Another Piece of Suggestive Evidence

for the profit-seeking model of media behavior? Even Murdoch loathes O'Reilley?

Blogs Victorious?

Short of an admission from Brennan, how might we get some purchase on why he withdrew?

Indy Media Me

You knew me when. . . . . .

UPDATE:  Some radio me

We Just Can't Quit You

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Daily Show's Best Sarah Palin Moments

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Are You Smarter Than A. . . . . .

ISI Civics Quiz. How did you do?

Democracy Can Be Fun

More from Sullivan worth stealing: which of these Minnesota ballots should count, and for whom???

Oooh, a New Silly Web Toy

via Sullivan, go here, type in your blog address, and it tells you what personality type you are.  It's science-y!  Here's the results for CrankyDoc's:

The responsible and hardworking type. They are especially attuned to the details of life and are careful about getting the facts right. Conservative by nature they are often reluctant to take any risks whatsoever. The Duty Fulfillers are happy to be let alone and to be able to work int heir own pace. They know what they have to do and how to do it.

Hmmmm. . . . . .

A Little Berube

on (a) History and (b) the relationship (sort of) between Theory and Agency.  Plus, a link to a funny YouTube.

This Might Not Be Awful

"The IFC Media Project"

New News?

Brash young upstarts annoy sour old newspaper people.  Okay, that's my headline, not the NYT's.  Still. . . . .

Behind the Scenes

of the Obama campaign, and some insight into their message/media strategy.

Generations

The Jennifer Hochschild piece I mentioned yesterday.

Update

For those of you who were not present tonight (ahem), a reminder that class will not meet on Wednesday, so that I can be here, and here, and here. On Monday, November 17th we will cover readings scheduled for both the 12th and 17th. The following people volunteered, or were volunteered, to assume responsibility for presenting the readings to the class:

Leighly, Ch. 4 -- Matt
Bennett, Lawrence and Livingston -- Mordy
Kaplan -- Daniel K.
Popkin -- Daniel G.
Chs. 1-5 in McChesney -- Steven P. and Josh

How Much Did You Give?

Simian Confinement

I've pointed you all to The Monkey Cage on a few occasions, and do so again now: there have been some terrific posts that are engaged in some systematic, thoughful post-election analysis. The methodological tools being used are a bit above your pay grade, to be sure, but the approach can nonetheless serve as a model of what rigorous, evidence-based analysis can look like. The comment threads are worth popping into, too.

Reminder

For Monday, in addition to the brief article on BCRA (McCain-Feingold) (Raymond J. La Raja, “From Bad to Worse: The Unraveling of the Campaign Finance System,” The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 6, no. 1 (2008) [E-RESERVES]), spend some quality time at opensecrets.org.

Think about what you find there, post about it, and be prepared to offer some summary and analysis of campiagn finance trends and outcomes for this, now completed, election cycle. Okay, nearly completed (see: AK, MN, GA, MO).

For more online resources, scroll down and see the listings on the right-hand column for "Election Law and $$$." (See esp. CQ Moneyline).

Voting Machines

Well, this isn't good.

Deeper Than it May Appear

as is often the case with The Onion

Cool Maps

HERE

Themes

We have talked some about the discipline, competence, and sophistication of the Obama campaign machinery. We have talked less about the consistency with which the campaign told a story and hammered upon a narrative. To wit: think about last night's speech, and its rhetorical touchstones, and then take another look/listen to this now-iconic video from Black Eyed Peas' will.i.am, riffing on Obama's January 8 NH Primary speech. It is, dare I say, Reaganesque. UPDATE: And note the shift in tone last night, and the very different cadence the "Yes, We Can" refrain takes: from peroration to somber determination (start least night's speech below at about (9:00).

"You've never seen anything like this on television"

Perhaps there is a reason?



UPDATE: Hmmm. . . more embedding problems. Link here.
UPDATE II: Apparently fixed.

