O'Reilly, the pollmeister...

I really don't often pay much heed to Mr. O'Reilly, but in looking at some recent polling data, I took note that he seems much more interested in polls than he did a mere six to ten months ago. Here's Bill's talking points memo from March 16th, entitled "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy fires up."

Writing in The Wall Street Journal Friday, Scott Rasmussen — perhaps the most accurate pollster in America — reported that President Obama's job approval rating has now slipped below that of President Bush back in March 2001.

Perhaps the most accurate pollster, well maybe, but maybe not? (Nice attempt to build credibility, Bill). Also note, that O'Reilly doesn't mention the actual approval rating, because you would think he would then have to admit that a 62% approval rating during an economic recession isn't half bad. Or, one would think. But yesterday's talking points memo proves me wrong. Bill fires out that Obama's approval rating has slipped to 58%. He then postulates with such wisdom as to why Obama is suffering such declining ratings. What could it be? Left-wing, Eurocratic socialism fears, of course...

Writing in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, the former prime minister of Denmark says:

"In Europe, we have been protected from the worst effects of the [economic] crisis thanks to welfare states built up over the past 60 years to cushion citizens from the threats posed by the free market. We can all count on state health care, social housing, education, unemployment support and other universal, tax-funded services. The simplistic dictum of more markets and less government championed by Reagan, Thatcher and their ideological heirs has failed on a momentous scale. I am hopeful that the G20 will make progress. We must keep up the pressure by demanding a globalization that works for everyone and forge new alliances and new lines of communication across national boundaries. We must develop new, progressive ways to achieve global justice."

Well, Karl Marx could not have said it better.

Well, Bill, I have to agree that Marx likely couldn't have said it better. However, I'm not sure Marx would make any of those statements, sans perhaps a tangential reference to justice. The equating of a modern democratic welfare state to something Marx would endorse is quite assinine, as the last I checked Denmark still has a pretty thriving private enterprise, with a quite happy populace.

Under any circumstance, you know O'Reilly is working with some weak sauce when he tries to lambast the President for having a plus minus of 26 in approval ratings... Given the number of Glen Beck's, Lou Dobbs, and O'Reilly's out there preaching and fear-mongering against global governance, I'm quite pleasantly suprised in the ability of the American populace, at large, to realize many of our current problems will require global solutions and/or cooperation.

Now, I'm not a profesional pollster, but I believe when a President's polling data looks like this:


and the public's view of the economy looks like this:



Somebody must believe that we are heading in the right direction... Oh wait, here are some polls showing that's the case. I know that polls are everything, but by jesus, I get tired of someone using polling data as a weapon, when in fact, the polls are fundamentally juxtaposed against their ideological predispositions.

Coast to Coast...

Obama is bringing the most. Well, almost coast to coast anyway. According to Pollster (and others), the race in North Dakota is entering toss up status and Montana has moved from Safe to Leans Republican. Needless to say if Obama wins either of these states, McCain will lose. I am honestly shocked that a Donkey could carry an (almost) linked chain of states from coast to coast. Of course, this will stay almost because Idaho ain't likely to change and that 44 mile strip of land will likely stay deep red. Also of note with regard to electoral math is that Obama is starting to hit 400 electoral votes with more and more regularity. 400 is a number not seen by a Dem since '64, with the closest being Clinton's 1996 election with 379.

A blue Indiana...

A blue Indiana is something I honestly didn't believe was possible without Bayh on the ticket. According to a lot of recent polling and trend data, however,Indiana is in play. Most camps/sites/experts till place Indiana in the Leans Republican column, which makes sense given the systematic and institutional nature of supporting the GOP presidential candidate in the state. However, the news on the ground is telling more and more stories like this one about Lafayette from the 538ers.

It seems to me that the McCain camp took for granted that Indiana was died in the wool red and in doing so never created the campaign structure that is needed towards the end of a race to close the deal with fence voters. Obama has an impressive campaign organization on the ground, and given the 29 days remaining may just be able to make Indiana interesting. It is an impressive feat in and of itself to even be talking about putting the Hoosier state in play, given it broke 1.5M to 950K in '04. To win, Obama will need to increase the Kerry splits in Lake, Marion and Monroe counties, as well as significantly eat into the huge Bush numbers in the seven donut counties around Indy. Those seven counties broke at above 63% in 2004. If Obama can carry Lake at close to 70%, Monroe and Marion at 65% and bring the donuts down to 53-55% he just might have a shot. Under any circumstance, I'm definatley excited about this race, and if nothing else I can watch to see if Daviess County can overtake Kosciusko for the most Republican in the state*.


I actually have trouble believing there are actually 2,500 people who voted for Kerry in Daviess County.

And down the backstretch we come...

