Community

There is no surprise that we are in a tight race in lots of states. No suprise at all. Don't let these polls worry you. It is early as well...

So how do you win close elections? Lots of enthusiastic feet on the street organizing enthusiastic volunteers, registering voters and then getting out the vote. That is the age old politics and how Bush/Rove won as well.

Sound familiar? Sound like where the campaign is spending most of its time and money this summer.In all 50 states.

Want to wollow all this? Go to Barack Obama Radar and follow this at the state level.

McCain meanwhile is running early ads in a handful of states and we ran $5M of ads in 18 states, many of them like MT, AK, SD et al are really cheap to play in...and like the caucus states winning a few EV will be a bonus and insurance.McCain is outmanned, outgunned and will be out organized - big time.

So if these states like CO,NH,MN,MO, NV, MI, OH et al are close then the ground game and enthusiastic support - not TV ads will be the winner.

The real telling polls today were the ones worth talking about under the ones in the news:

1. 51% of all voters are interested in Obama vs. 27% for McCain
2. Latinos are now 66%-24% for Obama - huge in lots of states - 9% of the total RV.
3. Israelis now support barack over McCain. This is a good surrogate for US Jews to follow.

Also in these polls you have a summer effect where lots of folks are on vacation AND the cell phone efffect is also starting to be looked at as well....

Best poll site and analysis is 538 and worth your time.

No one ever said this was going to be easy...but well funded, well organized, well executed and a great candidate will prevail over McCain and his gaffes and lack of vision for the country.

Ooopppsss...guess America isnt going to be conned by the Liberal media this year.

``The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the New York Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

The New York Times’ refusal to run an op-ed piece by John McCain challenging an article in the paper less than a week ago by Barack Obama is sure to further fuel the belief that much of the major media is biased in favor of the Democratic candidate. At issue is McCain’s response to an article by Obama entitled, “My Plan for Iraq.” Obama was in Afghanistan over the weekend and in Iraq today attempting to build his foreign policy portfolio for the fall campaign.

A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this year found that just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. The paper’s ratings divided sharply along partisan and ideological lines, with liberals far more supportive of the paper than conservatives.

At the time of that survey, the paper was being criticized for an article it had run about McCain’s ties to lobbyists. Sixty-six percent (66%) of those who were aware of the story in question believed it was an attempt by the New York Times to hurt the McCain campaign.

A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.``

SOURCE: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_obama_win

Consider this.

If McCain feels so compelled this week to announce his VP choice and now feels he needs to flex his maverick muscles in doing so to give him a chance, will choosing Bobby Jindal be a bad decision?

I think so.

The VP choice for both Barack and McCain is an important one for different reasons.

Barack has made it clear that his choice will be someone ready to be President first.

For Barack he wants to show that his choice is a good one to be President if something were to happen to him as well as shore up his lack of foreign policy experience.

For McCain at 72 he could very well die or become ill in office and again his VP needs to be ready to step in and be President.

I won't put odds on either type of event but lets make this a basic threshold for anyone in either party.

McCain's obvious lack of economic experience and increasingly incompetent and gaffe prone campaign makes having a man like Romney a great choice - smooth and a true successful CEO and ready to lead - whether you like him or not.

Now today McCain was with Bush 41. I hope he did not ask about a Quayle type pick. Jindal is clearly very talented and has a great future but is very young and has some baggage that could be distracting...voodoo, odd LA things in his past and he is an Indian American opening up another racial element to the campaign that the Repubs won't like.

Could he be President? I suppose but Romney makes me more comfortable on that level and his business acumen if God forbid McCain won.

My bet is that McCain the maverick is about to show off his lack of judgment and management experience and pick Jindal mistakeningly thinking that he will show the right wingers like Rush and Newt what they want- the future of the party...

So if that is the case and Barack picks Biden lets say we will have a weird dynamic. The Repubs will try and compare Jindal and his experience to Barack and the Dems can say Biden out duels McCain's experience.

Stay tuned but I have thought for awhile that McCain might do something like this. Jindal is no Dan Quayle thank God by a long shot. McCain would show a true duplicity and lack of leadership while he is attacking Barack on his lack of military and foreign policy experience and picks a talented and attractive young man who has spent no time in the crucible of national politics regardless of anything else he has done,

His VP who would replace him would be a bright, totally untested, 1st term governor, 37 year old Indian American from Louisiana. Quite a gamble for someone so focused on his experience and readiness to lead.

Kind of neuters his entire argument against Barack....he;s just dumb enough to do this too which is even scarier.

I must admit that I view someone's educational background and performance seriously as a Presidnetial qualification and the headline of this post says it all.

McCain, the privileged son and grandson of Admirals graduates at almost the bottom of his class at Annapolis. He admits to being a screw off at the Academy and was allowed to get away with it still gets to be a fighter pilot. I doubt others that low in their class became fighter pilots, more likely IF they got to fly at all flew cargo planes....he crashed at LEAST 3 planes...

Today he admits to not knowing how to use a computer and is not an economic experienced powerhouse. In other words he is a Luddite and he is 71 years old...and this near last in his class maverick wants to lead us into the future.

He is a very honorable man, a war hero, a warrior cut from a cloth of the past, but not a real thinker capable of leading a struggling country into a globally competitive future.

Contrast Barack who came from nothing with a single mother, he is black, lived in Indonesia and Hawaii and has earned his way up every step of the ladder by his intellect and performance. No father or grandfather to help him climb the ladder or protect him if he faltered. Classic American story!

Columbia, Harvard Law, the first black of the Law Review and a man who has spent his life since college and law school in on the ground public service focused on organizing people in their communities to come together and help themselves.

Barack is 46, a dedicated husband and father of 2 young daughters and has organized the best political campaign in modern history. He has upset the Clinton dynasty en route to enabling a movement based on the revolutionary power of the Internet to raise money and engage volunteers of all ages in ways that has never happened before.

A gifted thinker and writer and powerful orator he has energized people at a time when we need a leader. His power is not in his power but in his ability to touch and motivate people to come together to help themselves and their country.

Look at him on the world stage that McCain "goaded" him onto this week. He looked totally at home with all the different cultures he was in - from shooting hoops with the troops to having tea with Iraqi tribal leaders. In Berlin today -  could Mccain even articulate a vision like that for the US, let alone our role in the broader world?

If Barack had made on gaffe like the ones McCain made this week he would have been crucified as a "rookie" yet the "Iraq/Afghan" border or the Awakening being created by McCain's surge or Czechoslavakia again barely dent  his MSM created supposed foreign policy expertise.

If you simply look at the main issue being the challenges of the future in a "flat" globalized and competitive world who is better prepared to help America meet its challenges?

An old warrior who screwed off at school and got away with it because of his military pedigree came home to be a "Maverick" in D.C. married to a centi-millionaire and now mouths words from briefings not knowledge?

Or a young middle aged family man who has earned his way up through the finest educational institutions, actually knows wahhat he is talking about and excelled on his own and whose lifetime work involves helping others on the ground?

Easy decision for me....

Jim Wooten, the senior political writer for the AJC wrote a piece today saying Obama will never win GA and all the talk about it is simply election year spin.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/entries/2008/07/18/despite_hype_obama_wont_carry.html

My analysis and response is below:

Jim, I am a bit of a student of history and in essence your position is - the past here predicts the future -  so let’s ignore the facts of 2008 and not even examine them as a point of interest. Nice reporting.

Since you won't do  the work  let me see if I can lay out some facts.

·         There are already 800,000 more registered voters than 4 years ago.

·         We have a black candidate in a state that is roughly 28% African American and nearly 500,000 of them unregistered and for the last 3 months the Obama campaign has been working this group hard.

·         GA gave Obama one of his most decisive primary wins with huge turnout despite the number you reference in turnout. The primary was early and had it come later as the Obama enthusiasm grew it would have been even more so.

