Rasmussen has new data which I think shows the reason for the solid Obama performance; among voters who rate the economy the most important issue, he leads in Rasmussen by a 63-32 score. McCain leads by an even greater margin, 74-24, among those who believe national security is the greatest concern. As of now, though, 50% of voters cited the economy, while only 19% named security as their prime concern in the latest Rasmussen polling. The score on the economy is especially interesting given Rasmussen's GOP tilt in party weighting.
Perhaps more importantly, Rasmussen has a poll out this morning showing Obama with a three-point lead in traditionally red red red North Carolina. Between the economy and what some are (inexactly) calling a "reverse Bradley effect," but really just mean potentially strong African-American turnout in states with a high percentage of black residents (25% in NC vs 12.8% nationally), I'm not stunned to see this, though I don't know if it will hold. It's also worth noting, as few are, that much of NC's recent economic growth has been due to the increasing prominence of Charlotte as a regional, and now a national, banking center. This growth is primarily on the back of two firms, the former NationsBank (now Bank of America, but originally North Carolina National Bank) and, ominously, Wachovia. The collapse of the latter may put thousands of jobs at risk in the state, which could have the effect of moving more votes toward the candidate better viewed as economically sound.
Diageo has favorability ratings that I'm a lot more comfortable with than R2K's for the running mates, with Biden at +15 and Palin +5. Biden's favorables have moved up five points in the last week; his answers to the Supreme Court questions asked by Katie Couric, while perhaps a little on the academic side, may have helped; don't we sort of want someone who understands the issues, even when they're really really really hard ones?
Does Gallup Have A Weight Problem?
It occurred to me last night as I had a little bit of downtime in an otherwise crazed day of running around the city on an afternoon far more humid than October should have a right to be that while Gallup's internals for last week showed a huge edge, as expected, among younger voters, with small pluralities for all other age groups, 30-49 and 50-64 for Obama, and 65+ for McCain, that should have come out to greater than a 48-44 edge, so why didn't it? Well, there's one more bit of weighting we've never really discussed, weighting by age. Many pollsters will use age group weightings based on the last presidential election and extrapolate to the current one. If you use those weightings from 2004, I believe you actually come out with about 49% for Obama, which would jibe with Gallup's numbers, given that these tallies are for the Sep 22-28 timeframe. Here's the potential problem. In 2004, only 17% of presidential voters were under 30. In 2008, given the Obama campaign's massive voter registration drives, it's safe to assume that figure will be markedly higher. As Gallup showed 18-29 year old voters in last week's numbers supporting Obama by a massive 59%-38% margin, there may be a measurable undercounting of Obama support in Gallup's polling.
The Quinnipiac polls I referenced yesterday are getting an awful lot of play in the news today (yes, you heard it here first!), which actually makes me a little nervous, because I'm guessing there was significant sample error and Q's track record is modest at best.
Was Diana Ross On The Supreme Court?
The rumored Katie Couric question to the two running mates about Supreme Court decisions is now readily available and it's not quite as bad for Gov. Palin as some had been suggesting, except where it's worse (just not as funny). It still shows her as being essentially ignorant of the Court and its history, even where it has a direct impact on her current job as governor of Alaska. The issue here is that this is a person who, if she has to step into the Presidency, will be responsible for naming Supreme Court justices, so the public should probably not give any candidate for high office a pass on this. When the two were asked about Roe v. Wade, Sen. Biden was able to explain the decision and its ramifications in some detail, bringing in the idea that the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees a right to privacy despite not being specifically enumerated and how he has argued that point with some conservative scholars who disagree (you may recall this was the rock on which the good ship Robert Bork foundered twenty-odd years ago), Palin painted with a broad brush (paraphrasing, but using her words, "it's bad because i believe in a culture of life and states should decide because I'm a Federalist"--ok, notwithstanding the fact that the original Federalists stood for a large, powerful central government and few states' rights, not the opposite, Roe does not say that all the power of the abortion decision rests with the federal government or, heaven forfend, the woman. Also, if you're running for Vice President, your understanding of Federalism should go back past Ronald Reagan's "New Federalism" of the 1980s.).
When asked to describe not just any other Supreme Court case, but one with which the candidates disagreed, Biden talked about the court reversing part of the Violence Against Women act which he authored, the concept that a battered woman should be able to sue her abuser in federal court, which the Supreme Court shot down on the grounds that there is no federal jurisdiction. Palin reverted to generalities and was unable to name another court case, though she did state that she believed in a right to privacy, which may surprise some of her backers on the right. Ma'am in 2008, you're on safe ground saying you disagree with Plessy v. Ferguson. Dred Scott v. Sandford? OK, how about Exxon v. Baker, which reduced by 80% the award to victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, those victims being (drum roll please) 32,000 Alaska natives, landowners, and commercial fishermen. Oh, and this case was decided in late June, only three months ago. OK, maybe she actually did worse than people thought, not better, but it was in more meaningful ways, not the obvious ones that make for snide humor.
If you want to see it, try here.... http://www.cbs.com/thunder/player/thunder.php?pid=kmbZJiBysEZaxIgmdRiNHdo6IMUVVQB6 .
Applesauce with that Pork, Senator?
Well, The Bill (TM) passed the Senate by a significant margin, 75-24. Why? 1) Senators have six year terms, so are not in perpetual campaign mode. 2) Extra spending was tacked on to make it acceptable to (wait for this, Reaganites) Republicans who, suitably if modestly bribed, fell into line. 3) Senators have six year terms, so are not in perpetual campaign mode.
House Arrest
So what happens now in the game of hide-and-seek the House has been playing? Easy. They vote for the bill after they voted against it, telling their constituencies, who they've made oppose the bill by misrepresenting it as a bailout for hedge fund managers and investment bankers, that they voted down that bad, bad, BAD piece of legislation but after their principled stand, were able to vote for a significantly (ahem) revised bill, gagging all the way but prepared to do what's best for the good of the country. Yep. Excuse me, after typing that, before I finish the note all of a sudden I need another shower.
One--But Only One--Word On The Only Real Importance Of Tonight
OK, I'll say this and this alone about the debate, because I don't think it's really a comedy show, or that it will be as ridiculous and one-sided as a lot of people suggest. Ultimately the question comes down to whether the American public has dropped the idea of holding candidates for top office to a higher standard of knowledge, temperament, and integrity than themselves. If the people want to feel good about themselves, they can vote for someone no more qualified than they. Agree or disagree with his policies or temperament, it's hard to make the case that John McCain has not had sufficient background to be President. The foreign policy presidential debate showed many doubting Americans that Barack Obama has the same. Of Joe Biden there is also no doubt. Tonight may be Sarah Palin's last chance to step up. Responding to questions with an actual answer would be a good start.
Herbert Hoover Quote Of The Day, and we'll go wtih one that Gov. Palin could have used in her acceptance speech instead of the words of the appalling fascist, racist, anti-semite Westbrook Pegler,
I, with other Americans, have perhaps unduly resented the stream of criticism of American life... more particularly have I resented the sneers at Main Street. For I have known that in the cottages that lay behind the street rested the strength of our national character.
No comments:
Post a Comment