Sarah Palin is only ever going to run for the hills …

Bob Carr blogged (I really don’t say  that enough …) that he saw Sarah Palin doing her PR stuff and has returned to the idea that she will run in the Republican primary, will win the Republican primary, and will be the best thing for the Democrats in the general election. All in 2012.

I only believed one of those things: That she would be the best for the Democrats. But I don’t think that will actually happen.

That is to say I don’t think she will run for president. Not in 2012, not 2014, or any time after that. I have been deliberating on this for the past two years, whether the VP candidate from 2008 (who is traditionally seen as a logical favourite and ultimately successor for the out-of-power party – though it doesn’t always follow through …) would dive back into the waters of presidential politics in 2012.

At times I thought she was. At other times I thought she definitely wasn’t. And at times I have had no flipping idea what she’s doing (I doubt she knows half the time). But of late, it seems to me that she’s not planning on a run. It doesn’t make sense, in terms of what she is doing in the public eye and what she is doing electorally.

Oh sure, don’t get me wrong. She is putting up the framework for a run. She’s building a primary house, if you will. She’s laying the slab and she’s got a back-order on the timber (from ANWR, no doubt). She is just holding back on calling in the builders, because that’s when it starts to get serious and you have to start paying.

Let me explain my house metaphor here.

She’s visiting the early primary states, especially Iowa. As we all saw in 2008, winning Iowa is a huge thing. And any chart that courses a victory for Palin must start with Iowa. Otherwise, her shots get a lot longer. I will write a post about this later. But anyway, she’s paying visits to Iowa on book deals and speaking deals. She’s mingling with the people who would ultimately have to vote with her and no doubt glad-handing the local GOP establishment.

She’s backed a number of politicians in key states that will give her a bump in any primary race. Her ace-up-the-sleeve is Nikki Haley – governor-elect of South Carolina. Palin backed her into the gate and cheered her home when Mark Sanford (outgoing governor) was caught in an extra-marital affair and said he wouldn’t run for reelection. Any course that Palin might have to winning the primary, while some of them might include Iowa, every single one includes South Carolina. If she loses there, she loses for good. If she runs. But she won’t, so it won’t matter.

But having the governor of your most important state owing you a big favour is no small thing. An endorsement there, the GOP establishment will back her in the state, and she would plan on romping it home if she were running.

Additionally, she has been traveling all those important states, rallying the Tea Party and rallying average Republicans and seems to be one of the few people who can bridge the divide between them. Having that in some key states would undoubtedly be of benefit.

So, like I said, she’s put the slab down and ordered the wood to build the house. But she’s just not building it yet. No one is, actually, because it’s too expensive (everyone realised) to start a campaign so far out from the final election (unless you’re Obama, who everyone expects to raise the magic (and first time ever) $1 billion in campaign funds).

But here’s what I see …

I see a woman who gets millions a year on the public speaking circuit (why, I don’t know …).

I see a woman who is starring in an awful reality TV show, but getting big bucks to do it.

I see a woman who is getting money thrown at her by Fox as a contributor.

I see a woman who has published two best-selling (albeit woeful) books and got bags of cash from it.

To say that living in the White House would be a drastic change would be an understatement. And there’s no guarantee that she will get the big bucks after serving (see: George W. Bush). So it would be a big shift in lifestyle for her and her family. One that sees them having to turn down millions of dollars a year for doing very, very little.

And you have to consider their past. Palin doesn’t come from money. She wasn’t born and raised privileged. She didn’t have to scrap her way out of a log cabin, mind you. But she didn’t have it cushy like a lot of eventual politicians have. And now she has to look at her long-term longevity, not in politics but in her life generally. Eventually her star will fade. Whether it’s because of a shift in the GOP philosophy (and aren’t we all praying for that?), the death of the Tea Party, or the next flash in the pan comes along, she will fall out of favour eventually.

She will be looking at her life now. One pregnant teenage daughter. One grandson. Her son Trig who has Down Syndrome. I don’t know what the income is off a commercial fisherman (Todd, husband), but I imagine it’s not the same required to live the high life. When people say they have to ‘consider their family’ before running, if anyone has anything to consider, it’s Palin. None of this is a slight on her (and congrats for getting as far as she did with all this), nor is it a guarantee that this will deter her. But all this will be a contributing factor.

And all she has to do to keep the good life is do what she’s doing now, rather than getting back into the politics of it all. Someone like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or the raft of no-namers that are floating in the pool at the moment actually need to get into the primary race to boost their name recognition for a few months, maybe a year, to make some extra money. Palin doesn’t have to; she can reap the rewards of her flash right now for the next few years without running every chance she gets.

Let’s move away from the family/personal matters and get into the fun stuff: the electoral reasons.It all boils down to this …

Palin stinks.

Right now, and you wouldn’t realise this (because she has crafted a great PR image through Fox), she is political toxic waste. The 2010 midterms are evidence of this. Despite the massive Republican gains, and despite the idea that she actually was one reason they swept the Democrats out of power, the truth is that Palin had very little to do with this electorally. She helped raise buckets of cash, and she helped put the spotlight onto issues that the GOP had strengths in. But in terms of her rewards for spent political capital? There is very little.

Nikki Haley is her strongest win. And if the governor of South Carolina is your biggest strength, then you don’t have much to brag about.

Before we drop names though, I have to explain a bit of a political equation. The Tea Party cost the GOP bigger gains (as in controlling the Senate (see; Delaware, Nevada, Colorado)) –> Palin has tied herself to the Tea Party –> Palin has endorsed Tea Party-endorsed candidates –> Palin backed a bunch of losers, costing the GOP the Senate

Don’t think the GOP establishment didn’t realise this. And they will do everything they can to prevent her from even getting into the race. There’s a post all about that which I might write later on. But suffice to say, Palin backed the GOPs to defeat in the Senate. Probably in a bit of a gamble to get the backing from them later down the line should she run (she won’t), but more likely to get credibility with the Tea Party for “helping” them out.

Palin’s political capital was largely spent on these people. She endorsed a raft of dropkicks. Backing a woman who said that Sharia law was the law of the land in Deerborn, Michigan (Sharron Angle, Nevada), a man who said  that Obama is the greatest threat to the US (Tom Tancredo, Colorado), a man who had campaign security arrest a journalist for no apparent reason (Joe Miller, Miller), a woman who said worrying about global warming was just like worrying about the weather (Carly Fiorina, California), and (best of all) a woman who had to go on national TV to inform everyone that she wasn’t a witch (Christine O’Donnell, Deleware).

