Careful, he could be a follower of ancient Egyptian religion.

Stupid Egyptian "pep rally" joke from way back:

"He is the ONE god,
He is the SUN god,
RA! RA! RA!"

Heh. Imagine an ancient Egyptian cheerleader (if that doesn't warp your mind too much) yelling it...

:-)

Michale [8] -

Well, looks like I was wrong too, forgot we'd broken 300 previously.

I don't know what happened with the four-comment one, maybe I did some maintainence that weekend? Dunno...

TheStig [10] -

It's almost time for my "Electoral Math" column series! Woo hoo!

My favorite state poll site (electoral-vote.com) has a moratorium on providing data until the conventions, though, so I haven't been following it yet, I have to admit.

LizM [15] -

I think your last sentence was profoundly right. Whatever helps Blair sleep indeed...

Whaddya think about the certainty of the second female British PM? Gotta be better than the first, right?

:-)

John M [19] -

What LizM said, in [20].

:-)

LizM [21] -

420? Really? OK, now you've got my attention.

Heh.

Speak2 [23] -

I always respect people who are more pedantic than myself, mostly because it is so hard to do, at times. Heh.

Yeah, you are right. I too cringe when this is misused in a general way. "It used to be $40, now it is $80 -- a 200% increase!"

Well, no, it's a 100% increase. It is 200% of the original figure. There's a difference. I do get it.

But in these articles, I play a little fast and loose, mostly because I never actually talk about "percent increase" in the technical sense. I never say, for instance, "Obama went from 40 to 50 percent approval, an overall 25% increase." I NEVER use it comparitavely, therefore I give myself license to use "percent" as an absolute -- "percentage points of Obama's total poll rating" rather than EVER use it as "percent improvement" or "percent decline."

If I ever did make such comparisons, I would be a lot more accurate in the difference between "percent" and "percentage point," I assure you. But as it is, my perverse editorial insistence on spelling out "percent" instead of using "%" means that it would be pedantically long-winded to use "percentage point" (or even "point") every time I discuss changes in the polls.

In the spirit of true Flying Spaghetti Monster penance, though, I accept 100 lashes with a wet noodle.

Happy?

:-)

On an unrelated point, I agree with your first comment. Any guesses as to how high Obama's approval will hit in his final 3 months if Hillary wins his "third term"? 55? 60? Higher? Do tell!

JohnM [24] -

When is Michale ever NOT confused?

HAH! Now that was funny indeed! Sorry, Michale, but if the shoe fits...

:-)

Michale [28] -

Interesting comment. You an Earnst fan? I think Trump might do a lot of good for his campaign by picking her, but then I just heard the idea a few days ago myself, I might feel differently once I ponder the idea for a while.

-CW

I guess Apophis is just another drive by.. :^(

Is it my breath???

Michale

But hay...I could be wrong...

It's been known to happen... :D

Michale

But I have a feeling that Trump won't pick Earnst for the same reason that Clinton won't pick Warren...

Both selections have the very real possibility of upstaging the candidates..

And the egos of BOTH candidates simply won't allow that...

Michale

BUT...

But if this ever DID rise to a criminal matter and a matter for the FBI, I have no doubt that Director Comey will apply the EXACT same standard of investigation to Trump that he applied to Clinton...

Absolute and 1000% surety of obtaining a conviction..

Just as I have no doubt that ya'all will despise and denigrate Director Comey for doing so...

Michale

I think, Michale, you are the one who better get used to saying President Clinton, rather than the rest of us saying President Trump.

You keep saying that.. :D You might actually start believing it after a while..

This is an ESTABLISHMENT vs ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT election.. This is inarguable...

Clinton is the ESTABLISHMENT candidate..

Trump is the ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT candidate...

The *VAST* majority of Americans are ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT..

No matter how much it hurts, do the math..

2.) Donald Trump is the one who ends up having to deal with a criminal indictment regarding his "University."

If it were a criminal matter, you would have a point... But it's not so you don't...

Michale

If Clinton wins, then Obama will enjoy a "third-term" surge in approval ratings.

Which is exactly why Clinton WON'T win.. Because over 70% of Americans don't WANT an Obama third term..

Funny how no one ever addresses this fact.. :D

Michale

"Well, John, Michale accepts the results but, he is confused."

When is Michale ever NOT confused? :-D (Sorry, I just had to get that one in there.)

I think, Michale, you are the one who better get used to saying President Clinton, rather than the rest of us saying President Trump.

Especially if:

1.) Hillary Clinton chooses Elizabeth Warren as he running mate.

And

2.) Donald Trump is the one who ends up having to deal with a criminal indictment regarding his "University."

One point of geek stickler-ing. You're using "percent" when you should be using "percentage point" or just "point," as in Obama experienced a 0.2 point increase. You get this correct once, but misuse this a couple of times.

To see the difference (for the non-stats commenters): If we start at 50 percent and then go to 52 percent, that's a 2-point increase but a 4-percent increase. The accepted abbreviation is "pp" for percentage points.

