Yesterday Josh published a post which suggested that the changes in the TPM Tracker were mostly noise. I suspected that there was more to it than that, and decided to plot the numbers against events on a graph. The graph represents the TPM Tracker over the past 6 weeks. Please note the black line running through the data points are trend lines. Using those lines, Obama's support increased from 48.4% to about 51.4%. During the same time, McCain's support dropped from 43.8% to about 43.2%.

A larger version of the image can be seen here. The first major events (reflected in the first blue panel) in this time frame that moved the numbers are the trio of 1) McCain's 'campaign suspension, the 2) first debate and 3) the slow release of the Couric-Palin interview. Obama's numbers jump from 47.5% to 49.9% a 1.4% increase. At the same time, McCain dropped from 45.5% to 43.5%.

The second major event is the VP debate. Obama's numbers rose from 49.5% to 50.5%. McCain suffered a fall of about 1% point.

The third event is the second debate. Obama's numbers improved about 0.5% point. McCain's remained unchanged.

There doesn't seem to be any effect for Obama from the third debate. McCain seems to have gained briefly after the debate.

The event that has created greatest single effect, so far, came after the Powell endorsement. Obama gained about 1.5% points. The effect lasted about 6 days.

Obama's infomercial has increased Obama's numbers by 1.5%. Obama suffered a 1.5% point drop after the glow of the Powell endorsement faded. The acute effects of all these events lasted approximately 5-6 days. IMO, the infomercial was well timed as it lifted Obama just before he fell too much and allows a possible peaking to fall on election day.

Let me know what you think.

Error

Is there a way to add images to a post? I noticed the insert image in the 'Create Entry' page. But when I click it, it tells me "no assets can be found."

Thanks.

PPP says 2/3 of Coloradans have casted their votes where Obama is winning by 10. In New Mexico, 55-60% of New Mexicans have voted. PPP has Obama ahead by 17 points.

Colorado has already processed 1.3 million ballots as of yesterday.  

Updated: Reformatted

In Friday's Washington Post, conservative columnist, Kathleen Parker, made the claim that McCain picked Palin because she is attractive. She wrote the following:

My husband called it first. Then, a brilliant, 75-year-old scholar and raconteur confessed to me over wine: "I'm sexually attracted to her. I don't care that she knows nothing."

... writer Robert Draper closed the file on the Sarah Palin mystery with a devastating article in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine: "The Making (and Remaking) of McCain."

McCain didn't know her. He didn't vet her. His campaign team had barely an impression. In a bar one night, Draper asked one of McCain's senior advisers: "Leaving aside her actual experience, do you know how informed Governor Palin is about the issues of the day?"

The adviser thought a moment and replied: "No, I don't know."

As Draper tells it, McCain took Palin to his favorite coffee-drinking spot down by a creek and a sycamore tree. They talked for more than an hour, and, as Napoleon whispered to Josephine, Voila. Blame the sycamore tree. .. One does not have to be a psychoanalyst to reckon that McCain was smitten.

She has that effect. I notice it during her convention speech, on myself. Obviously I'm not the only one. I found her very appealing, and realized that many men and women would react the same. If what she was saying was true, she was a tested version of Obama, someone who had already changed government in Alaska. As the days went by and I realized that much of her speech was bull, I was able to see the appeal for what it really was, that is, she's got lots of sex appeal.

During the third presidential debate, I noticed a unique trend in voter response during McCain's recitations of Palin's supposed accomplishments in Alaska. Near the bottom of the video there is a real time graph which represents the response of uncommitted voters to what McCain is saying. The graph is broken into two line representing male and female responses.
 

Notice the response by gender. I suspect many women are well aware of the Palin appeal and how she uses it to manipulate men.

According to a Canadian study beautiful women clouds men's judgment. Sure we know that, but I am taken aback by how it can happen on such a grand scale. 

The Canadian psychologists showed pictures of attractive and not-so attractive men and women to students of the opposite sex. The students were offered a prize -- either a small check for the next day or a larger check at some later date.

The men made perfectly rational decisions, opting for the delayed larger amount after viewing the average-looking women. You know where this is going.

(Women, by the way, were rational no matter what.)

That men are at a disadvantage when attractive women are present is a fact upon which women have banked for centuries. Ignoring it now profits only fools. McCain spokesmen have said that he was attracted to Palin's maverickness, that she reminded him of himself.

Recognizing oneself in a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, as the case may be) is a powerful invitation to bonding. Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in the river, imagining it to be his deceased and beloved sister's. In McCain's case, it doesn't hurt that his reflection is spiked with feminine approval.

It probably explains to a large extent Palin's success in Alaska. How we men are so easily duped. Somehow I think most women know what's going on. Anyone notice all the accessories talk going on at Palin's rallies lately?

Just a test.

Didn't she increase taxes on the oil companies and give part of the money to Alaskans?

Palin's windfall tax will fund a $1,200 "rebate" that Alaska will give to every eligible man, woman and child in Alaska, to help offset soaring fuel prices. That money will be dispersed as part of larger, $3,269 check that Alaskans will receive that was paid for by state taxes on oil companies - a family of four will receive a check for $13,076. The fuel rebates will cost the state $750 million.

In October 2007 Palin rolled out a tax increase plan on oil companies operating in Alaska, including a windfall profits tax. Palin's plan, called the "Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share" (ACES) plan, was approved by the state Legislature and includes:

• Raising the state's current net profits tax on North Slope oil from a 22.5% to 25.0% base.
• A "progressive" windfall profits tax: When oil prices rise above about $50 a barrel, the tax rate increases by 0.2% for each additional dollar a barrel.

Palin said, "The state of Alaska is currently the largest investor on the North Slope, having paid for 50 percent of all investments in 2007. Yet our share of net revenue, including royalties, property and corporate income tax, was about 40 percent. The "equitable share" component in ACES narrows this gap..."

I don't know. Sounds like socialism to me.