See this link for an interactive map of endorsements: Endorsement Tracker

Sure, she might have backed 19 winners for House races, but they get you next to nothing (unless they burst onto the scene and make a big profile quickly) in primaries and generals.To her credit she did back 6 Senate winners. But one was John McCain, who she was all but obliged to back. Another was John Boozman, who could have won in Arkansas with two heads. She actually made 4 gambles that paid off: Rand Paul (Kentucky, and he is the darling of the Tea Party, so backing him was just to get more clout with the Tea Baggers); Kelly Ayotte (New Hampsire, the second state in the primary contest after Iowa …); Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania, a huge battleground state in a general election), and; Marco Rubio (Florida, same as Pennsylvania, but even more valuable a swing state). So her endorsements were all handed out with extreme care. And there are some returns on this expense of capital.

But people are going to remember the losers that she backed (and what losers they were …) more than the winners. Certainly that will play well in the media, with the people who are out to attack her, and play bad with the independents.

Which brings me to the next important point: Palin polls awfully bad with the independents in polls. I mean really bad. 65% of independents saying they didn’t want to see her as commander-in-chief. The 87% was no surprise. But 43% of Republicans also don’t want her as well. Those are horrible polling numbers.This brings me to point that her endorsements have hurt her. She thought it would be smart to invest in the Tea Party and ride that to the top of the GOP. Actually, it’s done the opposite. The more popular she got with the Tea Party, the more stagnant her wider Republican numbers became.

It doesn’t get any better when compared to Obama: He performs best against Palin, by a margin of anywhere between 8% and 15%. Her common favourable numbers range between low-20′s to upper-30′s. And the same poll those numbers come from have only 27% of people saying she is qualified to be president.

Those are just the pits.

Now I know two years out, we saw Obama trailing Clinton by wide margins. But we’re not talk the Obama/Clinton race now. We’ve got a massively different contest and different types of candidates altogether.

What she is open for attack on is obvious, and a sorry resume if you ask me. Two-and-a-half year term as governor of Alaska. That’s is. And, not only the shortness, but she’s a quitter. She quit the governorship for unexplainable reasons. Oh sure, she tried to explain, but only God can make head or tail out of this explanation:

Failed VP candidate counts for nothing other than handshaking experience.

We hardly need to go back into the whole ‘mayor’ experience; it was laughable to say that it was experience in 2008, and now it has even legs than before.

All-in-all, she has a pretty poor list of achievements when compared to a sitting president. Don’t get me wrong, people are going to be angry with Obama. But 2012 is going to be a test of the bases. Democrats are going to be more scared of seeing Palin get in (if she runs, but she won’t) and turn out in droves than Republicans are going to be encouraged to go to the polls. Look at what the political climate will be at the time. Either:

• The Tea Party will be very happy because their new representatives have taken over the GOP, which means …
• Moderate GOPers will stay at home (majority) or vote Obama (minority), which gets combined with …
• And irate Democratic party who want to take back control of DC, are petrified of more Tea Baggers and extremists in Congress and potentially the White House and turn out in droves to reelect Obama and his posse.

Or …

• The Tea Party is fuming that their new representatives sold out to the GOP and stay at home, which means …
• Moderates are in control of the GOP, which means …
• Palin couldn’t possibly have won the primary.

Or …

• Congress has come to a complete stand-still because the GOP blends with the Tea Party and block Obama from even breathing, which means …
• Independents are fuming after voting Republican in 2010 and expecting stuff to get done, which means …
• Independents stay home (majority) or vote Obama (minority), which is combined with a cowering Democratic party that has got nothing done, to reelect Obama.

The only other path is that the GOP and Obama White House and the Democratic Senate get stuff done, which means the moderates are in control of the GOP (similar to scenario two), which is the most dangerous for Obama because then a level-headed Republican party could get one of their own to win the primary who could win the general.

Anyway, the climate is most likely going to favour Obama in any situation in which Palin wins the primary. Beating an incumbent, popular or no (see: George W. Bush, LBJ, Truman. In fact, there have been 10 post-WWII races with incumbents and 7 incumbents have won), is extremely difficult. Especially when they are preparing for you right now, with the whole White House, cabinet, and Congress at their disposal.

Palin is obviously shrewd and can see all this. The difficulty it puts on her family and their life. The pathetic polling numbers. The hard task of actually winning against Obama. Her lacking experience (which is going to be a negative, because that was Obama’s positive and look how well that has gone …).  And the fact that she has a very narrow window to win this thing (about as narrow as Obama’s in 2008). I just don’t see her running and giving up so much for such a gamble.

Thomas.

Contrasts

This is former Governor George Parks, relaxing during his leisure time. He was Alaska’s first resident governor. He served in the military during World War One (pictured in his field tent) and various government positions prior to becoming governor. He sereved two full terms. Other jobs: miner, engineer, mapper, exectuive, banker.

 

This is former Governor Sarah Palin in the harsh wilderness of Alaska, nobly defending her family from ramapant (partisan) predators and (rationally minded) people. She was the eleventh governor of Alaska. Prior to being governor, she was a beauty queen and Mayor of Wasilla (population: 10,000). She served no full terms. Other jobs: sportscaster, reality show personality, fisherwoman.

New York’s 23rd

On November 3 in the US there’s a general election for a handful of special elections and gubernatorial races. In Virginia, the Republicans will win back the governor’s masion. In New Jersey the polls show a tie between the Democrat, the Republican, with a genuine third-party candidate (not a disgruntled Dem or GOP-er who is dirty for not having won the nomination) preventing a Republican run-away. I suspect the Dems will retain as the undecided (a very small number, which reflect how close the race will be) settle for the guy they know on voting day. In New York, Mike Bloomberg will return as mayor after previousl abolishing term limits and running on an independent ticket with Republican backing.

It’s the 23rd district in New York, however, that is the most volatile and interesting race to watch. The 23rd got  here because Republican Representative John McHugh accepted the offer by President Obama to serve as secretary of the army. Certainly a step up for a minority congressman that has little seniority in the House. But it will be the death of his career in the GOP as anyone who colaborates with the Democrats is given a beat-down by the party. Actually, you don’t even need to work with the Democrats, you just need to be a lesser shade of red for the Republican party to leave you out in the cold. This is shown in the fallout in the race for McHugh’s seat.

The initial processes went like clockwork: Governor Patterson (the guy who will lose to state attorney-general Andrew Cuomo come his reelection) was notifed of the new vacancy and, by the rules of setting a special election 30-40 days from the notification, promptly (after stuffing around with Clinton’s replacement) set the date for November 3 (the general election date). Now the way the parties get their nominees for special elections in New York is different to regular elections. There aren’t any primaries. Rather, County Party Committee Chairmen (the chairmen of the respective parties for the counties that make up the 23rd district) get together, read the resumes that prospective nominees submit to them, and decide who the nominee is going to be. On one hand, this process could be extremely corrupt. On the other, it could be used to enure that the strongest and best candidate for the election becomes the nominee. I, and it would seem both the Dems and the GOP chairmen through the nominees that they have selected, believe in this last point.

But it appears that a lot of the Republican high-profiles and voters didn’t get this memo on political logic.

