SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sarah Palin For President 2012 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (557)9/17/2008 7:48:35 PM
From: calgal1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1832
 
McCain has the advantage over Obama in post-convention polls

By Michael Barone









jewishworldreview.com | The post-convention national polls mostly show John McCain with a small lead over Barack Obama. But what's been happening in the states? I've been looking at the post-convention state polls at Real Clear Politics, pollster.com, and fivethirtyeight.com and find some significant differences from pre-convention polls. They tend to suggest that the battlefield is shifting, with more states within McCain's reach and fewer within Obama's.

Some caution is in order: We're talking about only one or two polls in some states but as many as eight in ultracritical Ohio. I haven't included the Zogby Internet polls in my analysis. I've rounded off the averages in each state to full percentages (and rounded 0.5s downwards for both candidates), and I'm reporting the difference between the McCain percentage and Obama percentage. Here's my analysis:

The big industrial states. Michigan and Pennsylvania are Obama +2, Ohio is McCain +3. In each case, McCain is 1 point better than Bush's final percentage against Kerry in each state. An old rule of American politics is that economic distress moves voters toward Democrats. Michigan, Ohio, and western Pennsylvania are in economic distress. But they haven't moved toward the Democratic nominee, as compared with 2004. The old rule isn't operating. Here's another possible rule. When voters see that tax increases aren't producing a better economy, they don't move toward a Democratic nominee who is proposing higher taxes, even though he says they'll hit only the rich. In Michigan, the Democrats (with a few turncoat Republicans) raised taxes in 2007; in Ohio, the Republicans (with some Democratic support) raised taxes before 2006. Those tax increases haven't helped those states' economies, not so as you'd notice, though they've helped members of public employees unions. McCain was running much worse than this in pre-convention polls in Pennsylvania and somewhat worse in Michigan. His convention bounce gives him a good chance to win the electoral votes of Pennsylvania (21) and Michigan (17), while leaving him in pretty good shape in Ohio (20).

The new marginals. Obama has been running consistently better than John Kerry or Al Gore in Colorado and Virginia, states that have had comparatively vibrant economies and have also seen influxes of young voters, who tend to be heavily pro-Obama. Just look at all those singles rental apartments and loft-like condos in Arlington and Alexandria and LoDo in Denver. Colorado comes out of the conventions as +1 Obama, Virginia as +1 McCain. In both cases, the average is depressed by one poll that shows the state going the other way. Colorado (9 electoral votes) and Virginia (13) are still very hotly contested ground.

The northern tier. The Obama campaign had hoped to be competitive in some northern tier states: the Dakotas, Montana, and Alaska. Pre-convention polls provided some reasonable basis for this hope. Post-convention polls don't. Alaska, unsurprisingly, is McCain-Palin +27. Montana is McCain +11, North Dakota McCain +14, South Dakota +17. More importantly, Minnesota is just Obama +1, Wisconsin Obama +3, Washington Obama +4, Oregon Obama +7. So scratch 12 electoral votes as plausible Obama targets and add 38 electoral votes as plausible McCain targets (or, excluding Oregon, 31 electoral votes). This is a big change, and it remains to be seen if later polls will show these states to be as close as the relatively few polls we've seen so far do.

The western odd ducks. Nevada is McCain +2. New Mexico, in a shift from pre-convention polls, is McCain +2 (but that's only one poll). These states were seriously contested in 2000 and 2004 and look to be again in 2008.

The South. Florida is McCain +5; it was Bush +5 in 2004. North Carolina is McCain +11; it was Bush +12 in 2004 (despite the presence on the Democratic ticket of the now happily forgotten John Edwards). But two North Carolina polls show McCain way ahead (+17 and +20); two others show him, as did most pre-convention polls, narrowly ahead (+3 and +4). I have more respect for the polling firms showing the big McCain margins, but this state still bears watching. Georgia, where Obama has sent scads of organizers, is McCain +16.

The Northeast. One poll shows New Hampshire Obama +6 (Zogby Interactive has McCain ahead there): inconclusive. Three polls show New Jersey as Obama +6; it was Kerry +7 in 2004. Astonishingly, one poll shows New York as Obama +5, but this is Siena, which seems to have a lot more undecideds than other New York polls, which have shown Obama well above 50 percent. The New Jersey and New York numbers may tempt the McCain campaign to start advertising on New York City media. I suspect this is a temptation that will and should be resisted, for the time being.

There are a lot of states with no post-convention polls, including interesting ones like Indiana and (if only because of its 55 electoral votes) California. My overall conclusion is that the playing field has shifted in favor of McCain. He seems competitive now, where he arguably wasn't before the conventions, in Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Washington (11), and maybe Oregon (7): a total of 59 electoral votes, all carried by John Kerry and Al Gore. Obama no longer seems competitive in North Dakota (3), Montana (3), and Alaska (3): a total of 9 electoral votes.