Pollsters' Predictions

One early summary, from Washington Monthly:

POLLSTERS CAN EXHALE.... The presidential election offered a test for a lot of institutions, but professional pollsters had to realize that if Barack Obama came up short last night, not only would Americans question pollsters forever more, but we would probably start to look askance at the very idea of random statistical sampling.

As it turns out, they can relax.

The final Pollster.com report on the national popular vote showed Obama leading with 52% support. Based on the results that are currently available, Obama won with 52% support.

Indeed, looking over that interactive map that some of us have been obsessing over for quite a while, the polling averages really didn't get any states wrong at all. Arguably, the only state where the numbers were really off base was North Dakota, which turned out to be less competitive than expected, but that's a pretty inconsequential demerit in an otherwise impressive showing.

I'd add, by the way, that the final DailyKos/Research 2000 poll showed Obama leading McCain nationally 51% to 46%, while the final Rasmussen poll showed Obama up 52% to 46%. Both can take a bow not only for having nailed the final result, but also for beating their rivals.

And speaking of polls and impressive showings, how did Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight do? Nate's final projections showed Obama winning with 348 electoral votes and 52.3% of the popular vote. As of this morning's count, Obama has 349 electoral votes and 52% of the popular vote.

We're going to wonder how we got through elections without him.

Stepping Back

We've buried ourselves, for good reasons, in lots of micro-level analysis. But there is, to state what should be obvious, a much larger narrative here. Here's one take:

UPDATE: Rats. Embedding Wonkiness. Go here.

Poll Closing Times

The Poll Tax is Still With Us

A Concise Column

Recapping the election. (h/t A. Sullivan)

Don't Get Pwned

How to evaluate data on "The Youth Vote."

Nate Says. . . . .

Here's where to watch:

This is beginning to look like a five-state election. Those states are Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada. Essentially all relevant electoral scenarios involve some combination of these five states.

I should caution that by far the most likely scenario is that Obama wins some relatively decisive victory of anywhere from 3-12 points in the popular vote. If Obama wins the popular vote by anything in this range, he will find plenty of blue territory, accumulating somewhere between 300-400 electoral votes. The electoral math will matter very little.

We can probably assume, however, that IF the national polls tighten significantly (and to reiterate, the likelihood is that they will NOT), McCain will edge out a victory in North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, Georgia, and Missouri; put those states in the McCain column for the time being. Likewise, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa all appear safe for Obama, even in the case of significant tightening. Put those in the Obama column.

That leaves our five states in play. The victory conditions for Obama involving these five states proceed something as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania and ANY ONE of Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, or Nevada*
2. Win Ohio and EITHER Colorado OR Virginia.
3. Win Colorado AND Virginia AND Nevada.

(* Nevada produces a 269-269 tie, which would probably be resolved for Obama in the House of Represenatives.)

Now, suppose you think that Colorado is already in the bag for Obama because of his large edge in early voting there. We can then simplify the victory conditions as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania
2. Win Ohio
3. Win Virginia AND Nevada

That's basically what it comes down to, although I'm sure each campaign would claim that there are a larger number of states in play.

"The 2/3 of the Iceberg You Can't See"

It's a Media class, so we've been focusing on the effects of media on the campaign, and starting tomorrow I'll ask you to begin to explain precisely how and why both Big Media and New Media have mattered to the outcome. But this clip offers a reminder about the "below-the-radar" activity -- the activity that, arguably, is the principal reason Clinton lost the Democratic Primary to Obama (Nate Silver has been all over this, of course):

Where is Your Election News Coming From?

New from Pew:

Many more Americans are turning to the internet for campaign news this year as the web becomes a key source of election news. Television remains the dominant source, but the percent who say they get most of their campaign news from the internet has tripled since October 2004 (from 10% then to 33% now).

While use of the web has seen considerable growth, the percentage of Americans relying on TV and newspapers for campaign news has remained relatively flat since 2004. The internet now rivals newspapers as a main source for campaign news. And with so much interest in the election next week, the public's use of the internet as a campaign news source is up even since the primaries earlier this year. In March, 26% cited the internet as a main source for election news, while the percentages citing television and newspapers remain largely unchanged.

Read the rest.