The seat, most importantly, is R+1. This means it’s a swing seat of the highest degree. What with the Democratic sweeps of 2006 and 2008, New York being a blue-as-blue state, and with a Democratic president, not to mention the current implosion of the Republicans going on nationally, the seat had the potential to swing to the Democrats. So the Democrats only needed to nominate someone, ideally a centrist Democrat (maybe even a centre-right Democrat), who would be tollerable to the base, the independents, and the disaffected Republicans of the area. The Republicans, on the other hand, didn’t want to lose another seat in the House (see: 2006 mid-term election, 2008 general election, NY 20th special election), and only needed to find a centrist who would win over the base, and teh independents.

The Democrats have had no problems: The chairmen selected a Bill Owens, a lawyer from the area who had never been in office before. A successful nomination as the guy has no record that the Republicans could rail against, he has local experience with community-based work, served in the air force, intelligent guy. A picture freshman candidate. It was a logical choice by the Democrats, with only a slight gamble (on the no previous office part). But they couldn’t choose a local politician due to the turmoil that the state assembly is going through (the Democrats, depending on the mood of 2 members, either have majority in both chambers or not in the state senate; it’s that tenuious).

The Republicans, in a stroke of brilliance, took a move from the Democrat’s play book from the past 4 years. They chairmen nominated a woman, state assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava, who is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. You would never imagine the GOP power-people nominating this type of candidate, or even backing, prior to 2006 or 2008. But, after being whipped in two elections on the trot and losing control of the House, the Senate, then handing the Dems a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, and the White House, the Republicans (at least in New York) learned that it’s not about nominating candidates who are as right-wing as they come but rather nominating canidates that will win the races, then sorting out their where their vote lies when it matters. It looked as though someone had started handing out brains to Republicans.

Then the crap hit the fan.

One of the losing potential nominees for the Republicans was Doug Hoffman, was adopted by the New York Conservative Party. Apparently, and it makes sense for the Conservative Party to do this, Scozzafava wasn’t militant-right for them. They didn’t cross-endorse the GOP candidate – and really, why would you want the right-fringe (because that’s what they CP is, nationally, these days) endorsing your candidate? Anyway, Hoffman quickly became the CP’s nominee in the special election. And instantly the base was split. The hard-right voters who didn’t want to vote for a liberal Republican backed Hoffman. These are the same people, I suspect, that want the GOP to be a minority for time never-ending. The GOP loyalists stuck with Scozzafava. The Republican vote was cut in half nearly immediately.

The problem with Hoffman as a third-party candidate is that he doesn’t even apeal to disaffected Democrats who aren’t happy with Obama’s current performance. Nor does he apeal to independents who might want to send a message. He is hurting the Republican chances of retaining the seat.

Anyway, this might not have mattered going into the final few weeks. Scozzafava could have started campaigning to get back some of her base with “My votes will always be in the interest of the state, first, and the Republican party second. You know I will always be looking out for each and every constituent and not taking orders from a bunch of cronies in the South”. She could have apealed to independents saying “Obama has broken his promises to you. I won’t, and I’ll deliver for the state”. And she could have won a few Democrats to make up a winning group by saying “Look at my reputation. The only difference between me and the Democratic candidate is that I’m for fiscal responsibility, not dolling out money to every executive in the country.” In the end, a campaign like that, in the final weeks, I believe would have retained the seat for the GOP.

Then more crap hit the fan.

Sarah Palin, in her infinite genius and wisom, decided to endorsed Hoffman. More on that later. The Club for Growth, a big group in NY, endorsed Hoffman instead of endorsing the GOP candidate as they usually do. Of course, the pro-life groups endorsed Hoffman. Fred Thompson, former senator and complete failure of a GOP presidential primary candidate last year, endorsed Hoffman. Former House majority leader Dick Armey endorsed Hoffman. Former senator, and permanent nutbag, Rick Santorum endorsed Hoffman. Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell endored Hoffman. Current governor of Minnesota, and will-be Republican primary candidate in 2012, Tim Pawlenty endorsed Hoffman. Current representative and Christmas fruitcake Michelle Bachmann endorsed Hoffman. The Wall Street Journal endorsed Hoffman. He got a massive list of big name Republicans to back him over the establishment’s candidate, and things got ugly for everyone. Scozzafava’s numbered stayed half, and are still there. She went from leading the polls to a close second, to outright third.

This is why the race is going to be interesting. It’s not because it’s a three-horse race, or that it’s going to be very close. But, all-in-all, this election is a referendum on the Republican party. It’s no longer a vote on whether Obama is doing a good job, or Democratic Congress is doing a good job. It’s about whether the Republican part should lurch violently further right or go try to win back seats and chambers with moderate and tollerable Republicans. Each side is going to have something to say no matter what the result is. If Hoffman wins, some Republicans will say “This is proof we shouldn’t be running candidates who aren’t right of Hitler”. If Owens wins, the same people will say the same thing. If Scozzafava wins, which seems unlikely at this point, the party establishment will say “Here’s proof that we should compromise on the policies of our candidates. I would have you note that Newt Gingrich and (of all people) Mike Huckabee have expressed opinions along these lines; saying that the GOP will be a permanent majority unless they shift back towards the centre on some issues.

It makes no sense to me why there would be Republicans – people who proudly proclaim that they are Republicans – who have decided that running candidates who would win with a lighter shade of red is a bad thing, and running candidates that could lose but are red-red-red is a better thing? Does Palin or Pawlenty really think that the GOP will take over the House with candidates that are completely anti-abortion, completely anti-gay rights, and are only going to Congress to oppose any bill that comes their way? There is no way a party can win a majority of the country over espousing the views and the policies that the Palin’s and the Hoffman’s put forward. No way. I am just amazed at the stupidity of these people in not backing Scozzafava for the win. She would have won with their backing and a proper message. Instead, she recieved minimal backing and her messaged was hacked to bits as the Republican party tried to figure out their own national message.

An edit: The next day, Newt Gingrich is quoted as having said something that completly reflects the notion I’m putting forward here:

And so this idea that we’re suddenly going to establish litmus tests, and all across the country, we’re going to purge the party of anybody who doesn’t agree with us 100 percent — that guarantees Obama’s reelection. That guarantees Pelosi is Speaker for life. I mean, I think that is a very destructive model for the Republican Party.

Anyway, the election will be a test of the Republicans. It will determine if the Republican voters have a brain between them and back their candidate. Help us all if Hoffman wins. Not because he will do anything in Congress, but because it will have a much larger impact on the national Republican party than anything else that will happen come the end of the year.

Thomas.

The future of Andrew Cuomo

With the appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to the Senate, all eyes have been on New York. What I am interested in is the future of the state, politically, and some of it’s politicians. Gillibrand was never to favourite. At a time, Caroline Kennedy was the favourite only to be turned down/drop out in the past week. However, she only dropped out after she began to lose in polls that pitted her against state Attorney Gerenal Andrew Cuomo. Cumo, for my mind, was the best pick until I did some research on Gillibrand. Then I decided that they were probably equally qualified.

The state is a traditional Democratic fort. Not in the next 100 years will Republicans carry the state (not unless their party radically changes, as well as the state demographics). It’s a solid 34 electoral college votes for them. Because it’s so Democratic, the Democrats to come out of the state tend to be somewhat more liberal than, say Southern or mid-Western Democrats. One of the most popular politicians to come out of the state though, in the 1980′s and early 1990′s, was a man by the name of Mario Cuomo. He was the 52nd Governor of New York, serving for 11 years. He was a moderate, and extremely popular after cleaning up New York and bringing about institutional changes. However, he came around at the wrong time. He hit his peak of popularity, nationally, under President Ronald Reagan. After President Bush was elected, with a war going on and approval ratings through the roof, Cuomo declined to run in the Democratic primary (as did many other high-profile Democrats at the time), which left room for some unknown Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton to sneak in and win it. Had Cuomo run, he would have won the primary and most likely the general election. But the economy hadn’t yet faulted, so he had no smoking gun to unseat an incumbent president. Cuomo would stay as Governor until the Republican wave in 1994, where he was defeated by George Pataki.

That’s Andrew Cuomo’s father – the ‘what if’ Democrat. Now, I wrote in a post, some time ago, the following:

Not so much a problem for the Democratic party, but rather the career of David Paterson. He will have to appoint someone to serve in Hillary Clinton’s to-be-vacated New York senate seat. As governor and Democrat, he was the likely choice. But he has said he doesn’t want the job. He now has to contend with the three pressure groups: Women, who think a woman should replace a woman; Hispanics, who think they are due a representative because they make up a large number in the state, and; himself, and whether he should appoint his main rival Andrew Cuomo (former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Clinton, current state Attorney-General, son of wildly popular New York governor) to eliminate him from a primary challenge. Personally, because I think Cuomo has a future in the Democratic party, and that a governorship would do him better than a senate seat, I hope that he appoints someone else. If it is someone else, it will be a woman or a Hispanic.

That was all true then, and is true now. And stars are starting to line up for Andrew Cuomo by not getting appointed to the Senate. Cuomo, who has shown moderated interest in stepping up to the governorship, has the perfect scenario now. It will be the opposite of his father – Andrew Cuomo is in the right place at the right time. Governor David Paterson, after his handling of the whole appointment, has made him look weak and ineffective. I didn’t report much on it, but if you kept up with it you would wonder what the heck was going on in Albany. And, the way Caroline Kennedy’s potential appointment was handled (after being instigated by, most likely, Ted Kennedy), he has probably got offside with the most powerful political family in the US.

So if Cuomo wanted to become Governor of New York, 2010 is the best situation for him. He would win a primary battle against David Paterson reasonably easy. He is popular across the state, his father more popular to the point that people still remember him. Then, Cuomowouldn’t have to fight the uphill battle against an incumbent Republican. It is way above helpful that there will be no incumbent if Cuomo defeated Paterson in a primary. It is a right place right time moment.

So, in 2010, Cuomo could easily be the New York governor. Not getting too far ahead, I want to imagine the year 2015. Here you have a Democrat, powerful and popular, who has a recognised name among the base and in the North-East corner of the country. He’s served 4 years as Secretary of Urban Housing and Development under a wildly popular President (Clinton), a 4 year stint as New York’s Attorney General, and then 5 years as Governor of one of the biggest states in the country. When his father had bad timing for his political career, Cuomo seems to be having great timing. 2016 will be the end of President Obama’s second term, with no incumbent VP running (it’s safe to assume Joe Biden won’t run). Cuomo will be 58 in 2015 – a year before the election and enough time to build some momentum for a Democratic primary run. Win that, and he’s looking down the barrel of a general election run. The fact of the matter is that the stars are aligning for Andrew Cuomo to be the Democratic candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Of course, he has to do a good job as Governor, and that’s after the demands of winning it.

If you want some more ‘stars aligning’, it’s these two bits of information. First, the Republican pool of talent in New York is pretty scarce now to challenge for the Governor’s mansion. Cuomo would go into the state election as favourite, and would just need to run a simple campaign. The second bit, the Republican party is in no shape to win a national election. At the very least, they will have to wait to 2016 to even stand a chance. But who will they front? Sarah Palin will long be forgotten (hopefully), Mike Huckabee will be done, Mitt Romney too – these are the ‘future names’ of t he Republican party. And they will all be out of the political circles in 4-6 years tops. They don’t have anyone like Cuomo or Gillibrand (two people who are being floated as rising stars in the Democratic party) to talk about. It will take some serious work by the party to have a serious and credible candidate in 2016. And, if the reputation for ‘change’ in the Republican party is anything to go by, they won’t have anyone.

This is all something just to keep an eye on. There are so many variables, so many hicups that could derail any political career, stars aligned or not. But, like I said, it’s something to keep an eye on – if only to make things even more interesting and exciting.

Thomas.

The road ahead

I want to write a post about where the Republican party should be headed, what they should be doing, and what I forsee as the future of the Grand Old Party. But it has to start at a strange place – with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. It’s not that I wanted to start it there, rather I started writing about one topic, and then was taken up by my theorising about the future of the Republicans. So here goes. Bear with me – it’s logical and progresses well (I feel), but I just thought I’d put the warning out there.

Also, I wrote this before Clinton’s name was floated for Secretary of State, and certainly before she accepted the position. It was a hypothetical that hasn’t turned out (well, not yet because there’s some avenues that she could still persue). However, what I write about the Republican party still stands true.

A lot of people (myself included) thought former Senator John Edwards would be Attorney-General. That’s off the table now that he’s admitted to an affair. It’s these kinds unfortunate taints that Obama needs to stick clear of through his first term. Sure, it has nothing to do with politics and is of no concern (well, shouldn’t be) to the electorate, but it’s the way things work.

So with that hole opened up, let’s look at a handful of candidates for the job. A very dark horse would be Hillary Clinton – former lawyer, primary opponent, learned in politics and a multi-term senator. She’s a very dark horse because, well, let’s face it, her and Obama probably still aren’t sending each other Christmas cards. Similarly, with her run, and now near-on impossibility of ever getting into the White House in her own right, she needs to look to other offices to build her reputation further. Senate Majority (or if the Democrats lost control after the mid-terms, Minority) Leader would probably be her most covetted position at the moment. It’s a powerful post, especially with Democrat leads in the House and Senate, and control of the White House. Bargaining doesn’t have to cross party lines, just has to fit into factional lines. Leading the Senate means pretty much leading the votes Obama will need to get things passed. However, she needs to gather up and retain the numbers first – at least 10 loyal senators, 15 prefferable.

Then again, she also has to hope the Nevada Senior Senator Harry Reid doesn’t want the job anymore, and neither do the other 56 or so senators that they job might go to. In all seriousness, Clinton isn’t a heavyweight in the Senate – she’s from a traditionally Democratic state, so she can’t claim she needs the position because she can hold a swing seat. She’s a junior senator to boot – even her companion from New York has a claim to the position before her, and neither of them before the likes of ….

So the truth of the matter is, Clinton might want to focus her efforts on Senate Majority Leader before taking up the post of Attorney-General (if she was even offered it). Governor of New York, the state she represents in the Senate but does not originate from, is also on the cards. However, she’d have to wait until Mike Bloomberg, current mayor of New York, made his intentions clear. At the moment, Bloomberg is an independent come Republican. He’s a true centrist, he’s good great economic credentials, and would be a shoe-in for the governor’s house.

What does this have to do with anything? Like I said, Bloomberg is an independent. The Democrats want to keep him that way because he is the sort of guy that could be destined for higher things. He’s well liked across the state, especially in Democratic New York, who knew he was a former Republican and still voted him in. He’s got the power and charisma to challenge for the seat that Clinton would have to step down from should she become governor – which sees the Democrats lose an important, traditional seat from a blue state. Not what they want.

But worse, should Clinton run for the governorship in New York, it’s entirely possible that the Republicans would try and get Bloomberg to challenge. It would be a monster battle between the two, and an epic fight between the party machines, but I expect Bloomberg would win, ensuring that he had a lock on the seat for at least 4 years. What could he do from there? Depending how much of a party man he is, he could reestablish the Republican Party as a force in the state that sees Democrats hold the state House, Senate, and every burrough in New York City. If the Republicans could challenge for a general election win in New York, it cuts off one of the Democrat’s giant advantages in general elections. New York, with 35 electoral college votes, and California, with 55 electoral college votes, give the Democrats a given 90 EV advantage in any election. The Republicans only have Texas, with 34 EVs. Shift New York to the Republicans, and the tables are turned completely.

Now, I’m not saying New York is going red, or that Bloomberg would flip it, or anything of the sort. Wah I’m saying is that if the Republican party are smart about things, now that they are having a big inward-looking reflection before they shake things up and reform their platform, they should think about scenarios like this. Look to who the possible future faces are of the party and build up around them while at the same time, target some of the given Democratic strengths. The Republicans really need to challenge in New England, the Great Lakes, and on the East Coast. Not in all of them, maybe just 5 states total. They nearly did in the past two election – Minnesota and Wisconsin nearly went red in 2004 – but never as effective as they should, and certainly they have never won one of them recently. If the Republicans can challenge for New York or California, Pennsylvania, Washington or Oregon, Michigan or Minnesota or Wisconsin (not the ‘or’s there – it doesn’t have to be all of them, one or two might even suffice) then the Republicans begin to even the playing field.

With Obama fronting for the Democrats, and heading their ticket in 4 years’ time, they will struggle with this, That’s why the next 4 years should be about rebuilding, with the next election about throwing off the dead-weight. Their next candidate needs to run as a true Republican, needs to abandon their moral and ethic crusades (really, stop talking about abortion and gay rights on a national stage and claim they are for states to decide (which is a giant step forward for both issues), campaign for smaller government, for less interference but moderate regulation, economic regularity, and above all national security without a fear-based campaign. They can hold up someone that can afford to lose who also looks the real-deal by Republican, and even political, standards – Gingrich.

His counterpart on the ticket needs to be the right-hook though. The VP spot on the next Republican ticket must, without any doubt, be the true future of the party and the type of Republican that the party needs to be built around. It needs to be someone with experience and political fortitude enough to withstand a defeat as VP, but have a clear and strong enough voice to make the voters believe in a slightly different message to that which the head of the ticket in 2012 speaks. Bobby Jindal is an option. He’s not the only option, but he’s viable. If Governor of Minnesota (note: A Great Lakes state) Tim Pawlenty stays in the game and keeps a good enough profile, he’s another option.

The Republicans can’t go down the Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin path. If they do, mark my words, the party will be wandering around the forrest for a long, long time. The last election was a judgement not just of Bush but of the state of the Republican party. And by a 7% difference, the American people voted down a party that advocate moral and ethical interference in citizen’s lives (when they should be campaigning for less) and economic deregulation (when they should be campaigning for more). If the Republican party wants to continue to harp on about moral and ethical issues being mandated by the government then they can – and they might also receive a house-warming present from Ralph Nader, the Libertarian, and other third-party groups that never amount to anything.

The Democrats, in placing Obama at the front, changed themselves quite quickly. Partly because of Barack Obama himself (his meteoric rise saw him drag the traditional consituants with him, while with the other hand he redrew political voting lines), another part because of Howard Dean (who implemented the 50 state strategy at the DNC prior to the midterms of 2006 – and it’s come up trumps twice now), and finally because the Republicans are lost themselves. You can’t be the second party in a two-party system without defining yourself against the other mob. The Democrats did it perfectly in 2008 – ‘McCain is a Republican. Bush is also a Republican, and bad. Therefore McCain is Bush and McCain is bad. Democrats aren’t Republicans, therefore Democrats are good. I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.’ The Democrats are finalising this process, but you can already see the titan the party has become in terms of electability – energy independence through green power and oil; ramp up national security but don’t put any more American lives in harm’s way; fix the world economy but fix it domestically; stop the rot in D.C. through change not more of the same from either the Democrats or the Republicans, it’s time for the next generation.

The Republicans have to watch the Democrats closely now. They need to see what parts of the electorate are being left out with these new boundaries. The Republicans kept re-drawing their lines until they excluded too many people. Now we need to look at who the Democrats are excluding. At the moment, it’s the fringe people from all sides that no one wants – red necks, communists, the KKK, anarchists, the Christian hard-right. Funnily enough three of those groups are Republican faithful now. Anyway, the Democrats have draw such a large circle that it makes it nearly impossible for the Republicans to target a specific group just yet, and work them over for the 2012 election.

But the Republicans need to be patient, as I have said. They need to change their platform slowly. Obama got away with it because his own rise was strong enough to drag the party with him – whether the party wanted it (which some factions ceratinly did not (Clintons)) or not. The Repubicans will have to wait at least 6 years, probably longer, until they have finally found their grove. If it’s longer than 6 years (which is the year of the mid-terms between 2012 and 2016), they will probably lose the 2016 election too. That’s why they need a structured and focused ticket like the one I proposed earlier.

Patience also means something else – eventually the Democrats will have to conceed to some groups, rule out others, to the point where they themselves are put into the position of the the Republicans roughly 3 or 4 years ago. They will have lost certain groups, or certain states, due to their policies that sees those same groups or states look to the Republicans for a change. It won’t happen while Obama is around – but probably the second election after he’s gone. The Republicans will only around that time too be able to fully define their party as an opposite to what the Democrats are and capitalise on their lost groups.

