama."
Link:http://www.gallup.com/poll/111253/World-Citizens-Prefer-Obama-McCain-Nearly-4to1.aspx
October 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing is certain:
Countdown to Crawford - 91 Days
October 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it really matters (except to the folks in Crawford), but it is likely that GWB will be headin' to Dallas in January. (OK, it may matter to folks in Dallas, too.)
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/13/081013fa_fact_colloff
October 21, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
62% of world citizens don't have an opinion about who the leader of the most powerful country on earth should be? Either the world or the poll have a problem...
October 21, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin didn't say she won't run for president in 2012 on CNN... oh-my-god...
October 21, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm interested to hear more about this but will take it with a grain of salt...in my Margarita.
October 21, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still crossing my fingers for that one. She will help us reach 400 EV's the next election.
October 21, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Todd is trying to give Ohio to Grampy McSame.
Don't believe it.
The Obama ground game in Ohio will be breathtaking!
October 21, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will carry Ohio and Florida. You'll see.
October 21, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chances of McBush winning the election without OH/FL..........0
October 21, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN's John King reported yesterday on his blog and now Time Magazine is reporting the same thing as well: McCain is starting to pinch his pennies
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/mccain_curtails_ads_in_nh_and.html
October 21, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel a jujitsu move of epic proportions.
McCain goes to the worn out playbook and picks the 88/92 unpatriotic message to run.
This time instead it becomes McCain who is seen as unpatriotic for being so negative in a time of economic crisis, and dividing the nation when a leader should be seeking to unite it.
In politics sometimes strategies work, and sometimes they come back to haunt.
October 21, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not care at all what the polls say. Don't be complacent. Phone bank, canvas, network. It's only 14 more days. I want a landslide - a huge landslide.
Then, when McCain concedes he should just get out of the Senate, where he will certainly have only Lieberman and Graham left as "friends". Cindy will possibly be just as ready to get rid of him as we are - She can just buy him a condo in Vegas and he can gamble away the rest of his life.
October 21, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone answer this question please. If I buy a shirt from the O campaign website does it count as a donation?
October 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it does.
October 21, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are all sold out!
October 21, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really must admit I love women out there being angry about the whole Palin thing. The day he announced her I thought for a second that it would actually work.
October 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The day he announced her, my back went out!
October 21, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel reassured about the other sex actually :D
October 21, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
stop what you are doing right now, and look at the intrade. now you can smile.
October 21, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just have to say how freaking PROUD I am to see Virginia BLUE on those maps. Little things like this make me happy.
Sez Larry Sparks: 'There's no blue like blue Virginia blue." :-D
October 21, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html
Nothing says small town values like Neiman Marcus.
October 22, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink