Happy Birthday to "Racetrack" Kelly Downs, 52.
Just a bit of good stuff:
1. Simon Jackman has updated polling house effects.
2. Steve Kornacki has a theory to explain the possibility of an electoral college/national vote split. It's plausible!
3. There are things more likely to receive a Plain Blog link than a hit story on Frank Luntz, but not all that many. Here's one from Joan Walsh.
4. Of course, say something nice about me (and write a smart column) and you might get linked, too. Stephen Silver has ten issues, not barking, in the 2012 presidential campaign.
I just read Ryan Lizza's New Yorker article on the Obama campaign's ground game operation. One point that it (and many other articles) haven't clearly addressed is this: is the great ground game realistically supposed to (a) allow Obama to match the vote share predicted for him by polling (because otherwise Democrats are hard to get to the voting booth) or (b) exceed the polling (because they'll actually turn out an above average number of people)? In other words, if one is convinced that the Obama ground game is solid to very impressive, should one build in an extra 0.5 to 1.5 points of support into the polling, or should one simply be secure in the knowledge that Obama will meet polling expectations?
ReplyDelete(Moving this comment up from a post yesterday.)
There's only one Racetrack that matters.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Edmondson