So that’s the future I see for the Republicans. It’s a long and lonely road. It requires patience and effort to walk, and a lot of soul-searching by party-powers and faithful. They might have to make some calls that don’t see right, don’t seem ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ (at the moment), and maybe even a little regressive, back to the party’s long history. But they need to do all this and more – otherwise, there’s no future for the Republicans at all. They can’t stay the same party that has lost the 2006 mid-terms and the 2008 general. They can’t be the party that continues to lose positioning in the House and the Senate. They have to shape up or ship out. Those are the only options on the table for them.

Thomas.

Getting in for 2012

Newt Gingrich is a viable option for the Republicans in 4 years time. He’s a good option – he’s of the sane wing of the party, he’s a true Republican, not an extreme right Republican, he has Speaker of the House experience, he’s known and popular among the base, and he’s quite relatable to the voters. He has some ‘backstage’ issues to sort out among Republican heads, but nothing I think they couldn’t turn a blind eye to for the time being. It also means that the party doesn’t have to take a wild gamble on someone (Mitt Romney), waste a viable talent (Bobby Jindal – see below), or field a candidate that will surely lose (Palin).

He was also the only Republican this campaign season to look as though he was a guy who could lead the party. He stayed calm, he stayed collected, and he sounded like McCain should have sounded. He’s got a good grip on the party, so we should be hearing his name next year I think. Watch to see how visible he remains now that the election is over. If you see him a lot, start thinking that he is going to run.

Bobby Jindal for the VP spot too. Jindal is top-of-the-ticket material in all honesty, but you don’t want to waste a guy of his calibre against an incumbent. Gives him exposure and experience, putting him in a good position (assuming he finds a political job in the time being) for 2016. Remember, Jindal is 37 years old now. 2016 gives him some much needed age and time to get some notches on the belt.Signs are that he will run in the next Republican primary – he’s visiting Iowa this month to give a speech. Anyone visiting Iowa is really testing the waters for a campaign.

But can the party resolve fielding a candidate who is black (he is Indian American, not the Native American type of Indian)? Part of the campaign this time around made a black president something to be afraid of? Actually, a downside for Obama doing a really good job is that it would open the way for Jindal to become Republican candidate somewhere down the line.

The only other options on the table are some familar faces – Mike Huckabee (who isn’t looking like he will run), Mitt Romney (might just be crazy enough), and Sarah Palin (a guarenteed loss). Romney’s economic strengths might help him if the US is still in recession, but it will be another hard slog for him if Palin or Huckabee is in it too. Similarly, Huckabee and Palin will be scratching for the same voters, so if both of them are in it, both of them will lose, and a third candidate will win it.

Very interesting times ahead though.

Thomas.

Swing state polls – FL, PA, OH, NC, VI, CO, MO, GA, NH

This week, Obama is ahead in all swing states other than Indiana. Out of the 14 swing states, Obama is ahead (as per the most recent polls for each state) in 13: 6 by double digits; and only 1 that borders a statistical tie (though is 1% outside of it). I’ll get to the polls in a moment, but want to warn you that the numbers you might see could shock and scare you …

… if you’re a Republican …

The biggest state up for grabs will start us off. Florida, with 27 electoral college votes, is a state that, if Obama wins, wins him the election. On the flip side, McCain can’t win the election without it. There’s no if’s or but’s about it now – Obama has locked up 99% of the Kerry states, with only Minnesota (which is only a bit iffy because of a poll released last month that suggested a tie) a weak Democrat state. Assuming he wins Minnesota (which he will), Obama needs just Florida and the election is done there and then – the rest is bonus points.

So I expect the McCain campaign is sweating bullets when they saw the latest poll from the state: A 7% lead for Obama 52% to 45%. And it’s not from some partisan group of the Democrats – the poll came from FOX News/Rasmussen. In early September, the state looked like it was a McCain lock – the campaign even laughed at Obama’s attempts to win the state. Then, towards the end, there was a poll indicating a tie, and since then Obama has had small, but increasing, lead. Now, with a 7% lead on top of this consistency, it’s safe to say that the state is trending to Obama. This doesn’t mean it is guaranteed to go his way come election day (we have a tick under a month left, in a race that has a lot happening in just a week), but given the situation of things in the US, the ground set-ups of the candidates, and the money the Obama campaign has left, Florida is looking like it might flip.

Pennsylvania comes in second with 21 EVs. Through the week (and something I didn’t blog about) McCain pulled all his resources from Michigan (a state that many (not me) thought would flip to the Republicans and cause Obama all sorts of headaches) because he stands no chance there now (evidenced through public and internal polling) and has put them into Minnesota and Pennsylvania – hoping to flip one of these. There’s only been 1 poll since the general election began, back in mid-September, that showed McCain tied – and that’s his best performance in the state. Ever since then, there’s been Obama leads from 2% to 10%. The last 4 polls have showed a 6%, 8%, 12% and 10% leads for Obama. This latest poll, an 11% lead for Obama at 49%  to 38%, only confirms what I’ve been writing for a long time now: Pennsylvania is not a swing state. It also makes McCain’s move out of Michigan redundant, though staying there was futile.

The next biggest prize is Ohio with 20 EVs. This state had long ago been called McCain’s by majority of the pundits. Me included, though I was inclined to send it McCain’s way because Obama didn’t need it and polls showed that McCain was nominally strong. Though since July, when  the primaries ended and the conventions started, the race has been exceptionally tight, and Obama has been getting as many winning polls as McCain. The latest, 48% to 47% Obama’s way (FOX News/Rasmussen), is the tightest of the latest as majority of other pollsters have Obama leading by ~4%. The situation hasn’t changed – Obama doesn’t need Ohio, while McCain must retain it to win. But, if the polls are this tight going to election day, given the ground work Obama has put into the state, Ohio will go blue. It’s too close to call, or perhaps ever so slightly Democrat because the economy is still the #1 issue.

North Carolina, with 15 EVs and a previous stalwart of the Republican states, now shows a definite lead for Obama. The polls have been extremely close (given the state in question) since February, before Obama was even the nominee. Recent polls put the state at an average tie, with the candidates swapping the lead of ~2% each day. The latest poll however has Obama streaking ahead – a 6% lead at 50% to 44% (Public Policy). It’s worth noting that when a candidate gets past the 50% mark, we are beyond the statistics where the person behind could get an extraordinary pick-up of the undecided on the day and jag a win. Obama is ahead here by a majority in polls with out-dated formulas to predict the results. If this were the last poll going into election day, I would put Obama at 54% come the close of polls due to the demographics. If Obama wins North Carolina, I expect him to win Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Nevada as well – swing states that had been previously trending McCain. New Mexico, Colorado, and Iowa are solid blues, so accept them as wins easy enough.

