I apologize for not posting this poll yesterday. Pew is a great poll because they’ve broken down the numbers in almost every sub group imaginable. It’s quite enlightening. Here’s the key part of the poll:

Daniel Larison has an excellent analysis of what these numbers mean:

A year ago, or even six months ago, I would never have thought that the more antiwar Democratic candidate would have a harder time shoring up the party base than one who voted for the war, but that is what the latest Pew survey shows happening with Obama.  Not only do Democratic defections nearly double in a McCain v. Obama race, but Obama loses a fifth of white Democrats to McCain, and he runs seventeen points behind Clinton among <$30K earners, reflecting continuing weakness with downscale voters.  He loses 17 points among the quarter of Democrats who want to stay in Iraq, despite the fact that his and Clinton’s positions on Iraq policy right now are virtually indistinguishable (apparently these people believe in Hillary’s insincerity enough to know that she won’t actually end the war), but he also loses five points compared to Clinton among those who want to bring our forces out of Iraq.  He draws slightly less support from liberals and slightly more from conservatives than Clinton, which is rather baffling.  Compared to Clinton, he also loses 14 points among Democratic women, which is a much larger figure of disgruntled women voters turning away from the Democrat and backing McCain than the three-point difference between Clinton and Obama among black Democratic voters.  The story of the Clintons’ permanently alienating black voters sounds good, but on the whole it doesn’t seem to be true.  Meanwhile, Obama’s nomination definitely appears to alienate a lot of Democratic women, who perhaps resent the “upstart” (as he called himself the other day) taking Hillary’s crown away from her.

Most remarkable of all is that Obama is weaker among Democrats in all age groups than Clinton.  He is four points weaker, and McCain five points stronger, among Democratic voters aged 18-49 than in a Clinton v. McCain race.  The losses are even greater among Democratic voters 50-64 and 65+.  Democratic defections increase across income groups as well.  Obama does much better in the younger age groups among independents, but if the Democratic numbers are any indication this seems to have less to do with age than with style.  Probably the same thing that makes Obama attractive to independents (he doesn’t always sound like a regular Democrat) is what is undermining him with Democratic voters.

What happens when these independent voters find that Obama is offering little more than rehashed liberalism and the “post-partisan” fantasy is revealed as just that?  Do they embrace the equally fabulous (i.e., made-up) media narrative about the “maverick” McCain, or do they look elsewhere (Nader!)?  As both Obama and McCain need to reassure disaffected constituencies, as this survey shows they do, does this not portend a widening of the partisan and ideological gap in this campaign as the nominees are forced to tack in opposite directions?

And those “Obamacans” we keep hearing about?  They do exist, making up 8% of Republicans (three points higher than Clinton), but they are hardly the stuff of historic realignment and they are outnumbered almost two-to-one by “McCainocrats.”

A Freudian slip or was McCain, for a moment, on the real Straight Talk Express, proudly touting himself as a conservative…relative to fellow liberal GOP Senators Specter, Snowe and Collins?

Let’s just hope SNL gets to have a field day with these occasional brain farts over the next four years.

Ohio: Though Obama has never led Clinton in the polls here, things are tightening. The demographics are more favorable to Clinton here than they were in Wisconsin, and I think she hangs on. It will likely not be by the margin she needs to make a serious comeback for the nomination. Four years ago John Edwards used the NAFTA issue in a similar way against John Kerry here, and it did not work for Edwards either. Kerry had not changed his mind on the subject as Clinton did, however.

• Clinton 53%
• Obama 46%

Rhode Island: While being primaried by a conservative Republican in the last election cycle, Senator Lincoln Chafee said on national television that he had never voted for a Democrat in his life.

Though he was dissatisfied with George W. Bush, he wrote in his father in the 2004 election, so he could hold true to his tradition of never voting for Democrats. His statement of never voting for Democrats was likely a cynical ploy to hold the votes of Republican partisans in his primary given that he has now said he is likely to vote for Barack Obama in Tuesday’s primary. Evidently John McCain is both too liberal for Rush Limbaugh and too conservative for Lincoln Chafee. Chafee’s opinion notwithstanding, Rhode Island is very similar to Massachusetts politically except it is more downscale and tailor-made for Hillary Clinton.

• Clinton 57%
• Obama 43%

Texas: Never kind to her husband in general elections, this may be the state that puts the nail in Hillary Clinton’s coffin. The polls are a statistical dead heat. There is talk of Hispanics being undersampled.

I don’t know whether there is truth to that. Some polling firms probably hire Hispanic telephone interviewers and others don’t. I don’t know how the automated polls handle that. Though the polls are close, the demographics of the state seem much more friendly to Clinton than Obama. She has won all but one of Texas’s border states, winning Oklahoma and Arkansas soundly, winning New Mexico barely, and losing Louisiana. Of this group of states, Louisiana is the one that least closely resembles Texas. I will predict Clinton wins Texas by the same numbers she won New Mexico. I have no idea how the delegate count will play out, but she needed to win Texas and Ohio by large margins to make a serious comeback. It is highly unlikely she will.

• Clinton 49%
• Obama 48%

Vermont: Barack Obama is probably a little too conservative for this state. They would be more comfortable with Dennis Kucinich I think, but they will have to settle with the choices they have. However, Bernie Sanders is able to win here, and Obama’s voting record is more liberal than Sanders, so he should be acceptable enough. He also has the endorsement of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream who have created a new flavor in his honor called Cherries for Change. I’ve never liked cherries anyway.

• Obama 64%
• Clinton 34%
• Gravel 2%

Looking further into my crystal ball, I do not see a Huckabee upset anywhere Tuesday. Also, two 2008 Presidential candidates have primary challengers in their Congressional districts Tuesday. Ron Paul is being challenged in his Texas district by a pro-war Republican. Kucinich is being challenged in his district by another Democrat who says Kucinich is spending too much time running for President and not enough time serving his district. I predict Paul hangs on and Kucinich loses. Good riddance!

Since Hillary’s campaign is basically done unless she can pull of miracle victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, I poured all my resources into the McCain vs. Obama map for this update.

The map is really beginning to fill in now — let’s take a look (colors are based on averages of the most recent state polls):

This represents a 50 EV shift from the 2004 map in favor of the Democrats so far, making the presumed totals Obama-302; McCain-216; Tie-20.

Check below the fold for polls used for each state.
(more…)

I don’t usually do policy, mainly because its not the focus of the blog, and because debates about policy tend to get nastier than debates about polling. But for those who like that kind of stuff, I highly recommend QandO as the best policy blog on the net (aside from, say, think tank blogs).

I especially recommend Jon Henke’s post today on Robert Kuttner’s latest call to arms in the American Prospect. As always it is an entertaining read, but it contains a very important nugget of truth. Kuttner has the usual smorgasbord of high-cost things government can spend on, and proposes paying for it with the following:

Reverting to the tax schedule of the pre-Bush code, but preserving the lower taxes on Americans with incomes under $200,000, could easily raise an additional $300 billion a year.

This just isn’t true, and it is one of the dirty little secrets that may or may not come out during the campaign.

Perhaps somebody should hook Robert Kuttner up with the Hillary Clinton campaign, which only estimated the additional revenue from “increasing high-end tax rates” at “$52 billion a year“. And perhaps somebody should hook Robert Kuttner and the Hillary Clinton campaign up with the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the revenue from “Rais[ing] the Top Two Ordinary Tax Rates” back to pre-Bush levels at $29 billion.

Repealing the estate tax repeal outright would bring in about $54 billion in revenues, though I understand even Democrats don’t want to outright repeal the repeal, and would still greatly increase the tax-exempt portions of estates. And finally, capital gains and dividend cuts would net another $25 billion, although this is one of the tax hikes where we could expect to see a significant reverse-supply side effect (no, I don’t believe tax cuts generally increase revenue or vice-versa, but there is almost certainly an effect that deviates from static scoring). Maybe there’s some other $200B big-ticket item hidden there, but I doubt it.

In other words, the money just isn’t there, at least not from soaking the rich. I’m pretty sure the $100B or so that would come from reversing the Bush tax cuts won’t cover universal health care, universal pre-K, increased student loan spending, green jobs initiatives, heading off the social security crisis, increased spending on infrastructure repair, much less “[c]onvert[] the low-wage jobs in the human service sector into good middle-class professional jobs.” To dream big, the Left is going to have to tax much bigger than they’re letting on.

Incidentally, I also have to question the premise that the big government dream has died — what country has Kuttner lived in the past seven years, when we’ve jacked up federal education spending, added a new health care entitlement, and generally spent like drunken sailors in such a way that it makes me long for the Clinton years? All in, government in the US spends about a third of what the country produces, roughly the same as it has for the past thirty years. The Code of Federal Regulations still covers a full seven-shelf bookshelf in my office. The last thirty years may have slowed the growth of government’s advance, but it hasn’t exactly been a return to the Gilded-Age-minarchist-utopia either.

