Newsvine Q&A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

I'm not sure that any state is immune to change and that's one thing that I'd like to hear more about.  Makes me tired that the different parties don't bother to go to states because they are sure of them or because they only have a couple of electoral votes. 

Chuck: Do you think Five-Thirty-Eight is making a good call by saying Obama has an 82.5% chance of now winning, as well as a 33% chance of gaining more than 375 electoral votes?

I think that the use of bad polls is minimized in his model because he throws some out and because other things are factored in like the demographics of the state as well as what nearby states are doing.  So, in my opinion, their data are much more reliable than simple averaging of polls. . .not to sound like Nate can do no wrong.  :)

Makes sense. Thank you, Chuck.

Having moved to Virginia from New York a few years ago, it has dawned on me that the Northern Virginia vote is to Virginia what NYC is to the New York statewide vote. The traditional thinking has always been that where NYC turns out a vote of close to 35% of the statewide total, the Democratic candidate usually wins. If its below 30%, the Republican usually wins. Do you think there is a % threshold that Northern Virginia needs to have of the statewide vote for Obama to win? 

Chuck, do you find that the media doesn't truly or I'll rephrase, can't represent the actual story.  For instance, after the VP debate the overall consensus of the media was she did very well and it was equal and or a tie.  (yes, Tina Faye did your work for you)  But, again last night after the second Presidential debate I heard poll numbers that were astounding and heard pundints ranting McCain was the winner.  We have grown to know the media is slanted (excluding you of course) however, isn't it time the dumbing down of America stops and begins with the media who has the largest forum to educate the masses.  

Chuck,

Why does the media keep bringing up race. If it's not an issue you keep making it an issue. David Gergen made the most disgusting statement last night on CNN to the efect that don't believe the poles, Obama is Black.

I have a hard time believing that anyone who follows politics can do so objectively.  It is a passionate subject comprising social mores, customs, traditions, emotions, family history, economics - you name it- the whole kitchen sink - and I don't think that you can approach it dispassionately.  Obama remains in control and he's being called cold.  He's not cold - he just knows that letting passion rule your comments and thinking at a time when you need to think clearly is political suicide.  I would imagine that's why he plays basketball and that he might kick the tires of his car.  I think if we asked Michelle Obama about his passion, we'd get an earful!

Just wanted to add that it certainly didn't help McCain AFTER the debate when his wife trailed along beside him with her hands behind her back, not shaking a single hand aside from Tom Brokaw.  My husband (who I would classify as Independent) said she appeared as if she didn't want to "touch the commoners" as if she might catch "middle-class syndrome."

John McCain seems too old and out of touch, he doesn't help himself with by talking down to the questioners ("I'll bet you never heard of Fannie or Freddie" remark), and Cindy certainly isn't helping with her stand-offish approach to the audience.

I used to really like John McCain (had he won the primary against Bush in 2000, I would have easily voted for him over Gore, and I'm a Democrat!), however, I'm beginning to think that he and his wife have no idea what the average American middle-class family is struggling with, nor do they really care.

Obama always had my vote, but he won my husband's last night.

Truman may be barely remembered because so many who would remember him are dead.  The question is, what judgment do historians make about his presidency?  Most consider him one of the most influencial, if not one of the best, presidents we have had.  Think of all that happened during his tenure.  The A bomb, demobilization after WWII, the beginning of unparalled economic and technelogical expansion, Korea, the Berlin airlift, the start of the cold war, integration of the armed services, establishment of the CIA and Department of Defense, and the establishment of the United Nations.  He was unpopular at tmes, in part for a lot of petty reasons, like firing McCarther, having some questionable cronies on the payroll and being less than charismatic. 

Chuck,  one point to remember is that unpopular does not always equate to objectively "good" or "effective".  Lincoln was out third or fourth most unpopular but is now held in high esteem.  Grant was highly popular, but almost totally ineffective.  Historians who try to model the effectiveness of presidencies tend to place contemporaneous popularity quite low in their models.  Historians tend to place Buchanan at the very bottom and the ones I have spoken to are saying that George W. is giving him a run for his money.   

I still think if Bush had been successful in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, he would have been hailed as a visionary. I am in no way a Bush fan, but if he had inspired a worldwide crackdown and a basic concensus of the unacceptability of terrorism, while transforming Iraq into a functioning democracy that truly served its populace without massive corruption, ( If Iraqis lives are much better, many other countries in the region would see first hand the benefit of democracy, similar to east/west Berlin) Bush would have been one of the most transformative presidents in history. Now unfortunately for us and more unfortunate for Bush, he didn't succeed in a single area.  You can castigate him and his administration for incredible lack of competence when it comes to execution, indeed maybe even motivation, but you can't fault them for having small ideas.

Lest we forget.. The Iraqi war will ALWAYS be a mistake regardless how it turns out, and as for the economy, If you destroy your car you shouldn't get credit for fixing it!!!! Bush,, the worst ever!!!!

I think they said the same about the Civil War and Lincoln.

Check out discussions on fivethirtyeight.com.  Although paid for by DailyKos, the pollster is not unaffiliated with a party so there is no reason to believe that the poll itself is biased.  Zogby has consistently been Republican-leaning throughout this election; I believe that it is because they do not weigh Dems like other pollsters do to reflect what the state or nation looks like.

Very helpful comment, Chuck. Thanks.

Somewhere in these videos Mr. Todd talks about the different polls and the validity of different ones, wish I could be more specific I'm on the fence over whether or not anyone will actually care to watch, ha!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSjb8mSMau4&feature=related

"the NBC-WSJ poll"

sounds pretty specific

Ha, I hear ya, I just mean he gives more detail on his opinion of different polls and which are more or less reliable and which should be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, do you think many voters, say, in Pennsylvania and Florida, will buy these charges, some of which go so far as implying treason, or do you think this will backfire on the McCain campaign?

To piggyback on this thought: Should Obama win the election and the democrats get to - say - 58 seats in the Senate, what is the likelihood that Obama will appoint Republican Senators to seats in his cabinet from states with Democratic governors, allowing the Dems to get to 60 seats in the Senate?

They probably didn't state a combined income for McCain because only John McCain released his 2007 return.   The most recent return released by Cindy McCain was for 2006.   Since they were using the 2007 numbers for everyone else, they could not accurately state their combined income.

And......of course giving credits to registrations/voters (fraud).  

According to Nate Silver (or, rather, my understanding of what he says), there has been no statistical evidence of a Bradley Effect since the 90's.  See more at fivethirtyeight dot com. Go to the "labels" section on the left column and click on "bradley effect."

But as far as I remember, no major national non-white candidate has run since the 90s. By that reasoning, it makes sense the Bradley Effect hasn't been in effect: because it hasn't been given a chance.

True.  But it could still have shown up in other races (local or state) across the country where there have been non-white candidates.  In other words, if there is little to no statistically significant evidence of the Bradley Effect in any elections since the 90's, you would have to believe that there is a compelling reason that it would appear in a national race.  I am not saying that it is not possible; I just do not believe that it would be absent for a long time and all of a sudden appear at the national level, particularly in traditionally blue states.  I can see an argument for it being more likely to appear at the national level because people would be more adverse to having a non-white candidate as President than say as a member of Congress or mayor but I still think that it is not likely.

Let's hope that is true, not necissarily for Obama's sake, but for equality's sake.

I live in VA where it's known as the "Wilder Effect"

I'm speculating that it's impact may have narrowed, depending on the type of polling.  I've been polled three times this election season and each time it was an automated call where I pressed a button on the phone to provide a response.  There was no live caller and I think in that type of polling situation, those concerned with being perceived as having a racial bias would be less concerned about answering if it's an automated call.

I think we have seen some of how it could be because we keep hearing about the arguments that the Democrats made against Obama during the Primary.  Those things aren't forgotten.  On a different note, though, since McCain has not won the Miss Congenialty award as he so often likes to tell us, perhaps the Republicans are willing to let him be all mavericky and do his thing with no intention of following those footsteps should Obama be elected.  I think everyone has been cursed by the I wish I'd never said that bug.  They do come back to haunt us.

Do you really want to elect a President - regardless of his policies and regardless of his capabilities - to simply balance the system?  Even if the Congress and House are controlled by one party, we still have a voice; we can still write letters; we can still vote those suckers out of there. 

I don't personally.  I'm trying to put aside my own personal bias and look at what strategy is best for the McCain camp from a political strategy P.O.V.

When I heard about this argument the other day, I instantly felt that this would be the death of the McCain camp..  He would essentially be saying (due to his lack luster polls) that, "I know you guys aren't gonna vote me into the white house...but at least make my job in the congress a little easier by giving us back the majority".  I don't think McCain would be willing to cede the election like that.  If he did, he would be out there criticising President Bush, and the congressional members who got drunk with power.  This strategy would not win him the election, but it would cut the losses in congressional seats that Republicans are likely to experience this election cycle. Interesting strategy though.

I'm not Chuck, but just from my personal experience of OK (which may or may not translate to these other solid red states) OK is highly rural, which trends (R), and also highly religious which trends (R). Just think about what issues might be important to a voter who is religious and lives in a rural area and you can understand why they would align (R).

It's a statistical calculation in sampling theory.  If you took numerous repeated random samples from a population you would know with a specified level of certainty that the polling result is within the error range of the true percentage.  The theory relies on a number of assumptions about the population distribution, but experiments have shown that the margin of error is still pretty accurate even if those assumptions are violated.  Here is a basis explanation: