The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.
Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.
Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when
Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.
Alternative EnergySource: David Apperson
url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy
So please, check out FiveThirtyEight.com and leave a comment here to say what you think!
I reckon that most of you folks, being interested in politics like me, are also keeping track of the polls. Rather than click through all of the different news websites to try to figure out where Barack stands in the electoral vote count, try one of these two sites on instead:
Electoral-vote.com is the original (as far as I can tell) website for determining hwo the electoral votes stack up. It is generally on-the-ball.
However, FiveThirtyEight.com (named for the number of electoral votes up for grabs) takes a slightly different (and yet, more elegant) tack. Instead of calculating EVs by the last polls taken, 538 instead gives each poll different weights depending on their methodologies, past performances, and how recently said polls were taken.
I prefer the latter, myself, but I could stare at statistics all day.
Here is something important I learned as a Government & Politics major at George Mason University back in the early '80s: numbers can lie. A class on political statistics clearly demonstrated that numbers can be manipulated to support whatever position they need to on any given issue. That was probably one of the greatest lessons I took away from my degree program.
Since that time, I pay very little attention to polls. Polls are accurate about as often as weather reports. But they do serve an important psychological function - they make people believe that future events are predictable. And they do sway people who are uncertain and undecided by giving them an anchor or a framework for their decision making.
There has been a lot of talk about the polls at the Obama events I've attended this past week. And I say the same thing every time - the polls are working in our favor. Every Obama supporter needs to wake up every day scared to death that our candidate may not win. Why? Because the legion of people the pollsters have largely overlooked will work that much harder over the next 67 days to make sure Obama supporters are registered and turn out to vote.
I hope the polls continue to show a very close race. It will be the fuel that drives us to knock on doors, make the phone calls, register the voters, participate in fundraisers, recruit other volunteers, and display our support on our cars, our lawns and our t-shirts. We cannot pull back on this effort for even one day. These well publicized polls will help ensure that we don't. So embrace the polls for the positive effect they will have on the Obama campaign and realize on any given day those numbers are probably about as accurate as the chance for rain.
One of the members of the Writers for Obama group sent out an e-mail comparing the traffic at John McCain's website with my.barackobama.com The stats from Alexa were used, and Alexa is skewed heavily toward the traffic of people using Internet Explorer with the Alexa add-on. So I did some comparisons of my own using tools I've found to be much more reliable.
For those of you who like to geek out over stats the way I do...
as the MSM continues to rail on about Hillary "trouncing" Obama in Pennsylvania, apparently there are statistical truths that indicate his improvement in some of Hillary's demographic strengths as compared to Ohio.
On 4/24, MSNBC's "Race to the White House", Rachel Maddow was a lone voice in expressing that many of the the actual numbers were positive improvements, and don't support the negative narrative that exists in all the main stream media. None of the other panelists said that her facts were wrong, but they clearly DID NOT MATTER. The possibility of truth was not open for discussion, it did not fit the media narrative about his supposed "weakness" with white blue collar workers, older voters, and white men.
Everybody was on a roll to define what is wrong, and why he's in more trouble not less.
we have to change this!
The Pa. primary could have gone better, but at least we are one primary closer to Obama's nomination!
In practical terms, Obama did OK last night, and he is still up 125 delegates or more in the various counts. Psychologically, there is the problem that Clinton did break the "double digits barrier" that all commentators said she had to get to to have any chance in the race. Except here is the weird thing--all the papers and media outlets are seeing the Pa. result this (Clinton's) way, but it ain't true! Clinton, on the latest figures (99% reporting), did NOT break into a double digits lead, i.e. above 10%. She came very close, at latest count on CNN she was 9.4% ahead of Obama (54.7-45.3), but 9.4% is NOT double digits, and although it may appear to be hairsplitting, it is psychologically significant that she only won in single digits. This number is also not quite complete, there are still some figures to come in from Philly and Delaware County (Obama territories) which might lessen the figure to nearer 9%. Also, there is a slight discrepancy between CNN's numbers and the Pennsylvania State numbers currently posted, which show a closer margin of 8.6% (54.3-45.7). This is, I need hardly add, even further from "double digits".
CNN numbers at: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA
Pennsylvania State numbers at: http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=27&OfficeID=1
So, how come the papers and media are reporting that Clinton breached the psychologically important 10% mark, when it is not true? I suspect it comes from the laszy way in which the numbers have been processed and presented. For the sake of simplicity, the TV stats are only shown in whole numbers of percent, so 54.7 is rounded up to 55%, and 45.3 is rounded down to 45%, thus producing a spread of 55-45, i.e 10%, when the actual figure, if the first decimal is included is 9.4%, which should round down to 9%. Instead of looking at these more detailed figures to calculate the actual margin, even in whole percent, commentators and writers just look at the bigger numbers and then subtract, giving the 10% "double digits" lead. If they were more interested in accuracy, however, in such a psychologically crucial figure, they should say instead that Clinton was only 9.4% ahead, in any case did not breach the 10% mark.
Ironically, if the Pennsylvania State numbers hold up, then the margin was only 8.6%, and indeed the rounded number from the lazy method would be just 8% (54.3 becomes 54, 45.7 becomes 46--the spread between 54 and 46 is 8%!), which somehow is much less impressive than "10%" (despite only being 2% less).
Let us hope that the latter number, 8.6%/8%, proves the right one, and that journalists, bloggers, "horse race" handicappers and commentators take note that Clinton's "victory", just like in Texas, was not as much of a victory as it appeared, not really a victory much at all.
The bonding between Democrat and Republican party started with the first accusational finger pointed at a flap. Hillary Clinton and John McCain have made a partnership in sharing common ground over trying to push Obama out of the political race. Both nominees are in essense scratching each other's backs for their own personal interest. For Hillary Clinton who is falling behind nationally it is in her interest to use John McCain as a tool to wedge doubts in voters minds about Obama's ability to stand against the Republican party and as a means to cast further doubts in the minds of democrats and republican's who can't make up their minds. John McCain is using Hillary's verbal assualts as ammunition to cast doubt in the minds of voters about Obama because McCain isn't worried about beating Hillary in the elections and she isn't a worthy adversary even in the primaries. McCain is more concerned about Obama who has taken a lead not only over Hillary Clinton nationally but also over McCain and the Republican party. This back scratching and gifting should give voters an indicator as to which candidate is more likely to win the election which is Obama because both the Democratic and Republican nominees are working very hard to push him out of the race.
For Democrats it is discouraging to say the least to observe Hillary Clinton league with McCain and throw Obama into the water like chum to a shark. Moreover it shows a deterioration of Hillary's ability to carry the Democrats through the 2008 election as a candidate in terms of concern for the American citizen and the Democratic party in general. Her concern has turned completely to the task of winning at all costs. McCain is chuckling behind his sleeve as he garners more damage to use later down the road. In my opinion the super-delegates need to step in and move Hillary out of the race and do damage control in order to ensure a win for the Democratic Party. It will take time to quell the furor of smearing that Clinton has smeared and the Democratic Party needs recoup time before the National Election. So the question is, is it better to allow Clinton to further deminish the Democratic Party by scratching backs with McCain or should the superdelagates back Obama in hopes of saving the Democratic Party and do some damage control before it's too late?
Statistics indicate that a large percentage of minority men are incarcerated. At a recent Seder service a scholar mentioned that 1 out of 4 African American men are in the jail trail, and an article in The Root quoted more statistics. Click link www.theroot.com
Parents, teachers, clergy, rabbis, leaders and extended families must do all that they can to help reduce the plaguing statistics, and to increase the number of young people who assiduously pursue excellence.
Repaso a los anteriores capítulos:Recomiendo revisar por encima el capítulo 1, sobre el sistema de elección.En el capítulo 2 expliqué la relevancia de elegir bien un presidente USA.El capítulo 3, iba sobre los candidatos actuales a la presidencia de EEUU.Leer cada capítulo lleva unos 5 minutillos.En este capítulo expondré hechos pero también una preocupación que me ha surgido.Sobre Obama:Mientras en el lado republicano la cosa fue rapidita, en el lado demócrata todavía se están peleando por ser el aspirante del partido a competir con el bélico McCain.Obama parece ser la opción popular en el lado demócrata y en general (fuente: ADN) . Surgió como una seta. En principio la Hillary era la que tenía más numeros, pero el senador Obama se la ha comido casi definitivamente. Sus elocuencia e ideas de cambio han asombrado al mundo entero.Simplificando, a McCain se le asocia con la guerra y Bush.A Hillary con las mujeres y la economía, y a Obama con el pueblo, la paz y la igualdad. (Cap. 3)Su popularidad es tal, que los demás políticos están cagaos y le atacan suciamente. Veamos 3 ejemplos:
I was just looking over the primary numbers so far and was struck not just by how many states Barack Obama has won (28) vs Hillary Clinton (14), but also by the much wider margins of victory he has maintained over her, beating Clinton by an average of 27% vs her average margin of victory of only 13%. In fact, I was so impressed by these numbers, I drew up a quick chart to illustrate:
These numbers are based on the primary results listed at MSNBC.com as of 3/12/08, omitting FL and MI, and crediting each with a win for TX due to the primary/ caucus split.
It seems so significant to me that the majority of Clinton's wins have been by less than 10%, whereas the majority of Obama's wins have been by a margin of 20% or more.
In fact, it was so significant to me, I finally signed up at my.barackobama.com so I could share it!
As we headed into the Iowa caucuses, it had taken us nearly a year to reach our first 500,000 donors.
As of February 8, more than 300,000 people have given in 2008 alone, taking ownership of this campaign by making a donation of whatever they can afford.
This has never happened before. No one has ever built a campaign involving so many Americans as true stakeholders.
(From Barack)
(I don't mean pollsters, although those are looking up too!)
From The New Republic's blog comments: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/01/where-are-edwards-supporters-going.aspx
"It's interesting if you do a scatterplot of the results so far. Both candidates have maxed out at 55 percent, Hillary in Michigan when she was the only real name on the ballot, and Obama in South Carolina. Her worst showing was 29 percent in Iowa, whereas Obama's worst was 33 in Florida. Hillary's mean finish has been 34.6 percent; Obama has only finished below that once, in Florida. Obama's mean finish has been 42.5, well above Hillary's.
In contested races, Hillary has won by 2 and 6. Obama has won contested races by 9 and 28.
Anyway, I think it's telling that Hillary has hit 50 and 51 but only broke through in a state where Obama wasn't on the ballot, whereas Obama's 55 came in an actual contested race. Now that Edwards is out, I think the retroactive lesson of Florida is that Hillary couldn't break past 50 percent in a state she effectively had to herself.
Does any of this mean anything for Super Tuesday? Probably not more than charting the results of any 12 regular-season possessions would tell us who is going to win the Superbowl. But Hillary's inability to score a breakthrough in a competitive race suggests that she has a very low ceiling even among Democrats. May not be low enough to deny her the nomination. But it looks close to catastrophic to me when thinking about the general election."
Excellent website to gather the latest news and to watch the polls & statistics unfold in the race for the Nomination and eventually the White House. My favorite polls are the head to head Republican vs Democrat matchups.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Rock the Vote recently published on their official blog a post that will like excite the political junkies among us. It's about using Census Date to analyze the youth vote; thrilling to those who know and love means, medians and modes, and interesting to those like me who think the median is the part of the road you keep running into.
The article is entitled, "Researching Young Voters Using Census Data", and you guessed it, explains certain tendencies with young voters using the Census. All sarcasm aside, it is a fantastic piece with a ton of information, especially for a campaign that is being championed by young voters.
The article does not give you the conclusion, rather sets up the data and all of the information you need to draw your own conclusions. Everyday, you hear about this percentage of people voting this way, or this group wants that candidate, but the process is skipped over, and only the conclusions are being presented. Thankfully, Rock the Vote is different.
The SFBO blog staff urges all of you to look at the numbers and come to your own conclusions. We happen to know that no matter what way you slice and dice the numbers, young Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of change. And it's not secret to us that our candidate represents real change.
But by examining the numbers yourself, you become active in the process. And that's a great first step. Once again, you can click here to access the post over at Rock the Vote.
Yahoo for polls from multiple sources!
Anyone have anything to say about the particular sources? Maybe I will select a few in the coming months and make some pretty graphs for y'all's viewing pleasure. ;)