Zogby has him up six. Last time Zogby projected a big Obama win, Hillary won by ten.

Actually, the California example is the one example that should worry Obama the most. Obama rode into Super Tuesday on a wave of momentum post-California, and had actually taken the lead in the RCP average in California. But pollsters missed a huge Hispanic turnout that broke heavily for Clinton.

I actually think that there is less for Obama to worry about here than may appear on the surface — after all, he appears to have made inroads among Hispanics since California, and overall has tightened up the nomination race. But if there is to be a single nagging doubt that Clinton may still carry the day, it has to be that the polling companies aren’t polling in Spanish, and in a relatively close Democratic primary, that could make a big difference.

Click here to find out.

My eyes just opened wider than when Michelle Obama told the whole truth concerning her lack of pride in America until her husband got white votes in Iowa.

My conservative black friends told me long ago of the taboo subjects in black America. I have seen Clarence Thomas and others attacked over same. John McWhorter outlines them best in his “Losing the Race.” But I have to admit I was shocked tonight, when…

On Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes just now, Michael Steele came to the defense of Black Americans who have worked with the nation’s number one racist “in the field” due to the “black” perspective as opposed to Sean Hannity’s “white” perspective.

Hannity challenged a black liberal democrat on the show to admit what the liberal democrat would think of Hannity if he continued to attend a church that honored David Duke like Obama’s church honors Farrakhan.

America, especially including those that propose to unify said America, lend me your ears: There is no legitimate perspective from which one could do anything but be repulsed by Louis Farrakhan.

This issue is on the order of Holocaust denial. The rise of Obama proves Shelby Steele’s conclusion that white racism is no longer a significant factor in America life, but…

Apparently, given that even republican Michael Steele is willing to give Obama a pass on his Hate America Church/Black nationalist, separatist church and his stuttering 30 sentences vague half ass denunciation of something-Farrakhan, there is a cancer on Black America.

Well, we are about to cut it out. The occasion of Obama’s inevitable nomination makes the long needed operation imminent. And while we operate on blacks, we will finally have that conversation on race that Bill Clinton so craved yet saw within 25 minutes of the convening of the conference that no honest dialogue could be had since any white getting too close to the truth would be deemed a racist.

I thought to myself the other day, who are the top ten known prominent racists in America. Farrakhan came to mind first. Slam dunk number one.

People, the politically correct police are on the beat, and they apparently have already mugged Michael Steele.

Barack Obama is a card carrying member of the cancer. He must not be given a pass.

More importantly, we must use this occasion to force the lid off the pathologies in the Black community, one of which reserves respect for Farrakhan.

This is a deep sickness. A sickness so deep in white and black America that my first dead-tree MSM column with the Charlotte Observer addressed the issue:

Now, what about Caucasians?

I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.

Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.

This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.

Face down the PC crowd

I don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.

King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.

Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.

That was mu admonition to whites. Well, now Blacks, you can’t use the guilt of whites to hide your cancer now. Barack wants his hand on the button.

Yet, despite the above, Michael Steele’s comments tonight shocked me, and I guess I learned only recently how bad the sickness is from a man that has been a lifelong republican. A black man who was shocked at the level of inferiority shown by a lifelong black woman that wrote a letter to me objecting to my column on The Jena One.

I am not going to reveal either’s identity.

The issue is crystallized by Michael Steele. He was honest. He gives the black nationalist portion of the black community a pass.

I won’t. I wouldn’t have given them a pass even if one that attends such a church for 20 years wasn’t running for the most powerful job on Earth and who pretends to want to unify the nation while he and his children get schooled in the opposite in comfy pews.

I won’t give Obama or anyone that turns a blind eye to racism and hate. Why? Because I hate racism and love humanity, and because I have a special love for Black people, Black Americans. I spent 18 years in the party that egged this bullS**t on. I feel I was an aider and abettor in the destruction of the black family and in this PC pathology that gives Farrakhan, FARRAKHAN DANMMIT!, a pass.

I will not be silent.

I called out white racists and those that stayed silent in the 70’s, and I am calling out the black racists and those that turn a blind eye now.

Michael Steele, you insulted black people tonight, suggesting that the history of blacks has created a different perspective from which to view the relationship of Black America with Farrakhan.

I am reminded of the different perspective of plantation owners on the issue of slavery.

The perspective of the GOP was founded on the moral bankruptcy of the latter, and it stands now on the moral bankruptcy for the substitution of Farrakhan for Simon LeGree.