Speaking of, Virginia, with 13 EVs, 3 polls came out about it all with different numbers but all saying the same thing: An Obama win. SurveyUSA has Obama up by 10%: 53% to 43%. Suffolk puts Obama up by 12%: 51% to 39%. Finally, FOX News/Rasmussen has Obama up only by 2%, 50% to 48%. Like I said, all indicate a win for Obama given he has broken the 50% mark. I suspect Fox/Ras. underestimates turnout, while Suffolk and SurveyUSA have maybe sampled in the Northern suburbs a bit much. If these were the last polls going into election day, I’d put the win around 6-8% for Obama – and handing him the election.

I referenced  it before: Colorado and its hefty (given it’s near-non status in the race) 9 EVs has a new poll that gives Obama a 6% lead, 51% to 45% (again from FOX News/Rasmussen). Important thing here is not the lead, but that the same polling duo had Obama up only by 1% last week. That’s a 5% gain in less than a week. Either Palin has really offended some people in the Rockies, or the state is actually (as I maintain) solidly behind Obama and the 1% is just a dodgey poll. That state will go Obama’s way.

Missouri, like Florida and Ohio which had been called for Obama, is now back up for grabs. So too its quite large 11 EVs. That latest FOX News/Rasmussen poll has Obama up with a 3% lead – 50% to 47%. Last week, the same duo had McCain up by 5%. An 8% turn around is monumental but not out of the question. The state is quickly shifting to Obama, and McCain has little to do to stop it. Economy and identification with Obama seem to be spurring it on, which are two things McCain can’t stop people from thinking about. If Obama wins Missouri, I’ll be very happy but very surprised. Though, people were saying the same thing about North Carolina when polls started showing a tight race, so you never know. If he does win Missouri, then Obama may very well win Indiana – not  because they are similar or linked but because they are both pro-Republican states of the level that if Obama was going to win one, he is going to sweep a few.

Another state like that is Georgia. Now you might remember me writing about how Georgia was in play some months ago. That’s because Obama’s campaign was targeting it to flip because of its demographics. Then, when the race tightened up, and internals showed little progress was being made beyond a point, Obama shifted his resources into Florida and North Carolina, took Georgia off the target list, and forgot about it. Well, it seems now it’s in play when you bring together two sources. First, the latest poll. It h as Obama down by 7% (Research 2000) – 50% to 43%. Now I know what I just said about the 50% mark, but in this case it’s different. Remember how I keep talking about out-dated formulas for the polls? Georgia is the classic example. African-American turnout contributed 25% of the vote in Georgia in 2004. Early voting in the state now indicates that the number will be … wait for it … a huge 40% of the votes cast. Winning 90%+ (which is realistic in this case, as Kerry got 88%) flips the state completely even when Bush won the state by 17% in 2004. This is a state to watch on election night for the surprise flip. If Obama does win it, like I said before, he is wining big – Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada, Missouri, even Indiana will all be in the bag too.

Finally, New Hampshire with its 3 EVs are going to Obama (like I said from the start). 13% lead for him, 53% to 40%. There’s no way this state is flipping red like the Republicans had hoped. I think they thought because he is notionally popular among Republicans that would somehow transfer over to independents (which the state has a huge amount of), but it hasn’t happened even slightly. The state hasn’t been swing for months – I wish that the polling companies would send pollsters to Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina to give us a picture of what is happening through the South, rather than wasting time with the ‘blue horn’.

Anyway, if the election was held tomorrow, with my predictions of Indiana going with the landslide, the 1 EV from Omaha, Nebraska, and the Georgia numbers, Obama wins the election by a ridiculous and embarrassing margin: 391 EVs to 147 EVs. Take out Indiana, Nebraska, Missouri, and Georgia, Obama wins 353 to 185. Take out Ohio, it’s 333 to 205. Take out Florida, it’s 306 to 232. Other than that, you can’t take out any state that I have Obama winning without going against trends and polls. The election is running, not slipping, away from McCain and he is running out of time, and has run out of ammunition. What else can he do? He’s played his VP card, he’s had his convention, the first debate is done, the VP debate is done, he’s gone as dirty as you can get, he’s put forth all his policy views, and he has lost more ground the the French in World War Two. I’ve been saying that Obama will win the election and here’s the proof. The state polls are showing an Obama victory.

Thomas.

The Keating Five

It’s more than likely that you’ve already heard what the attacks are all the character attacks are on Obama – Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and William Ayers. The Obama campaign’s comeback is to play teh Keating Five card – a giant round of ammunition that will hurt the McCain campaign in a big way. The card has been played yesterday, with Obama’s campaign being forced to bring up issues that have little to do with the election just to combat the gutter politics that the McCain campaign has brought to the party.

But who are the Keating Five? And what does it have to do with McCain. The savings and loan crisis, spread from the 1980s to the early 1990s, whereby savings and loan institutions (essentially mortgage companies) had been giving out a significant amount of loans at low fixed interest rates (due to a housing market boom, which at a peak in 1980 had $1.2 trillion in mortgage loans in the US market) as market values rose. But so too did national interest rates. To pay back the money that the savings and loan companies had borrowed in the first place (now at higher interest rates than the mortagages originally given) for earlier mortgages, companies would have to give money back from mortgage repayments beyond the interest, thus taking away potential (and eventually all) profits that company stood to make.

Then came the Tax Reform Act of 1986, whereby with new laws, it was better for group-owners (people pooling money to buy property) of properties that were not quite so profitable to sell them, because they could not be written off for tax. This eventually saw the end of the housing boom, while all these low-rate mortgages were out there not covering the then-current interest rates of repayment. The market value of properties began to fall, as the Reform Act began a rush to sell properties.

All the while, savings and loan companies had very little oversight after deregulation of the market (sound familiar?) and began to engage in some dodgey lending to make up shortfalls (also sound familiar?). Illegalities, like fraud and bad bookkeeping, took place, combined with other factors that were going on at the time, led to the eventual failure of 747 savings and loan companies, with a bailout required of the government (again, familiar?) to the tune of $160.1 billion, or $124.6 billion in today’s money. All under a Republican watch.

During the crisis, the company Lincoln Savings and Loan Association was investigate because its parent company had gone to the wall, and thus more than 20,000 customers of LSLA with a lifetime of savings (mostly elderly people) lost everything. The head of LSLA, Charles Keating, had made some $1.3 million worth of political donations to senators Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI). Through the investigation, Keating seemingly called on these senators, as payment for the $1.3 million, to “help” him with investigators.

In 1991, it was eventually decided by the Senate Ethics Committee that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had interfered with the investigation, while John Glenn and John McCain we cleared, but told they had exercise ‘poor judgement’ in their conduct and accepting of the money. It looked bad for them all, and only Glenn and McCain would go on from this as politicians.