·         With 245 Obama fellows in GA this summer and now a full campaign staff in place to push voter registration thru the deadline on 10/5 these folks will be registered. The work they are doing to organize the community is terrific.

·         McCain has and will not have any organized team here. They are relying on the state party and the regional HQ in Jacksonville (per Macon paper this week)

·         Bob Barr will get some amount of the vote here - 4% + and McCain is in real trouble.

·         Enthusiasm for McCain is tepid at best in all polls.

·         Your old adage that young folks don't vote has not and will not apply this election year and the polls are showing that this is not the case.

·         GA full time staff – I reiterate this as the 150 staffers and the army of committed volunteers they are organizing statewide will drive the results and get the vote out as never before – if you need to see impact of the ground game ask Hillary.

All of the above are facts some from your own comments others from local and national sources.

Bob Novak's column yesterday seems willing to deal with some facts:

"Carrying Georgia
Republican strategists now are privately conceding that the GOP could lose Georgia's 15 presidential electors for the first time since 1992 because of Bob Barr's ballot position as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

The most recent Georgia survey by the polling firm InsiderAdvantage, conducted July 2, shows 46 percent for Sen. John McCain, 44 percent for Sen. Barack Obama and 4 percent for Barr. George W. Bush, who carried all 11 states of the old Confederacy in both 2000 and 2004, had 58 percent of Georgia's vote in the last election.

Third party presidential candidates almost always run more poorly in the actual election than their showing in the polls, but Barr as a former Republican congressman from Georgia might sustain support in his home state. He already has slipped a little in Georgia, based on his 5.6 percent standing in the June 19 InsiderAdvantage poll, when McCain had a lead of 1.6 percentage points."

So let’s summarize for the fact challenged:

1)      Voter registration is already up and growing as the campaign pushes registration

1A) African Americans will turn out in record numbers to vote and vote for Obama as they did in the primaries

2)      Obama has a large, organized team here and lots of volunteers to drive above, canvass and GOTV - McCain has nothing

3)      Ad money will flow here to support the ground game

4)      Obama has huge enthusiasm - McCain can't wake people up.

5)      Bob Barr is going to get enough of the vote to push thus into the margin of error at least

6)      In a close race the enthusiasm, staff and volunteers will get the Obama voters out just like they did across the country in the primaries. Think Rove and Ohio in 2004.

7)      If the late national polls show an Obama lead ( a decent bet) unenthused McCain voters will stay home while the well organized Obama GOTV teams will do their jobs.

By late October McCain will wish he had put money and org. into GA as it will be too late then to reverse the momentum and save the state.

Lets compare notes on Nov. 7th and see whether my analysis vs. your same old same old view is right.

I'll bet you a Bruster's ice cream cone I'm right.

This past few days puts an exclamation point on the difference between these 2 men.

McCain the maverick fighter pilot and squadron  commander - tactical jobs that fight battles. The surge was tactics not strategy as we are seeing as McCain has no long term plans.

Barack the self made man, author, Harvard law Review editor, community organizer, assessing all the facts, risks, rewards and looking at consequences of actions and laying out a long term strategy for winning the war on islamist terrorism is what a Commander in Chief should be doing.

This is now so obvious that this 72 year old man, a 3rd generation military man,  794/799 in his Annapolis class , fighter pilot who crashed 3 planes and decorated POW is NOT Commander in Chief and CEO material.I fact his foreign policy credentials are as dubious as his Czechoslovakia and the Pakistan/Iraq border comments.

The "inexperienced", empty suited orator, black, 1st term Senator, brilliant, pragmatic, progressive with a funny name whose strategy, organization and flawless execution in the prmaries came from 30 points down to defeat the most powerful political family in US history looks like strategy is his long suit.

Now he is running the largest staff ever fielded in US politics to try and change the political map and political climate in this country on his own terms and on non public financing with no lobbyists and influence peddlers.

I know who I am betting on to win and be a truly great President.

 I don't watch network TV but Katie Couric is a real embarassment!!

 FYI - The new Fox News Poll today shows about evenly split that folks think the Surge troops did/did not/no impact on the Iraqi violnes

Couric Presses Obama for Answers on Surge

The CBS “Evening News” anchor asks the Land of Lincolner repeatedly whether he supports the troop surge in Iraq. Click above for video, and read full transcript.

“Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.”

As Barack Obama's (D) Berlin event is getting ready to start -- and the crowd is massive, even for an Obama event -- I thought I'd put together a quick album of AP photos from his overseas trip so far. I guess we should thank John McCain (R) for goading Obama into taking this trip:

P.S. -- In case the media doesn't broadcast Obama's Berlin speech in its entirety, the Obama camp is live streaming the speech. Click here.

While the traditional media continues to try to create the perception of a neck-and-neck race, I began to notice just a week or two ago that the stories being written about the McCain campaign has finally become a lot more objective, even critically assessing Maverick's claims and hypocrisies.

I don't know whether this will last or whether McCain's recent whining about media coverage will cause assignment editors to shift their focus. Regardless, those actually writing stories and columns are finally shining more light on McCain.

Here's what I found from today alone:

McCain's Confusion On Iraq (Chicago Tribune):

What McCain omits is that if he himself had been right all the times before 2007 that he said things were going fine, no surge would have been needed. He's like a weatherman who forecasts clear skies every day and, when the rain finally lets up after a week, expects a standing ovation for his accuracy.

If we had done what Obama wanted to do back in 2002, we would not have lost—because we would not have invaded Iraq to start with. We would not have suffered 4,100 dead and 30,000 wounded or burned through hundreds of billions of dollars.

We also would not have diverted ourselves from the correct focus of the war on terrorism. "Greater problems in Afghanistan and the entire region"? Apparently McCain hasn't noticed that we got those in spite of the surge, or more likely because of it.

McCain's Foreign Policy Frustration (Time):

You could see McCain's frustration building as Barack Obama traipsed elegantly through the Middle East while the pillars of McCain's bellicose regional policy crumbled in his wake. It wasn't only that the Iraqi government seemed to take Obama's side in the debate over when U.S. forces should leave (sooner rather than later). McCain was being undermined in Washington as well, by his old pal George W. Bush, who seemed to take Obama's side in the debate about whether to talk to Iran. Bush sent a ranking U.S. diplomat to negotiate with the Iranians on nuclear issues — and also let it be known that a U.S. Interests Section could soon be established in Tehran, the first U.S. diplomatic presence on Iranian soil since the 1979 hostage crisis.

In the end, both Obama and McCain seemed to have a piece of the truth about Iraq, but Obama's truth was larger and more strategic. Obama had been right about the war in the first place. It was a disastrous idea, a phenomenal waste of lives and American credibility that diverted focus from our real enemy, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Obama was right about the war now: the progress in Iraq was enabling a quicker withdrawal — a plan already hinted at by Bush. And Obama was right about the future: the Iraqis don't want long-term U.S. bases on their territory, a McCain keystone and the source of his infamous comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years.

Ties Link Payne, McCain Foreign Policy Adviser (Houston Chronicle):

It's been a week since the Times of London caught Houston businessman Stephen Payne in a sting operation.

Over that week, more questions have been raised about the Houston lobbyist's professional and political activities. While the spotlight shined first on Payne's connections to President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials -- and his attempt to raise cash for the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum -- attention has now shifted to the relationship between Payne and presumptive presidential nominee John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann.

Scheunemann lobbied in Washington on behalf of Payne's companies, Caspian Alliance, which works with Central Asian regimes on energy projects. (The London Times reported that Caspian Alliance was providing advice to the Kazakh state-owned oil and gas company, KazMunayGas.)

A former Kazakh official alleged that the energy company was the conduit for payments made to Payne with the understanding it would be passed on to people in the Bush administration, the Times reported.

Beer Deal Raises Questions For McCain (St. Louis Post-Dispatch):

John McCain's Straight Talk Express is far less talkative when it comes to beer.

McCain's campaign is unwilling to directly address questions flowing from InBev's purchase of Anheuser-Busch Cos. in light of his wife, Cindy's, ownership of a large Anheuser-Busch distributorship in Arizona, Hensley and Co.

— For more than 20 years as a legislator, McCain has abstained from taking positions or voting on measures related to alcohol. As president, would he act on beer-related legislation — or continue to abstain, in effect casting a veto?

— InBev does business in Cuba, designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism. As a candidate, McCain has been tough on the Cuban government. Will his wife now sell the products of a company that does business in Cuba — or even expand her business to include InBev's other products?

McCain's campaign is unusually tight-lipped on those questions, and wouldn't say whether the candidate's wife plans to separate herself from Hensley.

With Arizona Changing, McCain Focuses on Home (The New York Times):

[A] variety of factors have made Mr. McCain’s chances in Arizona less assured than they ordinarily would seem, which his campaign has acknowledged.

The number of independent voters in Arizona has risen 12 percent since 2004, and those voters have helped send a Democrat to the governor’s mansion and given the party four of the state’s eight Congressional seats — including two in 2006, one in a historically Republican district.

At the same time, Arizona Democrats, like many of their counterparts around the country, have outpaced Republicans in voter registration, adding almost 20,000 voters to the rolls since March, compared with the Republican majority’s 8,600 new voters. The second-term Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, remains wildly popular.

Last month, the McCain campaign startlingly added Arizona to its list of 24 “battleground states,” a fact that state Democrats have clung to like sprinkles on a soft-serve ice cream cone.

...What is more, the state’s Republican Party is more or less in disarray, split between its moderate and staunchly conservative factions. Its chairman, who cheerfully attended a Ron Paul campaign event here just two months ago, has been a thorn in Mr. McCain’s political side for years. On Super Tuesday, Mr. McCain captured 47 percent of his party’s voters, hardly the resounding victory that a candidate who has represented his state for over 25 years might expect.

McCain and the Safety of Offshore Drilling (Washington Post):

Sen. John McCain says at every campaign stop that offshore oil drilling is safe, playing down the risk of environmental accidents, even when faced with the power of a hurricane.

"I'm aware that off the coast of Louisiana and Texas there are oil rigs, as we well know, and those rigs have survived, very successfully, the impacts of hurricanes, Hurricane Katrina, as far as Louisiana's concerned," McCain said at a town hall in Michigan last week.

In an energy speech recently, McCain said that: "As for offshore drilling, it's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston."

In fact, Katrina and Hurricane Rita caused damage to oil rigs and storage facilities in the Gulf, according to press reports and government studies.

The hurricanes totally destroyed 113 oil rigs, according to the government's Minerals Management Service, and damaged 457 pipelines. The resulting oil spills were large enough to be seen from space, according to several reports.

A review by the Houston Chronicle reported that the two storms in the summer of 2005 caused 595 oil spills that released an estimated 9 million gallons of oil into the gulf, much of that from oil storage facilities on the shores. The government said there were a total of 146 small oil spills in federal waters caused by the storms.

Let's keep a close eye on whether the critical analyzes of McCain's record and positions continues, or if this is just an aberration...

I'm working on a new analysis of Obama and McCain running mates which I publish later today, but thought it would be instructive, or at least interesting, to see how the real money over at Intrade is being wagered on who the nominees will select:

DEM VP NOMINEE       GOP VP NOMINEE

Bayh        15.1     Romney     35.0
Sebelius    15.1     Pawlenty   25.2
Biden       15.0     Palin      13.0
Kaine       12.4     Portman    10.0
Clinton     11.9     Crist      10.0
Nunn         8.0     Huckabee    7.2
Edwards      7.5     Thune       7.0
McCaskill    6.7     Cantor      5.0
Clark        6.5     Fiorina     5.0
Hagel        6.3     Giuliani    4.1
Reed         6.1     Ridge       4.0
Gephardt     5.1     Jindal      3.3
Richardson   5.0     Sanford     2.5
Napolitano   3.0     Lieberman   0.5

I agree with the wagering in this respect: I think the Democratic veep stakes is a free for all and there's no clear leader. Conversely, I think Romney and Pawlenty are -- and have been -- the clear top two, though I would reverse the order. I've thought for a long time that Pawlenty is the pick and still believe that.