Simply put: Obama’s 20 year attendance at his church disqualifies him to President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=3&oref=slo…

Period.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson

Gallup Daily Republican National Primary Tracking Poll (2/28)

• John McCain 61%
• Mike Huckabee 24%
• Ron Paul 3%

Gallup Daily Democratic National Primary Tracking Poll (2/28)

• Barack Obama 48%
• Hillary Clinton 43%

Gallup is interviewing no fewer than 1,000 U.S. adults nationwide each day during 2008. The results reported here are based on combined data from Feb. 25-27, 2008, including interviews with 992 Republican and Republican-leaning voters, and 1,219 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters. For results based on these samples, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

First off, this has nothing to do with the presidential race, but I just have to speak out on this…

Being partly of English descent, I have always been a bit of an Anglophile. And although I love many things about England, being an American has caused me to feel a bit ambivalent about the Royal Family. To be quite honest, I find the concept of royalty in the 21 Century to be sort of silly.

My ambivalence has never applied to Prince Harry however.

Harry graduated from the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in April of 2006. Upon graduation he remarked, “There’s no way I’m going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country.”

So Harry was assigned to serve in Iraq’s Maysan province (known to Coalition forces as the “Wild West” for its isolation and utter lawlessness.) His mission was to intercept Iranian agents smuggling weapons into Iraq.

The fact of who he is, of course, makes him a much desired target for al-Qaida who would love nothing more than to capture him and saw off his head for all the world to see. So the decision was made by Harry’s superiors that they could not send him such an isolated location as Maysan and endanger his fellow soldiers even more than their normal circumstances would dictate.

It is important to note that Harry could, due to his unique circumstances, have requested a non-combat role at this point. But he did not. He waited patiently for his combat assignment to come.

That assignment was meant to be kept a secret for the duration of his tour of duty. Leave it to journalists to do al-Qaida’s intelligence gathering for them:

Harry, 23, who is third in line to the throne, has spent the last 10 weeks serving in Helmand Province.

The prince joked about his nickname “the bullet magnet”, but said: “I finally get the chance to do the soldiering that I want to do.”

The deployment was subject to a news blackout deal, which broke down after being leaked by foreign media.

Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt, who is head of the British Army, said he was disappointed the news had leaked.

In a statement, he said: “I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us.

“This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations.”

Sir Richard said he would now take advice on whether the prince’s deployment could continue.

The news blackout followed a voluntary agreement between the MoD and newspapers and broadcasters in the UK and abroad.

In exchange for not reporting the prince’s deployment, some media organisations were granted access to the prince in Afghanistan for interviews and filming.

On his service, Harry remarks:

“It’s very nice to be sort of a normal person for once, I think it’s about as normal as I’m going to get.

“I am still a little bit conscious of the fact that if I show my face too much in and around the area - luckily there’s no civilians around here because it’s…a no-man’s land.

“But I think that if, up north, when I do go up there, if I do go on patrols in amongst the locals, I’ll still be very wary about the fact that I do need to keep my face slightly covered just on the off-chance that I do get recognised, which will put other guys in danger.

“The Gurkhas think it’s hysterical how I am called the ‘bullet magnet’, but they’ve yet to see why.”

Of course, world-renowned ass clown George Galloway could not keep his trap shut on the matter:

MP George Galloway has questioned Prince Harry’s claim to be fighting Britain’s enemies in Afghanistan.

And the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, who was expelled from the Labour Party over his opposition to Britain’s involvement in the war in Iraq, voiced concern over the media blackout which prevented publicity about Harry’s deployment for almost three months.

Mr Galloway said he did not like to see the British media, and particularly the BBC, becoming “part of the war effort”.

The bottom line? The press killed his mother, and now apparently they not be satisfied until they kill him to. What better way to sell more newspapers than the death of another member of the Royal Family?

The mainstream media does not deserve our respect or our patronage any longer folks, and they haven’t for quite some time. Every penny you give them enables them to work against victory in the GWOT in the form of enabling security leaks, selective reporting of events on the ground, and overzealous reporting of the anti-war movement at home which encourages out enemies to continue the fight.

Before you buy your next newspaper or magazine, or turn on CNN or MSNBC, ask yourself this: could the Allies have won WWII with today’s press?

