Diageo has taken a sharp drop since the firm unaccountably closed up their Party ID weightings to a two point Democratic edge; if normally GOP-friendly Rasmussen is slowly widening its self-identification lead (to six this week) as congressional races widen, to do the opposite implies either you really feel you're on to something the rest of the country is missing or you're just trying to be an outlier. Diageo's change in weighting shows in their topical questions, where, in the only poll I've seen, Obama and McCain are tied on the economy. In "preparedness to lead," Obama has dropped three points since the weightings changed as well. If Diageo has a good reason for their change in weighting , they should explain it, otherwise it's probably questionable scientifically.
It's Alright Ma, It's Only Zogby
Speaking of just trying to be an outlier, there's a new Zogby poll which was brought to our attention, with the excellent question as to whether or not it implies a tightening of the race, showing just a two point Obama lead. First of all, we tend to discount the importance of Zogby polls whomever they support (how's that 311-213 John Kerry victory working out for you?) by, oh, roughly 100%. Well, they didn't give internals (and in fact, being Zogby, I wouldn't be prepared to put money on the idea that there are internals), but they did give the margins of victory for Democrats, Republicans and Independents, who favor Obama by nine points in this survey. Making a few basic assumptions in line with averages for other polls and taking that 11 point independent lead, the only way one could come to a two point Obama edge is to weight Republicans and Democrats exactly equally. If any of you really feel that's an accurate assessment of the national mood here in 1974--um, 2008, once again, tell me why, and a big scoop of strawberry shortcake ice cream is all yours.
Debate Polling Shows--To My Surprise--A Substantial Obama Victory. I Was Bored.
In the polling, CBS put Obama first, Undecided second, and McCain third; incumbent President William Howard Taft managed to finish third in a whole election in 1912, so I wouldn't be so concerned about coming in eight points behind "none of the above." The poll was of undecided voters, a third of them were also undecided as to who won the debate, and the debate only made 27% of them decide who to vote for (Obama 15, McCain 12). This argues that there are still a great many undecided voters to be fought for, and that Sen. Obama needs to find a way to convince them not to take what many will ultimately consider the safe option. The bright spot for Obama there is that 42% of those uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama changed for the better, while only 13% changed for the worse, while Sen. McCain's image improved by a much smaller margin, 32 up vs 16 down. The results of the CNN poll were more striking, with Obama winning by a 54-30 margin.
Senator, Independent Voters Suggest That Guy Kicked Your Narrow Ass Back To The Land Without A MLK Holiday
Subjectively, though, this was a weird little debatelet, wasn't it? Sen. McCain appeared to forget the names of two people who asked him questions (were they, wholly coincidentally, the only two African-Americans to ask one? Oh, and did you know his opponent is, umm, black?), spoke patronizingly to one of those two (you may not want to suggest in the current economic environment to a homeowner, or anyone who reads the newspaper, that they've never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac), and left Gov. Palin's Joe Sixpack and shout-out in the dust by referring, for what seems to be the first time in debate history, to his opponent as "that guy." I had thought that aside from the bizarreness it was a tie score, feeling that Obama hadn't ever really wanted to go in for the kill, but rather remain above it all. Survey respondents at the time and just after agreed with the latter part but disagreed with me on the tie score thing, once again citing Sen. McCain's attitude and demeanor. I find when McCain is trying not to blow his stack he goes into a really strange sort of Jack Nicholson impression (more The Shining than Easy Rider in my opinion); but one friend got it exactly right when she sent me an instant message during the debate suggesting McCain's voice sounded the way I did when my jaws were wired shut for two weeks after radical facial surgery in 2001. That's about right, really--though once again, Independent and undecided survey respondents gave Obama a signficant edge in polls taken during and just afterwards.
Begins With A C
Many have noted that the terrorist meme was notably missing from McCain's own debate talking points; remind me what it is you call someone who won't attack you to your face but has someone else do it behind your back? Someone should read Sen. McCain his hero Theodore Roosevelt's "Man In The Arena" snippet; I know it pretty well by heart and I can tell you that it says little about sitting back and farming out your dirty work to another person, male or female.
Palin Around With Terrorists?
I wasn't going to go in this direction, but I'm still disgusted by what I saw yesterday at the Palin rally in Nuremb--uh, Clearwater yesterday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDMt7nBPFeY ) . I find it a little odd that Sarah Palin--who David Brooks, that flaming leftist, just called a "fatal cancer to the Republican party" --is suggesting over and over again that Sen. Obama is "pallin' around with terrorists" given her own connections with the avowedly America-hating Alaska Independence Party, but it gets worse. Let's talk about terrorists and how to know who is one. The first time most of America heard of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda was most likely in 1998 after the terrorist organization bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August and took credit for the blasts. Those of you who were alive ten years ago will doubtless remember that it was the main news topic for several weeks. Yet, in an interview John McCain gave in September1998, a month after the bombings, at least one Senator was unconvinced. The interview was in Mother Jones, but was remarkably balanced and in some areas even grudgingly admiring of Sen. McCain. You can see it here: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/11/vest.html or just read this bit. I wasn't going to do this, but the arrant hypocrisy of equating a presidential candidate with terrorists makes one wonder if the campaign doing the name calling knows what a terrorist is. The part after is interesting too, as the Senator equates the fight against terrorism with Vietnam.
Vest: You not only have had combat experience in Vietnam, but you were also a prisoner of war. When you look at terrorism right now, with people like Osama bin Laden,do you have any reservations about watching strikes like that? McCain: You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before. And where there is a parallel with Vietnam is: What's plan B? What do we do next? We sent our troops into Vietnam to protect the bases. Lyndon Johnson said, Only to protect the bases. Next thing you know....Well, we've declared to the terrorists that we're going to strike them wherever they live. That's fine. But what's next? That's where there might be some comparison.
In case you're still undecided, let me fill you in. Yes, Senator, he really is the bad guy that's depicted.
Mortgage Reform: Against It Before You're For It, Or Sarah Palin Is Accidentally Setting Policy
Interesting concept, and very appealing to the left, from Sen. McCain last night, about buying up bad mortgages and giving homeowners new ones at different values. Aside from the fact that this free-market deregulator has just called for government setting housing values (isn't that called a planned economy?), which is an idea so hideously bad any homeowner on this list should be doing a passable imitation of the subject of a famous Edvard Munch painting upon hearing it. Aside from the fact that that will cost approximately $300 billion more than the $850 billion the newly earmark-happy TARP could end up costing, it's also actually a more interventionist version of what Sarah Palin didn't really know wasn't McCain policy at the VP debate last week. The next morning the McCain campaign was in damage control mode, saying that resetting mortgage valuation was most assuredly not part of McCain policy. That was Friday. Four days later, the Senator himself comes up with a proposal far more radical, and in some ways inimical to free markets and private property itself. Now that the candidate himself has proposed this (and how do you set values of prices without consulting with buyers anyway?), it's no wonder the right is going absolutely bats over the surprise announcement. Unless, of course, Gov. Palin was in fact forming policy on the fly at the debate, and her embarrassing misstatement (and it's probably fair to call something an embarrassing misstatement when it is in fact the absolute opposite of your campaign's position) sounded so good to someone that five days later it's in the platform. Maybe that's the McCain Doctrine Tom Brokaw couldn't get him to articulate. His hero Ronald Reagan would be less than thrilled; come on, admit it, you are, too. We'll have more right wing response when their conniption fits stop, some time around the 2016 election. How peeved are they? Think Kay Bailey Hutchi\son when she heard Sarah Palin got the VP nod...
Incidentally, the Secret Service is now investigating the possible death threat against Obama at the Palin rally, after it appeared in the Washington Post ( http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/06/in_fla_palin_goes_for_the_roug.html).
OK, OK, I'll probably be a little less disgusted tomorrow. Well, probably not, but there are likely to be more jokes anyway.
John
Herbert Hoover Quote Of The Day
When there is a lack of honor in government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned.
No comments:
Post a Comment