My analysis and picks to follow...

According to Pollster.com, John McCain (R) has led in exactly one of the last 65 national presidential polls. Additionally, Obama's average lead in the Electoral College in the five independent sites is a pretty major 297 to 211.

So, you would expect that the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showing Obama maintaining a six-point lead in a two-way head-to-head -- growing to 13 points when Nader and Barr are included -- would be viewed as more evidence that Obama continues to run a strong campaign as the clear favorite today?

You would be wrong.

Amazingly, the front page headline in today's Wall Street Journal -- one of the two sponsors of the poll -- reads "Voter Unease With Obama Despite His Lead." Its front page web version headline is even more dire: "Voter Unease With Obama Lingers."

Meanwhile, as the independent electoral analyzes show Obama with a commanding lead, CNN still thinks its analysis is smarter than the data, as they still show the race Obama 231, McCain 194.

It's pretty staggering how the traditional media is contorting itself to try to present this race as some sort of dead heat when the objective data tell us that is not the case. That's not to say that McCain cannot win, but he'll have to change the numbers pretty dramatically -- especially in the swing states -- to have a shot. Nevertheless, the Journal's headlines are another classic example of the journalistic malpractice that has permeated this campaign and yet another reason why the number of Americans who don't trust the media to prove accurate and objective news is rapidly rising.

Meanwhile, those wagering real money on the presidential race over at Intrade.com show an Obama rout, with contracts on Obama now at 65.0 versus just 32.5 for McCain.

Finally, Political Wire found this excellent nugget from political analyst Larry Sabato:

"While no election outcome is guaranteed and McCain's prospects could improve over the next three and a half months, virtually all of the evidence that we have reviewed -- historical patterns, structural features of this election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months -- point to a comfortable Obama/Democratic party victory in November. Trumpeting this race as a toss-up, almost certain to produce another nail-biter finish, distorts the evidence and does a disservice to readers and viewers who rely upon such punditry. Again, maybe conditions will change in McCain's favor, and if they do, they should also be accurately described by the media. But current data do not justify calling this election a toss-up."

This effort to manufacture an alternate reality of the state of the race is further sullying the field of journalism. In my lifetime, I cannot remember such awful coverage of a presidential race and the media's clear insistence that they have some say over the outcome.

It's really a disgrace and I smile every time I hear a talking head tell us that Obama doesn't make an effort to court his traveling press corps like previous candidates. While it may hurt him in stories filed by those reporters who feel shunned, hopefully it will end this cycle of the media believing that their role is beyond objectively reporting what is taking place and demands some sort of special ass-kissing along the way as they try to maintain some sort of kingmaker role. 

"Iran's attack defeats west - In the end the west is desperately happy to have oil prices start crawling back towards affordability, and China is just as glad - so let's face it - nobody with power can touch Iran unless they want their economy destroyed by Iran first." http://www.politicsdebate.co.uk/politics35.html

It is pretty obvious now that any further talk against Iran is just for the west's pride and for U.S. voters. Any foreign country attacking Iran is clearly going to create an economic catastrophe for a number of countries including China.

If the USA wanted to return Iran's "bring it on" attitude, it is highly likely that they would be surprised to discover China actually fighting the USA in the gulf with military force, since China's economy would depend on doing that under such circs. That's why China has negotiated for America to be silenced and told to go to hell while the rest of the world reassures Iran (and its many women and children) that no one is going to hurt any Iranians, so they don't need to stoke the fires of oil-apocalypse.

They could destroy the oil economy of the world inside an hour - i.e. by creating a problem which would take years to fix - they can blow up LOADS of oil inside a few minutes and they don't need nukes or long range missiles to do it. There is no country stupid enough to attack Iran other than the USA and it is likely that even the UK would have to join China in fighting against the USA if such an attack ever began.