Rasmussen Daily GOP Primary Tracker (2/28)

• John McCain 53%
• Mike Huckabee 32%
• Ron Paul 9%

Rasmussen Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (2/28)

• Barack Obama 49%
• Hillary Clinton 40%

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracker (2/28)

• John McCain 46%
• Barack Obama 43%

• John McCain 47%
• Hillary Clinton 44%

That’s how I felt last night after reading the New York Times latest attempt to destroy John McCain’s campaign. Carl Huse spends 1,150 words in an attempt to answer the question on everyone’s mind: Is John McCain a real American?

Huse’s piece as a eye catching title “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out.” The lede of the story captures that seriousness of it all:

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

I can see it now: Late one night, Huse was sitting at home scrolling through some left wing blog and he stumbles upon a post that declares that McCain can’t become president because he was born outside of the continental United States. “Aha!” he shouts. “I’ve discovered the smoking gun. McCain will never see what hit.” So, Huse excitedly calls his editor to tell him the wonderful news and is told to type up a piece and get reaction quotes. Only one problem. Everyone he called up said that while the question was slightly ambiguous given that it’s never been tested in court, but even still the law is perfectly clear. John McCain is a “natural born citizen.” Oops.

After about 2 minutes of Googling, I’ve found a number of articles dealing with this such issue. For example, this 1998 Washington Post article:

John McCain has more pressing worries than eligibility on the road to the Republican presidential nomination in 2000. After his lead role in pushing campaign-finance and tobacco legislation, both anathema to the Senate GOP leadership, the Arizona senator may have to spend a lot of time trying to prove his party credentials before he ever gets to Iowa or New Hampshire.

But is he constitutionally qualified to become president? McCain was indeed born in the Canal Zone, and Article II of the Constitution plainly states that “no person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some might define the term “natural-born citizen” as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.” That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John’s birth in 1936.

Ok, well, then I turned to Wikipedia which has this to say about the matter:

In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:

1. Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth
2. At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child’s birth.

A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of his or her citizenship. He or she may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have his or her citizenship recognized. [more at Macsmind]

Also, not only was John McCain born on a US military installation in Panama, but his father was a prominent officer in the US Navy. The Panama Canal Zone, it should be noted, was under United States sovereignty from 1903 to 1979. It’s amazing to me that the Times could spend over 1,000 words questioning whether a man who was born to two American parents, who were in Panama serving their country, was eligible to be President. If you combine this with the ridiculous sex scandal hit piece from the other day, one wonders what in the world is going on in the NYT newsroom?

Be sure to check out Matthew Franck’s takedown of the NYT article as well.

Per MSNBC’s First Read:

McCain leads both Obama and Clinton in potential general-election match ups with either candidate in the all-important swing state of Florida, according to a Mason-Dixon poll out today.

McCain leads Obama 47%-37% and Clinton 49%-40%. The Arizona senator leads the Democrats across the board. About 80% of Republicans are behind McCain. Only 66% of Democrats are behind Obama and 72% are backing Clinton in one-one-one match-ups with McCain. Currently, 17% of Democrats indicate that in a match up with Obama, they’d support McCain; 16% say so in a match up with Clinton. Seventeen percent of Dems also say they are undecided in a match up with Obama; 13% say so with regard to McCain-Clinton. Those numbers though could be a reflection of McCain being the presumptive nominee and Obama and Clinton still engaged in a fight for the nomination.

Floridian Democrats also weighed in on whether and/or how their delegation should be seated at the national convention — 28% said the state party should hold another Democratic primary or caucus; 24% believe the delegation should be seated, according to the Jan. 29th primary; 15% say “the Florida Democratic Party knowingly violated the national party rules, so it should accept the penalty”; 13% favor a delegation that is split evenly between Clinton and Obama; and 20% say they aren’t sure.

All emphasis mine.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!! Oh wait…

Mason Dixon Florida General Election

• John McCain 47%
• Barack Obama 37%

• John McCain 49%
• Hillary Clinton 40%

Uh oh, it seems that our Great American Messiah continues to be exposed as just another cynical politician. Last night he called for NAFTA to be renegotiated and if that wasn’t satisfactory, he would pull the US out of the agreement.  As a staunch free trader, that is extraordinarily scary given that Obama has about a 50/50 shot at being the 44th president next January.

See this video from Tuesday night’s debate:

Now watch this Canadian Television news segment last night. It seems as if one of Obama’s senior staffers called up the Canadian Ambassador “within the last month” and assured him that although Obama would take some shots at NAFTA, Canada should view it as just campaign rhetoric. Asked about it today, the Obama campaign doesn’t deny that they contacted the Ambassador. This begs the question though: what happened to the audacity of hope?

