this ranking is made by the same guy who authors the rankings and analysis at <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/">baseball prospectus</a>. a statistician extraordinaire. <br><br>anyway, this just goes to show that republican senators (and folks running for senate elections) are much closer to "conservative" than democrats are to "liberal" -- actually, i lot closer. <br><br><a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/liberal-conservative-scores-for-senate.html">link here</a><br><br>Avg liberality of D senators: 72.6<br>Avg conservativeness of R senators: 15.8<br><br>in the comments he places Obama around an 81 (same as my moderate dem senator -- carl levin) and McCain at a 29 -- nearly the most liberal of the republicans (nearly), but still far from being middle of the road.<br><br>keep in mind that Obama's "most liberal" rating came on very few votes. this guy looks at more and he also notes that his chart correlates very closely to other sources on the votes: "The correlation with the voteview rankings is about .95, and with the National Journal rankings about .97. But that shouldn't be surprising, since those were among the sources that I looked at."<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
neat article in the WSJ about the author and blog described in my previous post:<br><br><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/baseball-analyst-draws-fans-by-crunching-election-numbers-347/">http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/baseball-analyst-draws-fans-by-crunching-election-numbers-347/</a><br><br>his blog is apparently gaining much credibility. entry above shows Obama beating McCain in the electoral college this fall, fwiw. duh.<br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
It is fascinating. I worry a little bit though when I see rosy predictions about my candidate of choice. I mean, some people were saying that the Cubs had a shot at the World Series a couple of years ago too. I've learned to be a little more cautious than optimistic.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Nobody can predict the outlier like a Bartman taking down a candidate. Personally I hate polls, especially ones that say my horse is in the lead. All it does is spread complacency. I don't believe these anyway because of the Bradlee effect. Sorry to say racism still lives in the US of A but some of those people will not admit their stupidity and ignorance in a poll.<br><br>The only poll that counts is the last one in November.<br><br>
I agree that strong poll numbers only create complacency and even boredom with the leading candidate. O will need a few good knocks about 2 months before November, so that he can climb back up and win the whole thing. Otherwise, who knows?<br><br>We are STILL what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
_________________________ We are what we repeatedly do - Aristotle
keep in mind that this guy pegged Indiana and North Carolina almost perfectly using his system. and even in states where Obama lost (e.g., New Hampshire), the polls were still very active in predicting his support. i don't think a person is going to say he's a racist on the phone, but he will probably have no problem saying he supports Hillary and/or McCain over Obama. <br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.