Or to look at it another way, from Bush's 2004 electoral vote total of 286, you now have to subtract Iowa (7), which is Obama +12 in the latest Des Moines Register poll, and maybe Colorado (9), Virginia (13), and New Mexico (5), which gets the Republican total down to 252. Or to 247, if you include Nevada (5). But in the northern tier there are 63 more electoral votes within reasonable reach of McCain in the northern tier and New Hampshire. And maybe he wants to start looking at New Jersey (15). I see Obama as competitive or leading in states with 338 electoral votes (granting him the 27 in Florida, which looks to me increasingly unlikely). I see McCain as competitive or leading in states with 342 electoral votes. Advantage shifting toward McCain.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

BARONE'S LATEST
The New Americans

Now, more than ever, the melting pot must be used to keep America great. Barone attacks multiculturalism and anti-American apologists--but he also rejects proposals for building a wall to keep immigrants out, or rounding up millions of illegals to send back home. Rather, the melting pot must be allowed to work (as it has for centuries) to teach new Americans the values, history, and unique spirit of America so they, too, can enjoy the American dream.. Sales help fund JWR.


JWR contributor Michael Barone is a columnist at U.S. News & World Report. Comment by clicking here.

Michael Barone Archives

© 2006, US News & World Report



To: calgal who wrote (557)9/17/2008 7:48:55 PM
From: calgal1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1832
 
The conservative elites attack!

By Laura Ingraham








jewishworldreview.com | In Tuesday's New York Times, David Brooks launches a critique of Sarah Palin, essentially concluding that her populist appeal is dangerous and ill-conceived. He yearns for the day when "conservatism was once a frankly elitist movement," one that stressed "classical education, hard-earned knowledge, experience, and prudence." Brooks, like a handful of other conservative intellectuals, believes Palin "compensates for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."

Well, at the risk of appearing brash, let me say that I am glad to see my old friend finally pushed to the point where he has to make an overt defense of elitism, after years of demonstrating covert support for elitism. We conservatives who believe Governor Palin represents a solid vice-presidential pick should be extremely comfortable engaging this issue.

Brooks's main argument against Palin is that she lacks the type of experience and historical understanding that led President Bush to a 26 percent approval rating in his final months in office. Yet the notion that the Bush Administration got into trouble because it didn't have enough "experience" is absurd. George W. Bush was governor of Texas for six years. His father was president. His primary advisors on matters of foreign policy were Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell. In 2000, it could hardly have been possible to find a more experienced team to head up a GOP administration. Brooks's notion that the Bush Administration was "the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice" is simply ludicrous. Does anyone believe that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld count as "anti-establishment"?

Of course, we could also consider the Nixon Administration. Who had more experience than Richard Nixon? How'd that work out? What about George H.W. Bush? How did his administration do? What about Herbert Hoover — who had vast experience both in terms of dealing with foreign countries during World War I and in terms of dealing with the U.S. economy as secretary of Commerce? How did he do? The truth is that Brooks's basic claim — that experienced leaders are necessarily better than inexperienced leaders — simply doesn't hold water.

Now let's look at the broader issue of elitism versus populism. For Brooks to be right, his elites have to make better policy judgments than average Americans. But he overlooks the fact that in America we have a particularly bad elite, an elite that holds most Americans in contempt and has no sympathy for the history and traditions that make us great. And that elite has been wrong on issue after issue for most of the last 40 years. Who was more right about the Soviet Union, the elites or the people? Who was more right about the need to cut taxes in the 1970s, the elites or the people? Who was more right about the need to get tough on crime, the elites in black robes with life tenure, or the folks cheering for Dirty Harry? Who would Brooks trust to decide critical issues regarding the War on Terror today, the voters or the inside-the-Beltway types who lose sleep over tough interrogation tactics? Elites — particularly our American elite — are much more likely to go for the latest fad, for seek to apply whatever notion is currently trendy in the salons of Europe. To find true Burkean conservatism in this country — to find citizens who are both respectful of our country's traditions and anxious to see our country remain a world leader — you have to turn to the voters.

The truth is that it is no longer possible to govern this country through a conservative elite. We have a radical elite, an elite that believes in climate change, gay marriage, unrestricted abortions, and the United Nations. We have an elite that intends to make massive, liberal changes to every aspect of American life. This elite ruins almost everything it touches — from the schools, to the media, to the universities. Giving more power to the elites means watching the United States become more and more like Europe.

Populism rests on two great insights. First, it understands that the people (taken as a whole) are often wiser and more prudent than the elites. Average people are almost always respectful of tradition, while elites tend to act like an angry mob trying to tear down the old idols. Second, populism understands that it's not enough to actually have the right policy ideas, you have to have the will to take on the elites who will try to prevent those ideas from going into place. In order to get anything accomplished, the GOP is going to have to use public opinion to override the objections of liberals, including liberals in the media.

Does Sarah Palin have the political skills to successfully govern this country from a populist perspective? It's far too early to say. She is certainly the most promising such figure to come along since the elites were denouncing Ronald Reagan. And therefore we should all wish her well. It is silly to criticize her at this early stage until we know a lot more about her abilities as a leader. I am glad to say that her instincts appear to be sound.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Laura Ingraham hosts a nationally syndicated talk show. Comment by clicking here.

Laura Ingraham Archives

© 2008, Laura Ingraham