Rasmussen Tracking:

2/22: Obama +3
2/23: Obama +1
2/24: Obama +5
2/25: Obama +3
2/26: Obama +3
2/27: Obama +4
2/28: Obama +9 (first full sample of post-debate viewers)

As the Dutch like to say*: Put a fork in her, she’s done.

*Important Legal Disclaimer: Reference is purely for entertainment purposes only, as some people find random non-sequiters amusing. Dutch people may or may not be known for saying this, so you should not put this in any paper, project, publication, e-mail, memorandum, or other means of communication. Also, HRC may not actually be done, as all polls have error margins and may or may not draw from a representative sampling that can adequately explain what is occurring on a state level. This site is for entertainment purposes, and is not responsible for any losses from Intrade. We will, however, accept responsibility for any winnings.**

**Important Legal Disclaimer: Statement is purely for entertainment purposes only. Race42008 does not condone gambling, and to the extent that Intrade constitutes gambling*** it will not actually accept responsibility for any winnings.

*** I would actually argue that it does not constitute gambling, since it is zero-sum and there is no vig. This opinion is mine alone, and does necessarily represent the views of others on this site, or of Kavon Nikrad.

Can you tell what I’ve spent my morning working on?

An Obama radio ad targeted at Vermont voters who vote next Tuesday came on while I was in the car this morning. Obama was talking in his fancy, preacher-style oratory. This ad differed from most other Obama ads I have seen or heard over the last year in the sense that he actually talked about a couple issues. His ads usually consist of substantive statements made by him or others such as: “There is no Republican America. There is no Democratic America. There is the United States of America.” “A wave of change is blowing across America.” “Barack Obama offers hope for the America that is yet to be.”

The ad I heard this morning was actually issue-oriented and focused on foreign policy, a topic he has far less experience with than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. He said he was the only candidate to oppose the Iraq War from the start (though Bill Clinton seems to think that may be a fairy tale). He then made reference to Hillary Clinton’s vote on Iran (which Obama did not even show up to vote on, reminiscent of the numerous times he voted present in the Illinois Legislature). Then he said something that gives a clue as to how liberals think. He said he is the only candidate who will discontinue the Bush/Cheney policy of not talking to foreign leaders who we don’t like. I recall this issue coming up in a debate last summer where Mrs. Clinton took a different and more practical position.

Obama’s position would actually be the more popular one among Democratic primary voters, especially in Vermont, but it would be very dangerous if he became President as foreign leaders would use any meeting with him for purposes of propaganda.

The way Senator Obama phrases this statement, saying “not talking to foreign leaders who we don’t like,” trivializes the whole thing into a personality conflict. It’s like he’s saying that President Bush doesn’t want to talk to dictators because their personalities rub him the wrong way, not because they are murderers who would like to destroy the United States and have killed many of their own people. President Bush talks to people he doesn’t like all the time. Probably half of Congress would be an example of that. He just won’t talk to murderers because he knows nothing can be gained from it. Obama is naive to think anything can be gained on our end by talking to people who are known to be murderers and liars. You can’t make a deal with the devil because you have to assume the devil won’t be an honest person. That mindset is fairly common among liberals. They are bleeding hearts and don’t want to accept that some people are simply bad. An Obama presidency would have a foreign policy very similar to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. I think this ad will resonate with Vermont Democrats though. I sometimes wonder if the extreme left in the United States actually dislikes George W. Bush more than they dislike or disliked dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro. That sounds harsh to say, but you can’t help but wonder sometimes.

Expanding on his brief comment in yesterday’s Evans & Novak Political Report, Bob Novak devotes an entire column on why Tim Pawlenty would be a disastrous pick for McCain.

Minnesota’s Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty carefully prepared his plan for controlling greenhouse gas emissions to present it at the annual Washington winter meeting of governors. That effort coincided with Pawlenty’s fast-rising prospects to become Sen. John McCain’s choice for vice president. But behind closed doors, his fellow governors from energy-producing states complained so vigorously that the scheme was buried.

Pawlenty’s position as chairman of the National Governors Association may prove his undoing. While party insiders sing his praises as ideal to be McCain’s running mate, leading conservative Republican governors have been less than pleased with him. Pawlenty has collaborated with the association’s vice chairman, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, in a fat economic stimulus package, as well as the energy proposal.

Hours after Pawlenty’s energy plan was derailed, McCain was urged in private by GOP governors not to appear to be anti-coal or anti-oil. The upshot of a busy event was that Pawlenty came over as somebody considerably different from what McCain needs to calm conservatives.

