Insider Advantage has Hillary up on Obama in NC, 44-42.

Prior to his appearance on FoxNews Network’s “Hannity & Colmes,” on which the poll was released, InsiderAdvantage’s Matt Towery noted: “The shift has come almost entirely from white voters age 45 and over. There was a small drift of African-Americans back towards Clinton, but not so significant as to establish any trend.

“I believe when all is said and done, Obama will likely carry North Carolina; or if he loses the race, it will be by just a few points.

“Our polling generally does not indicate the eventual compression of black voters that Obama usually enjoys just before Election Day. If that happens, my guess is that he will pull this out. However, this poll is clearly an indication of reaction to the latest statements by his former pastor; and it forces Sen. Obama to split resources between Indiana and North Carolina.

“If this white vote shift does not erode, given that North Carolina’s white Democratic voters are primarily in the Research Triangle, where education and personal finances are in the top tier for the nation, then I would say this suggests a major shift in all future primaries towards Clinton,” said Towery

IA’s final call in PA was Clinton +7, and in Texas was Clinton +5. This obviously isn’t their final call, but I’d pay attention.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Democratic Primary and Presidential Election

Among Registered Democrats

Who do you want to win the Democratic nomination for president?

• Hillary Clinton 44%
• Barack Obama 41%

Regardless of how you would vote, which Democratic candidate do you think has a better chance of beating John McCain in the general election in November?

• Hillary Clinton 48% (40%)
• Barack Obama 38% (44%)

(Asked of Clinton supporters) If Hillary Clinton doesn’t win the nomination, who would you rather have as the Democratic Party’s nominee?

• Al Gore 54%
• Barack Obama 31%

(Asked of Obama supporters) If Barack Obama doesn’t win the nomination, who would you rather have as the Democratic Party’s nominee?

• Al Gore 46%
• Hillary Clinton 44%

Results from the poll conducted March 18-19 are in parentheses.

Among Registered Voters

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• John McCain 49% (52%) / 37% (33%) (+12%)
• Barack Obama 47% (54%) / 42% (33%) (+5%)
• Hillary Clinton 47% (45%) / 46% (51%) (+1%)

Results from the poll conducted February 19-20 are in parentheses.

Honest and Trustworthy? (Yes/No)

• John McCain 60% / 29% (+31%)
• Barack Obama 54% / 35% (19%)
• Hillary Clinton 46% / 47% (-1%)

Does Barack Obama’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright make you more or less likely to vote for him for president? (More likely / Less likely)

• Among Democrats: 16% / 36%
• Among Independents: 5% / 39%
• Among Whites: 10% / 48%
• Among Blacks: 21% / 18%

Do you believe Rev. Wright has damaged Barack Obama’s campaign? (Yes/No)

• Among Democrats: 64% / 31%
• Among Independents: 71% / 22%
• Among Whites: 74% / 21%
• Among Blacks: 43% / 54%

Do you believe Rev. Wright’s message is pro-American or is his message anti-American? (Pro-American / Anti-American)

• Among Democrats: 18% / 46%
• Among Independents: 12% / 42%
• Among Whites: 11% / 55%
• Among Blacks: 34% / 25%

Do you believe Rev. Wright is promoting a message of racial tolerance or is his message anti-white? (Racial tolerance / Anti-white)

• Among Democrats: 19% / 41%
• Among Independents: 14% / 42%
• Among Whites: 14% / 51%
• Among Blacks: 27% / 21%

General Election

• Hillary Clinton 45% (46%)
• John McCain 44% (43%)

• Among Republicans: McCain 88% (82%) ; Clinton 6% (13%)
• Among Democrats: Clinton 76% (75%) ; McCain 15% (15%)
• Among Independents: McCain 42% (47%) ; Clinton 38% (31%)

• John McCain 46% (44%)
• Barack Obama 43% (43%)

• Among Republicans: McCain 81% (82%) ; Obama 13% (11%)
• Among Democrats: Obama 67% (70%) ; McCain 22% (18%)
• Among Independents: McCain 47% (45%) ; Obama 37% (37%)

Results from the poll conducted March 18-19 are in parentheses.

• Barack Obama, President - Hillary Clinton, VP 47%
• John McCain, President - Mitt Romney, VP 41%

• Among Republicans: McCain-Romney 81% ; Obama-Clinton 12%
• Among Democrats: Obama-Clinton 75% ; McCain-Romney 14%
• Among Independents: Obama-Clinton 42% ; McCain-Romney 41%

Survey of 900 registered voters was conducted April 28-29. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Much has been made about how different the electoral map between McCain and Obama will look like as compared to the maps of 2000 and 2004. I decided to compare the numbers to see just how different the map actually looks at this stage in the game.

I took the margin of victory (or loss) of Bush against Kerry in 2004 for each state and subtracted the lead (or deficit) McCain has against Obama to see which states were trending redder or bluer. For example, Bush beat Kerry by 21 in Indiana in 2004, McCain currently has a lead of +2 in the poll averages; thus, IN is shown as -19 on the chart below. Likewise, Bush beat Kerry by 9 in Arkansas, McCain is leading by an average of 25 points there now; thus, AR is shown as +16.

On average, the electorate appears to be roughly 5 points further left for the ‘08 election than they were in 2004. Placing this data on a map of the United States, we can easily see how the two candidates are changing the electoral map for this election:

Clearly, Obama’s strength lies in his ability to turn flyover and western states bluer and running stronger than Kerry in the South, while at the same time taking the coveted states of MN, WI, OR, and WA further out of reach of the GOP. Obama’s strength in the typically dark red “Republican L” is stark.

Likewise, McCain’s advantage lies in his strength in typically blue Northeastern states and making MI and CA closer, while running stronger in the southwest than did Bush - and moving the trifecta of OH, PA, and FL further out of Dem reach.

By the time the dust settles in this contest, we may not recognize the electoral map.

(Of course, typical caveats apply: some of these numbers are based off of a single poll; this is still early in the contest with many undecideds in some states; the Democratic primary is not over yet; etc. However, this gives us a rough look at how the electorate is shifting in the run-up to the general election.)

Looks like Coleman may be safe:

ST. PAUL, Minn. (Arpil 29) - Senate candidate Al Franken, dogged by accusations that he failed to file tax returns in California, said Tuesday he will pay about $70,000 in back income taxes in 17 states dating to 2003.

Most of the income at issue was from speeches and other paid appearances by the comedian-turned candidate, who said he got bad advice from his accountant but takes responsibility for the errors.
The Minnesota Democrat told The Associated Press that he and his wife, Franni, “paid taxes on every cent of income we ever had.” He said that during the years in question, he followed the accountant’s advice and paid his entire income tax bill to the city and state where he lived at the time. He lived in New York City from 2003-05 and Minnesota in 2006.

“What happened is our accountant made a mistake, and all of these are repercussions of that same mistake,” said Franken. “His mistake was not understanding the law, the obligation to pay these state taxes.”

Franken said his finances became more complicated when he branched out from “Saturday Night Live” and started writing books and making speeches around the country.

His communications director, Andy Barr, said none of the 17 states attempted to contact Franken or his accountant seeking the unpaid personal income taxes.

Franken said once the payments to the states are settled, he would seek retroactive credit from his states of residence since much of the income taxes he paid to them was supposed to go instead to the 17 other states.

Franken has been preparing for a tough fight against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., but his campaign has been sidetracked in recent weeks by bookkeeping errors related to his private corporation, Alan Franken Inc.

The campaign said last month it would pay a $25,000 fine to the state of New York for failure to carry workers’ compensation insurance there.

The state Republican Party swiftly issued a statement in which it said Franken’s “admission that he has violated laws in 17 different states since 2003 is only the beginning of the story.”

Party chairman Ron Carey said Franken’s business activities “must have a full, and complete public airing if he is to retain any credibility as a candidate for public office.”

In a conference call with reporters, Coleman called Franken’s admission troubling. “Paying taxes is an obligation that I think Minnesotans expect to be adhered to, and that Minnesotans do,” Coleman said.

Franken said he’s releasing the information to be transparent about his mistakes. He said he “would like to get back to talking about the lives of the people of Minnesota and the issues this campaign is about.”

A decade ago the GOP had a deep bench from which to select our presidential timber.  We held the governors’ mansions in the 5 largest states.  Meanwhile, our congressional majorities were robust and teeming with new talent and ideas.

After the spanking of ‘06, our gubernatorial talent is anemic.  Even our best and brightest leave movement conservatives wanting more.  Our congressional leadership does not inspire.

Then there is Bobby Jindal.  His appearance on Leno last night was spectacular.  When Leno asked Governor Jindal whether he would like to be McCain’s running mate, he did not rule it out but said he already has the job he wants.

Like most Republicans, I am loathe to think about dabbling in identity politics.  But while Bobby Jindal would be the first Indian-American for national office, it would in no way be because of his racial identity.  It would be because he is a charming, engaging, conservative brainiac.  Imagine the message a President McCain would send to that rising Elephant in Asia if he selected this boy wonder as his running-mate and the presumptive future of the GOP.

I will concede that Governor Jindal is young and inexperienced on the national stage.  It would be problematic that he has only been on the job for several months — although he does have congressional and state executive branch experience.  But even if he is not selected this go-around, I can’t help but feel excited about the prospects of Bobby Jindal in the years ahead. 

I have noted previously that I have found it quite curious that Barack Obama always refers to the number one racist in America by the honorific “minister”, as do his supporters and those that respect him, whereas most everyone else refers to him as ‘Louis” Farrakhan.

I always have deemed this significant, as I think it provides a window into Obama’s thought processes and, I think, that this, along with his friendly associations with an unrepentant terrorist and his “bitter” remarks about white people that prefer Hillary to him, is evidence of his extreme ignorance and naiveté, born of his life within a leftist cocoon.

Even during his latest “race”, i.e. Jeremiah Wright, damage control speech, when he is ostensibly denouncing the Black Muslim leader thought to have been involved in the assassination of Malcolm X after X discovered that white people were not devils, he still can’t bring himself to refer to this sick racist creep without the title of respect:

Not once,

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses.

but twice.

And so when I start hearing comments about conspiracy theories and AIDS and suggestions that somehow Minister Farrakhan has been a great voice in the 20th century, then that goes directly at who I am and what I believe this country needs.

Barack Obama says he wants to “bridge gaps”, but there are some bridges Obama will not cross, and one, is to disrespect Louis Farrakhan. Barack found out this week that not only was the din of his 20-year pew parked butt political calculation possibly non-transferable beyond the level of senator for a deep blue state, but also that his audaciously hopeful, hate America minister is quite ready to hate him.

I wonder if the veteran of the “Chicago Way” of politics, living in a Big House Rezko made possible, finally got the message that he dare not dis Calypso Louis is public?

“Minister” Farrakhan, Barack?

To what does he minister, other than hate?

This reminds me of Albright’s champagne dance with the man in North Korea that reduced his people to eating tree bark.

Yet, you deem Tom Coburn equivalent to an unrepentant terrorist? Your kind of unity would have us all killed.

[update]

James Taranto’s WSJ, Best of the Web column echos and expands on this issue:

Where They Agree
Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright seem to agree that Wright speaks for black America:

• Obama, March 18: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

• Wright, April 28: “This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the black church.”

Is Wright really representative of “the black community” or “the black church”? We noted this exchange on Fox News’s “Special Report With Brit Hume” last night:

Mort Kondracke: The idea that all this is an attack on the black church is utterly false. Juan Williams, our pal, is the author of a book on the black church, and he says that there isn’t one in ten black churches that indulge in this kind of nationalism that Reverend Wright practices.
Hume: When I was covering the Jesse Jackson campaign in 1988, he campaigned from the left and he did a lot of his speaking at black churches. And I went to those churches with him many times and I heard him speak, and he never said anything like this.

And I said that to him here the other day, and he said no, no, no, I’m not going to touch that.

Then again, if Kondracke and Hume are right, why did the NAACP invite Wright to speak at its Detroit chapter’s dinner on Sunday? The Detroit News reports on the speech:

Wright delivered an unapologetic speech on Sunday, alternately fiery and humorous as he defended the preaching that has taken center stage in the presidential campaign. . . .
While Wright’s remarks have been condemned by Republican politicians and pundits to Obama and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, the minister got a rousing standing ovation at Sunday night’s Detroit NAACP Fight For Freedom Fund Dinner before a crowd of nearly 10,000.
Before Wright spoke, a series of Detroit religious and civil rights leaders defended him against what they called unfair media attacks and praised his ministry.

Wright is “a great champion of freedom,” said the Rev. Kenneth Flowers of Greater New Mount Moriah Baptist Missionary Church and the head of the local NAACP’s religious affairs council.

Flowers compared Wright to biblical prophets and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as a man “who’s not trying to please the establishment, but to please our God.”

One of Wright’s comments yesterday was especially pernicious:

“Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn’t make me this color.”

Wright was born in Philadelphia in 1941.

Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780. Wright’s description of himself as having been “in chains” and “in slavery” is merely vicarious. (Presumably he believes it was God who made him “this color.”) But what is really appalling is the suggestion that Farrakhan is praiseworthy because he “is not my enemy”–i.e., that offenses against blacks are the only ones that count. There is no getting around that this is a racist view.

Where are the moderate black clergymen and political leaders who have stepped up to say that Wright does not speak for them? That’s not a rhetorical question; if you have examples, please send them along.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns

The HinzSight Report

The Minority Report

Race 4 2008

“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson

Hillary has been on a tear lately, but will she have enough time? This just in…

Barack Obama just added his second new superdelegate of the day, and it’s particularly noteworthy on two counts.

Baron Hill is a congressman in Indiana, which votes Tuesday. And in his endorsement statement, he specifically cites Obama’s repudiation on Tuesday of his former pastor.

“His comments regarding statements made by Reverend Wright showed me another aspect of Senator Obama’s leadership — a strength of character and commitment to our nation that transcends the personal,” Hill said in a statement provided by the Obama campaign. “One of the tests of a true leader is his ability and willingness to come to a new conclusion based on new events. Senator Obama did just that yesterday.”

UPDATE: From politico, 2 more join Hill with endorsement:

Rep. Lois Capps, who represents a district on California’s central coast, is the third member of Congress to announce an endorsement of Senator Obama Wednesday, the day after he responded sharply to one of the deepest crises of his campaign, a confrontational and, he said, “appalling” set of remarks by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The campaign is using the flurry of endorsements to shore up political support and demonstrate the frontrunner’s continuing strength.

From Iowa’s WHBF:

An aide to U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, says he will announce his endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday.

Braley spokesman Jeff Giertz says Braley will endorse the Illinois senator during an afternoon conference call. Braley was an early and ardent backer of John Edwards, but had remained uncommitted since Edwards dropped out of the race at the end of January.

Braley is a superdelegate and his endorsement will further add to Obama’s fragile lead in delegates in the race against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Giertz says Braley made his decision after seeing the overwhelming support for Obama in district conventions last weekend in his 1st District in eastern Iowa.

Sen. McCain will be holding a town hall meeting on health care in Pennsylvania today at 2pm EST. You can watch the meeting live at JohnMcCain.com.

Anyone wishing to live blog the event can email me at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com.

Well, it’s time to move over, Pastor of Disaster. If anything will put an end to the Barack Obama campaign, I’d put my money on this guy:

Former President Jimmy Carter has given Barack Obama a major boost by calling for the bitter Democratic nomination battle to end on June 3rd and speaking glowingly of his ability to “transform the image” of America.

Jimmy Carter’s comments are a blow to Hillary Clinton.

Mr Carter did not formally endorse Mr Obama but in an interview with The Daily Telegraph made crystal clear where his sympathies lie. He even sketched out the kind of inaugural address the first black United States president could deliver.

Coming from the most distinguished of some 300 uncommitted “super-delegates” - the Democratic party leaders who will crown their party’s nominee - Mr Carter’s new public stance is a blow to Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the White House.

“I don’t see any reason at all to continue after June 3rd when we know who got the most [pledged] delegates, who got the most popular votes, who won the most states and so forth,” said Mr Carter, 83.

…

It would be “too bad” and damaging to the party if the battle went to the nomination, he said. The role of super-delegates, he argued, was to swing behind the winner chosen by the voters and not to usurp them.

Mr Carter, who is promoting a new book called “A Remarkable Mother” about his mother Lillian, who died 25 years ago aged 85, indicated that he felt a close personal bond with Mr Obama.

Both had mothers who worked to overcome racial divisions and who moved abroad in the 1960s to help the disadvantaged - Mrs Carter as a Peace Corps volunteer in India and Mr Obama’s mother as an anthropologist in Indonesia.

“They were very similar in not being bound by previous custom and willing to break taboos and mores that society establishes that they considered to be inappropriate,” Mr Carter said.

His mother, whom he adored, would “be delighted I think at the prospect of a black man being elected president”. In an aside that will give scant comfort to Mrs Clinton, he added: “And she would be pleased - I wouldn’t say delighted - at the prospect of a woman being president.”

Has the Clinton machine struck again??? From the NY Daily News:

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn’t have done more damage to Barack Obama’s campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that’s just what one friend of Wright wanted.

Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.

A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).

It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club “who organized” the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.

On a blog linked to her Web site- www.reynoldsnews.com- Reynolds said in a February post: “My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you” to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

The same post criticized Obama’s “Audacity of Hope” theme: “Hope by definition is not based on facts,” wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time.”

In another blog entry, Reynolds gives an ever-sharper critique of Obama: “It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement.”

I don’t know if Reynolds’ eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton - my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren’t returned yesterday - but it’s safe to say she didn’t see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.

Martin Luther King in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: “Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.” In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?”

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world

One of my earliest memories is asking my father at the breakfast table the morning after King’s assassination, “why would anyone shoot a preacher?”

A few years later in my white church I heard rampant racist comments from many members and some Deacons. [I am proud to say that none of our pastors ever countenanced same.]

I confronted the racists, steeled in my resolve by the Word of the Lord in Scripture and the examples of my father and mother who were instrumental in integration efforts in my hometown.

Over the years that followed, I watched King’s Christian moral challenge resonate and take hold among white people, especially those in white churches.

I have attended many black churches over the years and had never heard anything approaching the hate-filled un-Christian message of Jeremiah Wright.

I certainly reject the notion that more than only a small percentage of black churches have ever abided such sermons for than two seconds, i.e. the time it would take for Deacons to escort such profane purveyors of hate out of the sanctuary.

Liberal journalist Joe Klein agrees.

Barack Obama’s pastor and mentor of twenty years, the now infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright now asserts that criticism of his views are attack on US black churches

Much of yesterday’s prepared speech, before a largely African-American audience, was devoted to the history of black US churches. Wright argued the soundbites that have done such damage to the Obama campaign came from a failure to understand traditions of black worship.

“This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright,” he said. “It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition.”

I have seen very few black church leaders denounce and reject this slander in the now, more than 48 hours since same was uttered.

One exception is the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, who has been an Amos crying in the wilderness for many years declaring a crisis at the soul of black America.

I have to admit that I am shocked that there has not been a large and loud outcry from The Black Church.

I am still confident that the overwhelming majority of black churches do not affirm Wright’s hate-filled and conspiracy kook views, and am confident that they love this country and all people, even whites.

But, I am greatly disturbed by the silence, much as Dr. King was disturbed as he languished in an Alabama jail surrounded by scores of white Christian churches.

For Christians, there is a higher calling above politics and race. Many white churches failed to answer the calling for too long in this country. Black churches in the Body of Christ are accountable to the same calling. They are failing now with their silence.

It is true that some are actually defending Wright, but they are few. The real noise is the silence of the masses.

I think this is a critical moment for America that goes well beyond Obama and the Presidency. With all the media bemoaning of suspicions of racism among whites in Pennsylvania that voted for Hillary, the fact is that Obama won the white male vote in many states, even Georgia, no less, before people learned more about him.

As evidence of his character and judgment has come out, his share of the white vote has dropped. But his share of the black vote remains constant.

So who is voting on race? Can Obama say or do anything save change his skin color and still garner nine out ten votes from those of similar hue?

The Black Church is silent. This white Christian that called out his fellow baptists over 30 years ago wonders,

Is the Black Church dead?

[UPDATE]

James Taranto’s WSJ, Best of the Web column echos and expands on this issue:

Where They Agree
Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright seem to agree that Wright speaks for black America:

• Obama, March 18: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

• Wright, April 28: “This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the black church.”

Is Wright really representative of “the black community” or “the black church”? We noted this exchange on Fox News’s “Special Report With Brit Hume” last night:

Mort Kondracke: The idea that all this is an attack on the black church is utterly false. Juan Williams, our pal, is the author of a book on the black church, and he says that there isn’t one in ten black churches that indulge in this kind of nationalism that Reverend Wright practices.
Hume: When I was covering the Jesse Jackson campaign in 1988, he campaigned from the left and he did a lot of his speaking at black churches. And I went to those churches with him many times and I heard him speak, and he never said anything like this.

And I said that to him here the other day, and he said no, no, no, I’m not going to touch that.

Then again, if Kondracke and Hume are right, why did the NAACP invite Wright to speak at its Detroit chapter’s dinner on Sunday? The Detroit News reports on the speech:

Wright delivered an unapologetic speech on Sunday, alternately fiery and humorous as he defended the preaching that has taken center stage in the presidential campaign. . . .
While Wright’s remarks have been condemned by Republican politicians and pundits to Obama and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, the minister got a rousing standing ovation at Sunday night’s Detroit NAACP Fight For Freedom Fund Dinner before a crowd of nearly 10,000.
Before Wright spoke, a series of Detroit religious and civil rights leaders defended him against what they called unfair media attacks and praised his ministry.

Wright is “a great champion of freedom,” said the Rev. Kenneth Flowers of Greater New Mount Moriah Baptist Missionary Church and the head of the local NAACP’s religious affairs council.

Flowers compared Wright to biblical prophets and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as a man “who’s not trying to please the establishment, but to please our God.”

One of Wright’s comments yesterday was especially pernicious:

“Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn’t make me this color.”

Wright was born in Philadelphia in 1941.

Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780. Wright’s description of himself as having been “in chains” and “in slavery” is merely vicarious. (Presumably he believes it was God who made him “this color.”) But what is really appalling is the suggestion that Farrakhan is praiseworthy because he “is not my enemy”–i.e., that offenses against blacks are the only ones that count. There is no getting around that this is a racist view.

Where are the moderate black clergymen and political leaders who have stepped up to say that Wright does not speak for them? That’s not a rhetorical question; if you have examples, please send them along.

The Black Church is on trial. Is it pleading the Fifth?

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

From the 1996 primaries:

New Hampshire: Clinton 84%
Others: 16%

Delaware: Clinton 90%
LaRouche 10%

Colorado: Clinton 89%
LaRouche 11%

Maine: Clinton 88%
LaRouche 3%
Uncommitted 9%

Maryland: Clinton 84%
Uncommitted 11%
LaRouche 4%

Louisiana Clinton 81%
LaRouche 12%
Elvena E. Lloyd-Duffie 8%

Oklahoma Clinton 76%
LaRouche 13%
Lloyd-Duffie 11%

Tennessee Clinton 89%
Uncommitted 11%

Ohio Clinton 92%
LaRouche 8%

North Carolina
Clinton 81%
No Preference 12%
LaRouche 7%

West Virginia
Clinton 87%
LaRouche 14%

Arkansas Clinton 76%
Uncommitted 13%
LaRouche 7%
Lloyd-Duffie 4%

Kentucky
Clinton 77%
Uncommitted 16%
LaRouche 7%

Alabama
Clinton 81%
Uncommitted 15%
LaRouche 4%

Now most of these showings aren’t as low as McCain’s 72% in Pennsylvania. But some are pretty darned close. And none of them involved legitimate candidates like Paul (yes, he’s legit) and Huckabee. And Clinton ended up winning most of these states, including Louisana, where one out of five primary voters pulled the lever for a legitimate nutter.

Point is, after the main candidate has stopped campaigning, you’re left with the truly hardcore faithful voting in elections. And they don’t tend to favor the more mainstream candidates who win elections.

A few days ago, I did a post on the North Carolina primary that, judging by the comments, went over a lot of people’s head. I’m going to try to slow this one down a bit, because it really is some fascinating stuff, and because regression is pretty straightforward when your idiot commentator doesn’t speak in jargon.

During that last post, I ran a series of regression analyses that indicated that Hillary Obama should get between 50 and 55% of the vote in North Carolina. I found that two factors alone — the percentage AA population and the percentage of college educated voters — worked to explain a massive 70-90% of the difference between Obama’s share of the vote and Hillary’s share of the vote in the South. This was true when I used data from the state level as well as when I used data from the Congressional district level.

Because I’m a big dork, I’ve now run that test at the county level. The results are surprisingly robust. Because I want people to “get” this one, I’m reprinting something I posted earlier here explaining regression analysis and how it works. It’s down at the end, and gives you everything you need in order to “get” what I’m doing.

The New Regression

What I did this time was take the county data for Obama’s performance in every county in the Old Confederacy, excluding FL and AR. I split Edwards’ vote in SC 50-50 between Obama and Clinton. I ran the regression to see how Obama’s performance correlated with the African American percentage in a county and the % of college educated voters.

The analysis had an adjusted r-square of .792. This means roughly that 79% of the difference in Obama’s performance in any two counties in the South is explainable solely on the basis of race and education. Want to know why he got 60% of the vote in Madison county, Alabama, but only 15% of the vote in neighboring Jackson county? Madison has Hunstville, and is 21% black and 34% college educated. Neighboring Jackson is 3% black and 10% college educated. What the r-square of .792 means, is that roughly 36 points of the 45-point difference between Madison and Jackson counties is attributable to just to the racial and educational differences between the counties.  What is the other 9% attributable to?  We don’t know.  There’s some variable, or series of variables, out there that will explain it.  We just don’t know what it is.  And given that voting is made up of thousands of individualized decisions, it is probably impossible to figure out all of the variables at work here.

Again, this is stunning, though not entirely surprising. As might be expected, the two variables are statistically significant, with t-stats of 54 and 27. This means that we are about 99.9999999999999% certain that the relationship between Obama’s percentage and college education we see is not due to random chance, and 99.99999999999999999999999999% certain that the relationship between Obama’s percentage and race is not due to random chance. [And, for the real statistics geeks, the residuals average out to zero. There is some evidence of heteroskedasticity in the variables, but not, I think, enough to affect the significance of the variables at this level].

Finally, the coefficient for race is .83 and the coefficient for college education is .94. This means that for every additional percentage of African Americans in a particular county, Obama’s vote percentage in the county raises .83 points. And for every additional percentage of college educated voters in a particular county, Obama’s vote percentage in the county raises .94 points.

North Carolina

What we can then do is take these estimates for the rest of the South, and apply them to North Carolina’s counties. For each county, I multiplied the black percentage times .83 and the college educated percentage times .94, added them together and then added 17.5 (the constant; I can explain in the comments if you want). From that, we should be able to generate a pretty good picture of what North Carolina should look like. Doing so, we get this prediction

UPDATE — Just to clarify, green is Obama and Hillary is blue.  The bluest Hillary color means she is predicted to get 65%+, the greenest Obama color means he is predicted to get 65%+.  The colors change shade in roughly 3% increments:

If, on next Wednesday, the map of North Carolina looks anything like this, you can bet it will be splayed all over the front page here. If, however, it doesn’t, I’ll forget I ever wrote this.

Incidentally, weighting the results for county population, we end up with Hillary losing 45-55%. The interesting thing is that the residuals for the regression of counties across the South (ie the difference between whatever the model predicts and the actual results) are evenly distributed for positive and negative for all states except Tennessee. For Tennessee, almost every county overstates Obama’s performance. Is NC like Tennessee? We shall see . . .

My explanation of regression analysis is below the fold.

(more…)

Obama on Wright:

I know that one thing that [Wright] said was true, was that he wasn’t - you know, he was never my, quote-unquote, “spiritual adviser.”

He was never my “spiritual mentor.” He was - he was my pastor. And so to some extent, how, you know, the - the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, wasn’t accurate.

How the press characterized the relationship??? Gee, it’s not like Rev. Wright was a member of Obama’s Spiritual Advisory Committee or anything.

The fact is that it is simply too late for Obama for disavow Wright at this point when he has had ample opportunity to do so. Wright’s intention of capitalizing on his new found notoriety for the remainder of the campaign is not a reason that voters will accept for Obama throwing him under the bus now.

I mean really… How much more offensive where his comments at the National Press Club from the numerous other outrageous statements he has made from the pulpit over the past 20 years in which Obama was a member of his church?

Sen. Obama had his chance to demonstrate that he truly is a new kind of Democrat and disavow Rev. Wright’s hateful statements. The fact that he did not until he absolutely had to tells us all we need to know about the kind of politician he really is.

P.S.: As a parting remark to Sen. Obama, good luck with that aggressive Evangelical outreach you were planning on when your pastor and spiritual advisor makes comparisons such as these:

Remember, they had to send Jesus to a court presided over by the enemy, a provisional governor appointed by their enemies, ran the civic and the political affairs of their capitol. He had him backing him up an occupying army with superior soldiers. They were commandos trained in urban combat, and trained to kill on command. Remember, it was soldiers of the 3rd Marine Regiment of Rome who had fun with Jesus, who was mistreated as a prisoner of war, an enemy of the occupying army stationed in Jerusalem, to ensure the mopping up action of Operation Israeli Freedom.

Since my conservative epiphany, I have been begging Republicans to follow David Horowitz’s advice, in his Left Illusions, on how to beat Democrats, to frame issues in explicitly moral terms.

Finally, a Republican has done it in the blunt terms needed.

HOW TO HELP LOW-INCOME AMERICANS
McCain: Obama’s insensitive to the poor
GOP candidate cites rival’s opposition to suspension of fuel tax
RASHA MADKOUR
Associated Press

CORAL GABLES, Fla. –Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday called Democratic rival Barack Obama insensitive to poor people and out of touch on economic issues.

The presumed GOP nominee rapped his Democratic rival for opposing his idea to suspend the tax on fuel during the summer, a proposal that McCain believes will particularly help low-income people who usually have older cars that guzzle more gas.

“I noticed again today that Sen. Obama repeated his opposition to giving low-income Americans a tax break, a little bit of relief so they can travel a little further and a little longer, and maybe have a little bit of money left over to enjoy some other things in their lives,” McCain said. “Obviously Sen. Obama does not understand that this would be a nice thing for Americans, and the special interests should not be dictating this policy.”

My conservative and Republican friends, this could be a seminal moment. As Horowitz points out, Americans love the underdog, and the main reason for democrats’ success over the years, given the failures of their policies, is best explained by how they control the narrative.

Republicans too often come across as policy wonks and too nice. The Bush “new tone” as well as the McCain “honorable friend” old tones come to mind.

The fact is that liberal democrat policies of the past 40 years are immoral in their results, yet, they continue to push the policies to create more victim dependents that will vote for them.

For McCain to call Obama insensitive to the poor is akin to Washington’s crossing of the Delaware in rhetorical terms.

It is no sin to advance policies that help lower income families. Conservative policies actually do that. Liberal policies don’t. Their policies substitute class warfare anger as a substitute for actual financial help.

Our policies are moral. Theirs are not

Thank you John McCain for being willing to say it out loud. For too long Republicans have endured being called devils with a smile.

I see a trend. John McCain’s temper is being re-focused on those that deserve it.

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

SurveyUSA’s accuracy has been a trend throughout the primary season, so why not put our faith in it as the Dems head to North Carolina? Jim Geraghty over at The Campaign Spot has the scoop:

In Pennsylvania, Survey USA’s last poll had Hillary 50, Obama 44. The final numbers in the Keystone State were 54.6 percent to 45.4 percent.

In Ohio, Survey USA’s last poll had it Hillary 54, Obama 44. That almost nailed it, as the final numbers there were 54.2 percent to 44.1 percent.

In Texas, Survey USA’s last poll had Obama ahead, 49 to 48. Hillary won that state, but it was indeed close, 50.9 percent to 47.4 percent. They had Hillary two points too low, and Obama about 1.5 percent too high.

So while Survey USA is the only one putting North Carolina in single digits, their track record lately suggests we shouldn’t expect them to be too far off the final results.

Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen have Obama ahead 12 points and 14 points respectively. The true figure may stand between SurveyUSA’s 5 point spread and those numbers, but Clinton certainly seems to be looming larger in Obama’s rear-view window.

Right now, articulating McCain’s position on health care, and displaying his in depth understanding of the issue. 

I was able to sit in on Team McCain’s blogger conference call today where the focus was on the Senator’s health care initiatives.

McCain looks to remedy our health care problems by unleashing the power of innovation that has made this country great as well as keeping the power to make decisions regarding health care in the hands of American Families, not the Federal Government.

Critical aspects of the plan will include an emphasis on HSA’s (Health Savings Accounts) and a $5000 tax credit.

Senator McCain went into detail regarding his plan in a speech at Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute at South Florida University.

Here are the key snippets:

1. The Problem is Cost:

In any serious discussion of health care in our nation, this should always be our starting point – because the goal, after all, is to make the best care available to everyone. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need, and the peace of mind that comes with knowing they are covered. Health care in America should be affordable by all, not just the wealthy. It should be available to all, and not limited by where you work or how much you make. It should be fair to all; providing help where the need is greatest, and protecting Americans from corporate abuses. And for all the strengths of our health-care system, we know that right now it falls short of this ideal.

Underlying the many things that trouble our health care system are the fundamental problems of cost and access. Rising costs hurt those who have insurance by making it more expensive to keep. They hurt those who don’t have insurance by making it even harder to obtain. Rising health care costs hurt employers and the self-employed alike. And in the end they threaten serious and lasting harm to the entire American economy.

2. Government is not the solution to this problem:

There are those who are convinced that the solution is to move closer to a nationalized health care system. They urge universal coverage, with all the tax increases, new mandates, and government regulation that come along with that idea. But in the end this will accomplish one thing only. We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly. We’ll have all the problems, and more, of private health care — rigid rules, long waits and lack of choices, and risk degrading its great strengths and advantages including the innovation and life-saving technology that make American medicine the most advanced in the world.

The key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves.

3. Placing power in the hands of American Families will lower health care costs:

When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions, less likely to choose the most expensive and often unnecessary options, and are more satisfied with their choices. We took an important step in this direction with the creation of Health Savings Accounts, tax-preferred accounts that are used to pay insurance premiums and other health costs. These accounts put the family in charge of what they pay for. And, as president, I would seek to encourage and expand the benefits of these accounts to more American families.

Americans need new choices beyond those offered in employment-based coverage. Americans want a system built so that wherever you go and wherever you work, your health plan is goes with you. And there is a very straightforward way to achieve this.

4. Don’t destroy what is right with the current system:

Under current law, the federal government gives a tax benefit when employers provide health-insurance coverage to American workers and their families. This benefit doesn’t cover the total cost of the health plan, and in reality each worker and family absorbs the rest of the cost in lower wages and diminished benefits. But it provides essential support for insurance coverage. Many workers are perfectly content with this arrangement, and under my reform plan they would be able to keep that coverage. Their employer-provided health plans would be largely untouched and unchanged.

5. Give American Families the ability to to invest in a long-term health care solutions that preserve individual freedom:

But for every American who wanted it, another option would be available: Every year, they would receive a tax credit directly, with the same cash value of the credits for employees in big companies, in a small business, or self-employed. You simply choose the insurance provider that suits you best. By mail or online, you would then inform the government of your selection. And the money to help pay for your health care would be sent straight to that insurance provider. The health plan you chose would be as good as any that an employer could choose for you. It would be yours and your family’s health-care plan, and yours to keep.

The value of that credit – 2,500 dollars for individuals, 5,000 dollars for families – would also be enhanced by the greater competition this reform would help create among insurance companies. Millions of Americans would be making their own health-care choices again. Insurance companies could no longer take your business for granted, offering narrow plans with escalating costs. It would help change the whole dynamic of the current system, putting individuals and families back in charge, and forcing companies to respond with better service at lower cost.

It would help extend the advantages of staying with doctors and providers of your choice. When Americans speak of “our doctor,” it will mean something again, because they won’t have to change from one doctor or one network to the next every time they change employers. They’ll have a medical “home” again, dealing with doctors who know and care about them.

6. Market solutions and innovation is the answer for providing coverage to the uninsurable:

Even so, those without prior group coverage and those with pre-existing conditions do have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need. I will work tirelessly to address the problem. But I won’t create another entitlement program that Washington will let get out of control. Nor will I saddle states with another unfunded mandate. The states have been very active in experimenting with ways to cover the “uninsurables.” The State of North Carolina , for example, has an agreement with Blue Cross to act as insurer of “last resort.” Over thirty states have some form of “high-risk” pool, and over twenty states have plans that limit premiums charged to people suffering an illness and who have been denied insurance.

As President, I will meet with the governors to solicit their ideas about a best practice model that states can follow – a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP that would reflect the best experience of the states. I will work with Congress, the governors, and industry to make sure that it is funded adequately and has the right incentives to reduce costs such as disease management, individual case management, and health and wellness programs. These programs reach out to people who are at risk for different diseases and chronic conditions and provide them with nurse care managers to make sure they receive the proper care and avoid unnecessary treatments and emergency room visits. The details of a Guaranteed Access Plan will be worked out with the collaboration and consent of the states. But, conceptually, federal assistance could be provided to a nonprofit GAP that operated under the direction of a board that included all stakeholders groups – legislators, insurers, business and medical community representatives, and, most importantly, patients. The board would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.

7. Break down the barriers to true freedom of choice:

…cooperation among states in the purchase of insurance would also be a crucial step in ridding the market of both needless and costly regulations, and the dominance in the market of only a few insurance companies. Right now, there is a different health insurance market for every state. Each one has its own rules and restrictions, and often guarantees inadequate competition among insurance companies. Often these circumstances prevent the best companies, with the best plans and lowest prices, from making their product available to any American who wants it. We need to break down these barriers to competition, innovation and excellence, with the goal of establishing a national market to make the best practices and lowest prices available to every person in every state.

8. Tort Reform is an essential part of lowering costs:

Another source of needless cost and trouble in the health care system comes from the trial bar. Every patient in America must have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice. But this vital principle of law and medicine is not an invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits from trial lawyers who exploit both patients and physicians alike. We must pass medical liability reform, and those reforms should eliminate lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to patient safety protocols. If Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are sincere in their conviction that health care coverage and quality is their first priority, then they will put the needs of patients before the demands of trial lawyers. They can’t have it both ways.

Yes she can!

SurveyUSA North Carolina Democratic Primary

• Barack Obama 49%
• Hillary Clinton 44%

SurveyUSA Indiana Democratic Primary

• Hillary Clinton 52%
• Barack Obama 43%

SurveyUSA Kentucky Democratic Primary

• Hillary Clinton 63%
• Barack Obama 27% (Whoa!)

From CNN:

Sen. Barack Obama said today he is “outraged” by comments his former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made at the National Press Club and “saddened by the spectacle.” “What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing,” said Obama.

Is it just me, or should his biggest concern be something other than Wright suggesting that Obama was just another politician?

Sen. McCain’s daughter, Meghan, has a blog about the presidential race. I am sure many of those reading this site are already aware of it, but I want to take a minute to highlight it, and the trend I think it represents. Meghan uses her blog to show the non-political side of politics. Her writings focus on the more human side of the campaign trail, and appeal to those with a slight interest in the race, but without the passion for the nitty gritty policy details. Of course, campaign junkies like me still love it. Behind the scenes pictures, stories, and songs, are all posted at a fairly regular pace. Meghan has taken a break from the site for a few weeks, but be sure to check it out as soon as she is back.

Blogs like this are a great way to get younger voters involved in the political process. They engage on an entirely different level. Its not a lower form of communicating, but simply one that reaches students in their own way. Campaigns that use tools like these to engage the youth demographic are taking advantage of the opportunities new forms of media provide them. Younger voters might never become involved on the same level as senior citizens, but this can sure help.

Check it out at www.Mccainblogette.com

Much has been made of Barack Obama’s potential to put traditionally Republican states in play for the upcoming November election. Yet, there is a strong distinction between garnering new votes and securing votes in the most crucial states. It may well be true that Obama can narrow the margins of the 2004 election in states such as Indiana (60%-40%), Nebraska (66%-33%), and North Carolina (56%-44%), but he cannot stake claim to the electability crown unless he wins these states. We are not playing horseshoes or tossing hand grenades; a 51%-49% loss does not garner Obama a single electoral vote.

As much as it may pain us, we must grant Hillary Clinton credit for realizing that she fares best against John McCain in the states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Polls must be taken with a grain of salt this early in the campaign, but the averages compiled by RealClearPolitics are revealing: Hillary is ahead of McCain by 5% in both Ohio and Pennsylvania and pulls even with him in Florida. Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, is down by 2.6% in Ohio, deadlocked in Pennsylvania, and is soundly defeated in Florida by 11.7%.

Since 1900, no successful presidential candidate outside of John F. Kennedy has ever captured the White House without winning at least two of these three states. 1960 stands as a anomaly, as JFK mustered a win in Pennsylvania, but lost both Florida and Ohio to future president Richard Nixon. The three states currently hold the key to a total of 68 electoral votes, 47 of which decided the last two elections (Florida-27 and Ohio-20). Where does Obama go, then, if he is not victorious in at least one or two of these contests? After taking into consideration the 2004 electoral map and allowing both Obama and McCain to retain the most reliable states, let us examine the electoral votes of the states that Obama could possibly overturn:

• Colorado- 9
• Iowa- 7
• Missouri- 11
• New Mexico- 5
• Nevada- 5
• Virginia-13

These six states all voted Republican in the 2004 election, but may be in play come November. They constitute, however, only 50 total electoral votes. Even if Obama wins the entire group, McCain victories in Ohio and Florida would nearly nullify these gains. In the end, John McCain may be able to hold onto Missouri and Virginia at worst, the entire set at best. In addition, adding Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to the GOP ticket could force Obama not to take the Upper Midwest for granted.

Of course, it’s still early. I am not ready to make electoral predictions or guarantee McCain victories in any of the “Big Three.” Yet, it is evident that Barack Obama, the chosen one himself, must worry about his chances in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Hillary Clinton has managed to win the two northern primaries and would assuredly capture the Sunshine State if a new election was held. Obama’s troubles with the working class, Catholics, and seniors are worsening and should only push the superdelegates into deeper thought.

The Supreme Court of the United States