"Ya gotta admire him.. Latest news, up to the minute.."
-Lt Sulu, STAR TREK, The Corbomite Maneuver

:D

Michale

We're trying to get the comment total up to 420 ... in a legitimate fashion!

I know, right???

Considering how utterly and COMPLETELY wrong the betting markets were on TRUMP and BREXIT... Why waste yer money???

Michale

I hear your! I wouldn't put any money on this election either. Most of the punters who do are suckers, but there are plenty of them. A few very sharp traders can probably make money off the fish, and the house always wins. There may be some sophisticated players who have sound financial reasons to hedge on an election outcome, but it can't be many because the amount of money invested is relatively small, in the millions of dollars. I suspect campaign contributions are a better investment if you catch my drift. Regardless, the markets are historically good indicators, at least as good as polls early in an election cycle. Plus, they tend to respond to news events fairly quickly.

:-)

He takes full responsibility and apologizes, profusely. Well, he apologized.

What he didn't do was admit that the world, in general, and the Middle East, in particular, would be far better off today if the US-led invasion of Iraq had not happened. He has convinced himself that it was the right thing to do to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein.

I guess that is what allows him to get some sleep at night.

Talk about missing the point!

"I'm in love with you, Billy. I just fell in love with you.."
-Eddie Murphy, BEVERLY HILLS COP

:D heh

Michale

Wasn't he the guy who predicted there was only a 5% chance that Trump would be the GOP nominee???

"Good read"?? :D

Obviously "good read" = "exactly what I want to hear"... :D

Betfair (which no longer blocking Americans) agrees pretty closely with FiveThirtyEight and Predictwise, giving a 75% chance for Clinton. Trump gets better news from PredictIt, 67%:33% Clinton:Trump, Clinton down 1% on the day.

All of which were COMPLETELY and UTTERLY wrong about so many things..

And we should listen to them now, exactly why???

Oh yea.. That's right.. because they are saying EXACTLY what ya'all want to hear... :D

Michale

I suppose we are to believe that 8400 US troops can achieve in this God-forsaken "country" what 100,000 US troops could not.

Talk about missing the point!

i'm all for statistics, but betting odds? this election is not something i'd risk money on.

JL

By the way, Nate Silver has updated his methods section. It's worth a read.

Across the board, 2016 looks better for Clinton's chances against Trump than Obama's chances looked against Romney.

The aggregate predictors FiveThirtyEight and PredictWise both indicate Clinton is a strong favorite, with something in the vicinity of a 75% chance of winning the election (it shifts a few % on any given day). Both see the traditional swing states as more strongly tilted towards the Democratic candidate this cycle, although there is some disagreement on the details. Predictwise sees only one "toss-up" state, NC, all the other purples lean fairly heavily in Clinton's favor. Fivethirtyeight calls AZ almost dead even, the traditional swing states lean towards Clinton. Neither outfit sees Ohio as all that close this cycle (unless you think 68%:32% is close). FiveThirtyEight sees the most likely outcome as something close to 350 electoral votes for Clinton. That said, the Electoral Vote distribution tails are broad.

Betfair (which no longer blocking Americans) agrees pretty closely with FiveThirtyEight and Predictwise, giving a 75% chance for Clinton. Trump gets better news from PredictIt, 67%:33% Clinton:Trump, Clinton down 1% on the day.

I love the smell of statistics in the morning...napalm being frowned upon in my neighborhood.

define "good numbers." the president's approval ratings since halfway through his first year in office have been absolutely average - approval and disapproval have been nearly equal for seven years.

JL

Anyway, looks like this comment thread is paying the price for me not posting a re-run yesterday (the barbeque called, I answered, the post got forgotten... mea culpa!).

Have we ever been above 300 before??

I stand corrected... I had thought several commentaries in the last year had broke 300..

Friday Talking Points [387] -- Fighting Or Following?
321

But that's the only one I could find going back to 2011...

I limited my search to FTP as those are the ones that usually generate the most comments...

I found one FTP that had FOUR comments!?? Wha??? Was I in a coma or something???

Anyways, I was wrong. There has been only one commentary that generated 300+ comments...

Michale

Actually, the "worrisome" trend has continued..

When Obama is above water, I don't much look at the numbers, but rather the spread... Looking at the actual numbers is too depressing.. :D

At the beginning of the month, Obama's spread was at +6.1...

His spread now is at +3.1 and falling..

That doesn't bode well for Obama...

But on the other hand, things haven't been going to well for this country, so... who knows...

Michale

A Stargate SG-1 fan!! Woot!! :D

Welcome to the party, pal!!!
-John McClane, DIE HARD

:D

The President has always ha good numbers.

Shurley, you jest..

It's only recently that Obama has been out from underwater....

Michale

So, with that quip, are we to assume that you think Obama's numbers have always been higher than deserved?