[...]

As co-chairman of the group’s energy committee, Pawlenty proposed statewide goals of reduced CO2 emissions. But Pawlenty encountered adamant opposition. Barbour led the way for governors from energy-producing states, including Republican Rick Perry of Texas and Democrat Steve Beshear of Kentucky. The issue of greenhouse gases was ‘’set aside,” Pawlenty told me, ”because we realized there was no consensus.”

McCain, who has co-sponsored a global warming bill with his friend and supporter Independent Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, got more of the same over dinner with Republican governors that night. They made clear that energy was a major issue and that they hoped McCain would be sensitive to energy producers. By all accounts, McCain was receptive.

Captain Ed agrees.

For once, the New York Times has a halfway laudatory article on a Republican politician. The focus here is on Bobby Jindal, the new Republican Governor. Jindal has pushed through the state legislature enact a comprehensive package of ethics reforms. When Democrats like Barack Obama merely talk, Jindal, like John McCain, has acted on ethics reform.

The Louisiana Governor increasingly seems a top prospect to be McCain’s running mate. He has much more experience than Obama. He is much more accomplished in general, having done extensive work in education and health care before running for Governor in 2003. He’s reliably conservative on social and economic issues. While it would be a huge loss for Louisiana if Jindal moved to Washington again, it would be a greater gain for the Republican Party and the United States.

The nation’s governors were not receptive as Tim Pawlenty outlined his Algore-lite plans to limit carbon emissions.

Bob Novak:

It was a less favorable NGA meeting for the organization’s chairman, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. His carbon-emissions proposal was shot down by bipartisan opposition from the coal-oil bloc of governors, and that did not help his vice presidential aspirations.

Senator McCain must ask himself how a veep-nominee Pawlenty would play in the must-win battleground state of West Virginia…

From the campaign:

“I am profoundly saddened to hear of the passing of William F. Buckley Jr., and offer my deepest condolences to the Buckley family. Bill had many friends, including my parents, who he visited when they were stationed at the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii. My father and mother very much admired him and so did their son.

“With Bill’s passing, freedom has lost one of its greatest defenders. Bill was a great American who helped change the course of history. When conservatism was a lonely cause, he bravely raised the standard of liberty and led the charge to renew the principles and values that are the foundation of our great country. A man of tremendous vision and big ideas, he founded the National Review in 1955 and through its pages and his other endeavors, as a lecturer, commentator, debater and author of dozens of books, inspired many and advanced an intellectual rigor that transformed American politics. Bill was an American giant who shall be missed.”

Here’s the text of a recent ad from He That We Have All Been Waiting For:

OBAMA: I’m Barack Obama, and I approved this message.

OBAMA: If you are ready for change, then we can go ahead and tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda are over.

ANNOUNCER: In the Senate, Barack Obama challenged both parties and passed tough new ethics laws, reining in the power of lobbyists. And he’s the only candidate refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today.

OBAMA: They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people.

Wow… With that kind of strong, principled rhetoric, there’s no possibility that the candidate would have have gotten millions of dollars for a sweetheart land deal from a British national, is there?

Wrong:

A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama’s fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.

The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama’s bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.

Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city’s South Side while Mr Rezko’s wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.

Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko’s still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.

Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.

Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.

The house-and-garden deal raised questions about whether Mr Rezko, a property developer and fast-food restauranteur, made it possible for the Obamas to purchase a mansion they could otherwise not afford.

Mr Rezko has since been indicted for allegedly scheming to pressure companies seeking business with the state of Illinois for kickbacks and contributions to the governor Rod Blagojevich’s campaign. He goes on trial on March 3.

The New York Times splashes unsubstantiated rumors of concern about suspicions of wrongdoing from disgruntled former employees of the Republican candidate, and we have to travel across the pond to find any kind investigation into this very real scandal on the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Once again, we have Obama talking big about being an agent of change, of ridding politics of undue influence purchased by wealthy donors. Yet his actions speak of business as usual.

Not ready for prime time:

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Democrat Barack Obama on Wednesday for saying he would take action as president “if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq.”

“When you examine that statement, it’s pretty remarkable,” McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas.

“I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It’s called `al-Qaida in Iraq,’” McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama’s expense.

Obama quickly answered back, telling a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus, “I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq.”

Here’s the full quote:

“As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”-(emphasis mine)

Note that in rolling samples, a sharp upturn for one candidate means that there is a really bad sample for the last candidate on the last day tested (here, last night). Given how the debate went for Clinton last night, I would guess this abnormal sample isn’t just the result of the vagaries of polling.