The 2008 election is moving down the backstretch and into turn three, with Obama maintaining a 2-3 point average lead in the polls. This number, often quoted, seems a little silly to me, considering the fact that we award electoral votes on a state by state all or nothing (at least mostly) basis. The more significant number is 264, which according to pollster.com is the current electoral votes from states in which Obama has a quantifiable lead. This means that Obama would only need six additional e-votes to take the prize, which given the resource depth of the campaign should be doable. I personally think Colorado is going to be a bellwether state...

This portion of the campaign tends to really bore me, given the disproportionate amount of media coverage of the VP "race." The NYT offers an example of this type of coverage in a piece related to both candidates potential VP selections. I admit to some armchair punditry on the issue (I'm feeling Bayh and Pawlenty), but am amazed that the media covers claptrap from pundits on the issue, as if it were news...

Some Republicans said that Mr. McCain could still choose Mr. Ridge and get around the problem with social conservatives by assuring them that the vice-presidential candidate would support the position of the presidential candidate and the party, no matter his personal views.

Such a formulation would be unlikely to satisfy Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host and longtime McCain nemesis, who on Tuesday sounded a siren for his listeners. “If he picks a pro-choice running mate, it’s not going to be pretty,” Mr. Limbaugh warned, adding that Mr. McCain would have “effectively destroyed the Republican Party and pushed the conservative movement into the bleachers.”

I have to question the intelligence (not the first time) of Mr. Limbaugh on this issue. Is it really possible to "destroy" the Republican Party by nominating a somewhat pro-choice candidate as VP? Or, is it more likely that the GOP could begin it's migration into the 21st century of acceptance of the rights of others not to be coerced into the action deemed appropriate by those in power.... Well, maybe that logic would destroy the GOP.

Obama and McCain in the polls...

It appears that Obama is opening a bit of room between himself and McCain in national polls. It is, of course, incredibly early in the process - but I believe this if Obama can get an initial 8 point advantage or so, he can really force the McCain camp to push money out the door at a rate much quicker than they would like at this stage in the process. I know that Obama has taken a significant amount of heat for opting out of the public financing, but that additional cash will surely be helpful in keeping McCain's feet to the fire.

Of particular note on the state by state polling, is that Obama seems to be leading and/or improving in many battleground states such as, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida. he is even close in Indiana currently, which I will admit is based on far to few polls to hold much water, but still -- Indiana? That has to be considered fairly bad news for the McCain camp.

Can Clinton bring her supporters to Obama???

Clinton's new "job" is to bring voters to Obama. I do believe that vast majority of Clinton's supporters will end up supporting Obama in November, but I am admittedly suprised to see the vitriol and anger that is still ruminating in many of the Clinton backers portion of the Democratic Party.* If you take a peek at the comments section from my last post, you too can see some of the lunacy and anger that is permeating through these former supporter's minds. I don't think I will be spending much more time discussing this topic, as - so they say - it is water under the bridge. It was interesting to note that AM Donkey apparently has a direct pipeline to the 17% who say they will vote for McCain.

In a CNN poll released Friday, 60 percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for Obama, but 17 percent said they would vote for McCain and 22 percent, said they would not vote at all if Clinton were not the nominee.

Additionally, I think the odds of Obama choosing Clinton as the VP just went up, because everyone knows that whatever Jimmy Carter says, the Democratic establishment will renounce and undermine.

But not everyone is behind the idea of a joint ticket. Former President Jimmy Carter said that would be "the worst mistake that could be made."

The odds improving does not, however, make her the odds on favorite. According to bodog.com, that lovely spot belongs to Jim Webb. Though, I'm looking at Wes Clark myself.

* Of note, when referencing the party it is the Democratic party not the democrat party. This is a point of information for a couple of the denser commenters from the last post.

McCain and Obama neck and neck

So, we can finally start talking about the general election, which is probably pointless... but at least it isn't Clinton/Obama anymore. It looks like Obama leads 49-46 at this point. I would think that those numbers are scary to the McCain campaign. You would think that there are quite a few disaffected and disninterested normally Democratic voters, who are either not participating in the poll, or hell, may be claiming that they would prefer McCain to Obama. I really hope that the Clinton speech tomorrow is somehow unifying, but I doubt it. I don't think I've seen her be charismatic in years (if ever).

In other news, Big Brown is taking to the track looking to be the first triple crown winner in 30 years tomorrow afternoon. I won't be watching, which is unfortunate, but I anticipate Big Brown driving it home. If he does win, he will not only break the streak, but may also be the most uninspiring triple crown winner in history.

Age ain't nothing but a number...

Ken, over at Mel-Anon, offers up a solid question regarding why the mainstream media isn't covering the voting trends of the different age brackets in the Democratic primaries/caucuses. Ken points to significant differentials in the polling data that exemplify this trend. To quote at length...

Exit poll data shows that Obama does consistently better among the youth vote regardless of race, class, or gender. In Indiana, which Clinton won by a scant two points, Obama won among voters aged 17-29 by a 22-point margin. Clinton won among white voters as a whole by 18 points, but lost under-30 white voters 54-46. The MSNBC poll does not break down age by gender, and there are frequently not enough black and Latino voters to register representative samples. In Texas, Obama nearly broke even with Latino voters under-30 while losing the overall Latino vote handily, though in California his results were similar through all age brackets.

Likewise, Clinton has been sweeping up the over-65 vote by large margins in virtually every state. In Indiana, she won this group by 40 points, and it rarely breaks less. In North Carolina, she lost the overall vote by 15, but still carried the loyal elderly 57-41.

This data may indeed seem academic to some, but in the world of cross tabulation exercises, these splits pretty much assure that there is something significant happening here. I believe the media is treating this issue tenderly because they know that it's impossible to get it "right" from the marketing/advertising perspective. If you are a newscaster/host you know that the tried and true 65 and over demographic is a core base of you paycheck, but yet that ever alluring 18-29 crowd is calling your name... Is it possible to draw them into the "system" whereby they can tune in every Sunday morning (if they can get their lazy asses up) to watch some talking heads (some are bigger than others) blabber on about the talking points? Who do you alienate? The obvious business choice is neither, by ignoring the issue.

Generational change and conflict is at the crux of the American (and probably all) civilization. The young rebel against the old, seeking to simultaneously react and revolt against the wrongs perpetuated by their elders. The significant thing about the current revolt is that the young folks seem to be more directly engaged in the process than in the past, and are willing to exert their power through the more traditional means of organizing and voting. This is both inspiring and depressing at the same time, as one sees hope in the engaged young population and yet we are left to decry the days gone by of less conventional means of change (i.e. real protests). Of course, the extreme adversarialism promoted by the Boomers against their parents didn't exactly work out well. The one thing that I am confident in is that the Obama campaign has mobilized the young folks in a way that most political scientists would have not thought possible. So, to those in the Boomer cohort, I suggest you prepare to give up some of that influence...

Whether or not one sees Obama as an agent of genuine change, he is nonetheless an avatar for the battle between aging Boomers clinging to one more banzai run at saving their legacy and post Gen-Xers staking their own claims to a vision of which direction the country should go.

Well said, my friend, well said.

And the survey says...

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll from late April (partially available at pollingreport.com), 60% of respondents stated that the increase in gas prices have caused some financial hardship in their lives. Of particular note here, is the fact that this is down 12% from the 72% who responded in the affirmative to this question in March. This doesn't make much sense to me, unless if the coverage in March focused on the issue more, and therefore informed consumers to be worried little folks during that time... Of course, this is entails taking a rather negative view of the ability of the populace to fully weigh the realities of higher priced oil to their own lives. Or, maybe folks were comforted knowing the $1,200 was in the mail.

Of more interest to me is the fact that 78% of respondents think it is likely that they will pay $5 a gallon for gas at some point this year. Even more astonishing is that 44% think it is very likely to occur. I have to admit that this view is even more pessimistic than I am on energy prices, as I would peg it to top around $4.40 a gallon in mid to late summer. Additionally, five out of six respondents think oil companies are making too much profit, while 13% feel it is a reasonable profit. This poll also shows us that 3% of the respondents have some vested interest in oil, or so I would venture, given that this is the percentage that claimed oil companies were not making enough of a profit!!! For real?

Gas Tax Holiday, it's great - Hillary promises...

Despite the results of a recent CBS News / New York Times poll showing that more people feel the gas tax holiday is a bad idea than good, Hillary is apparently taking Obama to the mat on this issue.

"What has happened to Barack Obama?" an announcer states in the new 30 second spot, among the campaign's most bruising to date.

"He is attacking Hillary’s plan to give you a break on gas prices because he doesn’t have one," the ad's announcer also says.

It is possible that the "announcer"* is correct and Obama is attacking Hillary's plan because he wasn't smart enough to think up such a silly proposal, but it may be more likely that he is attacking the plan because, well, it's just kind of stupid. It makes absolutely no sense to incentivize more oil consumption, thus maintaining heightened demand on our infrastructure, while at the same time failing to provide the adequate resources for maintaining this infrastructure. I guess the most suprising thing to me about this proposal and subsequent attack based upon it, is twofold. First, it suprises me that a Clinton would try to create a wedge issue out of something that apparently is a split in opinion polling. This makes sense only if you plan to beef up the assualt on the issue by shamelessly appealing to pie in the sky policies, whereby regular ole folks get cash in their pocket and we just take the cash from those big bad oil companies. The second big suprise is that the Clinton camp would willingly follow a McCain generated proposal. You would think that you couldn't mimick Republican policy proposals and still claim to be the true reformer.

* Don't you ever wonder who these announcers are? What must it feel like to be the person selected for having a creepy, frightening and negative voice?