Rasmussen Daily GOP Primary Tracker (2/27)

• John McCain 53%
• Mike Huckabee 30%
• Ron Paul 9%

Rasmussen Daily Democratic Primary Tracker (2/27)

• Barack Obama 47%
• Hillary Clinton 43%

Rasmussen Daily General Election Tracker (2/27)

• John McCain 46%
• Barack Obama 43%

• John McCain 48%
• Hillary Clinton 43%

Just released by Rasmussen:

Just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. Forty-four percent (44%) have an unfavorable opinion and 31% are not sure. The paper’s ratings are much like a candidate’s and divide sharply along partisan and ideological lines.

By a 50% to 18% margin, liberal voters have a favorable opinion of the paper. By a 69% to 9%, conservative voters offer an unfavorable view. The newspaper earns favorable reviews from 44% of Democrats, 9% of Republicans, and 17% of those not affiliated with either major political story.

The Times recently became enmeshed in controversy over an article published concerning John McCain. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the nation’s likely voters say they have followed that story at least somewhat closely.

Of those who followed the story, 66% believe it was an attempt by the paper to hurt the McCain campaign. Just 22% believe the Times was simply reporting the news. Republicans, by an 87% to 9% margin, believe the paper was trying to hurt McCain’s chances of winning the White House. Democrats are evenly divided.

Captain Ed fisks CBS and the NYT latest effort in creative interpretation:

CBS and the New York Times have a new poll out that looks at the Democratic primary race and at the general election. In the former, it uses a rather small sample, but in the latter the sample gets weighted — as usual — in favor of Democratic voters. Barack Obama has taken a lead in the national numbers for the primary, not exactly breaking news:

“A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds Barack Obama with a 16-point lead over rival Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters nationwide.

Obama, coming off 11 straight primary and caucus victories, had the support of 54 percent of Democratic primary voters nationally. Clinton had 38 percent support.

In a CBS News poll taken three weeks ago, shortly before Super Tuesday, Obama and Clinton were tied at 41 percent. Clinton led by 15 points nationally in January.

The former first lady has lost her advantage among women, according to the poll: The two leading Democrats now have even levels of support among female primary voters.”

How did CBS reach this conclusion? They polled 427 Democratic voters. That isn’t an exceptionally strong sample, and it produces a conclusion that is a likely outlier. Gallup, AP, and Rasmussen all show Obama leading but in a much closer race.

The problems increase when the poll includes Republicans. They show Obama beating John McCain by twelve points, 50-38. However, the sampling and weighting explains the strange notion that John McCain would only get 38% of a general election vote. The sample of 1152 respondents comprises 358 Republican voters, 420 Democrats, and 337 independents. Here’s how they weight the sample:

Democrats - 419
Republicans - 318
Independents - 325

Get the math? They deducted 40 Republicans, 12 independents, and a grand total of 1 Democrat for their weighted sample. The original configuration would have made Democrats 37.6% of the sample, and Republicans 32% - almost exactly how Rasmussen
breaks out party affiliation. Instead, the weighting makes Democrats 39.5% of the sample, and Republicans just a shade under 30%.

If your butcher did this, you’d demand that he take his thumb off the scale. These results are completely useless, and once again CBS and the New York Times report more on their own credibility than on the mood of the electorate.

Even better news is to be found from the crosstabs of the latest LA Times poll:

In this case, the sample also has problems. It uses 1246 registered voters, not as reliable for predictive models as likely voters, which usually puts Republicans at a disadvantage. It also only includes 290 Republican primary voters against 436 Democratic primary voters, a definite advantage for Democrats.

And yet, the results show McCain ahead of both Obama and Hillary, and not just on the war and foreign policy. He leads Obama on the economy by eight points, 42%-34%. He also beats Obama on illegal immigration. (Clinton edges McCain on both issues.) And on leadership, McCain beats both Hillary and Obama, with the survey showing him as the “strongest leader” for the country.

These results come from a sample and survey methodology that should have helped the Democrats. Imagine what a clean and balanced sample of likely voters will find.

For the record, what was the actual partisan breakdown of the electorate on election day for the past three cycles?

• 2002: GOP +1
• 2004: Even
• 2006: Dem +3

One of the progenitors of the American conservative movement has departed.

At a time when the GOP seems more determined than at any time in the last quarter-century to stray from its conservative moorings, WFB’s passing is an ill tiding.

Hat-tip: RedState