So no one has brought this up, really, since then. At least not nationally. Perhaps in McCain’s immediate reelection bid it figured. But not in the 2000 nor in the 2008 primaries did it come up. And it hadn’t come up until now. It didn’t need to either – but with McCain’s campaign going down the dirty road first, it’s only fair to fight fire with fire. Obama’s campaign has put up the website Keating Economics which hosts a video that explains the whole thing (with some spin of course).It’s quite a traditional Republican move in a way – but new age and for the Democrats. Where the Republicans would have a fear-evoking advert on the TV, this is a fear-evoking website (the black background, the green fonts, the pictures of McCain and Keating, etc.). I don’t like that Obama’s team has had to resort to this, but look what happened to John Kerry in 2004 when he tried to avoid the dirt politics.

But if anything, this type of attack is more relevant than the one that Palin launched on Obama yesterday, and more than what a Rev. Wright attack would be. This one is about an investigation McCain was subject to, associated with the economy and tied into ethical questions. McCain and Palin are lying about Obama’s ties to William Ayers. While neither are actually completely relevant to the race, if either one had to happen, it would be the attack on McCain for the Keating Five.

Thomas.

Fantastic polling data

Well, if the election was held today, the results would be a landslide. Obama would win by near 200 electorcal college votes, McCain would have run the most ridiculous and laughable campaign, and the world would be headed in a better direction. The latest round of polls tell us this. They indicate a routing for Obama, not just in a couple of the swing states but in all of the swing states. I’ll give then to you in dot points, and draw you attention to a couple of important numbers:

• Florida – Quinnipiac – Obama 51%, McCain 43%
• Florida – CNN/TIME – Obama 51%, McCain 47%
  
• Florida – InsiderAdvantage – Obama 49%, McCain 46%
  
• Florida – Suffolk – Obama 46%, McCain 42%
  
• Pennsylvania – Quinnipiac – Obama 54%, McCain 39%
  
• Pennsylvania – Morning Call – Obama 45%, McCain 38%
  
• Ohio – Quinnipiac – Obama 50%, McCain 42%
  
• Virginia – CNN/TIME – Obama 53%, McCain 44%
  
• Missouri – CNN/TIME – Obama 49%, McCain 48%
  
• Minnesota – CNN/TIME – Obama 54%, McCain 43%
  
• Wisconsin – Strategic Vision – Obama 49%, McCain 40%
  
• Nevada – CNN/TIME – Obama 51%, McCain 47%
  
• Nevada – InsiderAdvantage – Obama 48%, McCain 47%
  
• National – TIME – Obama 50%, McCain 43%
  
• National – Pew Research – Obama 49%, McCain 43%
  
• National – Associated Press – Obama 48%, McCain 41%

That’s right – they’re all important! Obama is up in Florida, a state that was swing, but he was probably going to lose. He’s locked up Pennsylvania (and it’s going blue, like I’ve been saying). Ohio is back into play, even though Obama hasn’t lead in a poll there for some months. Virginia has finally come round to showing the Democratic trend in the latest poll that previous years election results have shown. Missouri might still go blue – the bellweather state that, again, was swing but Obama was not really meant to win. Minnesota and Wisconsin – two hopes for McCain of flipping – have fallen in behind Obama. Nevada is either a clear Obama win, or really close – and if the polls are really close going into election day, the demographics are there to give Obama the win. Nationally, Obama is dominating, and the media is going crazy.

Guess what? That list doesn’t incued North Carolina – where the latest 2 polls out of these have Obama in the lead. Nor does it have numbers on Indiana, a state that had turned swing before the economy (the #1 issue in Indiana) became the foucs. Georgia and West Virginia reported in polls in the past week of 8% or less difference, with McCain in the lead.

Factor in all these states that I have polling data on, and North Carolina (holding off on Indiana, West Virginia, Georgia, and even Missouri because this latest poll is the first to show a close race), and the Obama/Biden ticket gets 352 EVs to McCain/Palin’s 185. That is a routing, no matter which way you look at it. Missouri and Indiana are primed to flip too – another 22 EVs – which could bring it to 374 to 163.

West Virginia, and Georgia aren’t the only states that are on the verge of tipping over to swing. Montana is in a state of flux, Louisiana has been showing a closer race than normal, Arkansas seems to harbour some Democratic feelings (and would certainly be blue if Clinton was on the ticket). That’s 6 more states that could come into play. Before the race started, when it was going to be won with Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Virginia, it was too much for McCain. Now North Carolina, Indiana, Florida are going Obama’s way, and the rest of the swing states are beginning to be locked up by him. It’s been too much for McCain for some time now – it will only get worse.

He does not want to go onto the attack. As much as the party is telling him to play some of the big cards, like Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, and what-have-you, he really needs to stick clear of it. He needs to provide a voice of hope, not a voice of fear – because obvioulsy his scare tactics have failed misserably.

Granted, the polls have come off a horrible week for McCain – but this week will be no better. He took responsibility for the Treasury Bill passing through the House vote … before it failed! Then he tried to blame Obama and everyone laughed at him. Poll after poll came out through the week that showed terrible numbers for him. The VP debate is on in the next 24 hours – that will be bad for him. And then more polls will come out fresh off this week’s hoopla. So the cycle starts again! He can’t get out of the negative media, or the negative reaction by the voters.

Which is only a great thing for the Obama campaign.

UPDATE: And the latest poll to come out of Indiana shows a 1% lead for McCain – a virtual tie.

Thomas.

Late night polling – WI, NC, MI

Some rather exciting news to cap the night off/start the morning with. For the first time in 8 Rasmussen polls, Obama now has a lead of 2% over McCain in the state of North Carolina – 49% to 47%. Bells will be sounding all over the place here. I expect that this was a number that McCain internals showed, and which lead him to start investing in the state. We’ve all known that polls from N.C. are going to be well off, as African-American turnout will be huge compared to last year, which throws off the calculations from last year. If Rasmussen is reporting an Obama lead based on 2004 numbers, it’s going to be significantly bigger than what the polls suggest.

Obama’s ground work, his registration drive, all the advertising, and the rest of the ground game I’ve blogged about before have done wonders in the state, and it’s all coming down to a matter of turning out voters. The poll, unfortunately, is already being considered dated due to the latest McCain stunt of closing down his campaign for a while. But on the bright side, it might just mean Obama stretches further ahead in the traditionally Republican state, and begins to get a firm grounding in it. Either way, one poll showing a lead here is very encouraging – it will be more-so when it’s backed up by other pollsters, and more Rasmussen ones.

The latest Detriot News poll has Obama leading in Michigan by 10% – 48% to 38%. Very encouraging, at the Detroit polls are conducted on a local, state-based level. And the margin is big enough to still figure in any bias the readership might have. An important note from the poll explains why Obama is firming up in the state that some (not me!) said would flip:

The country’s recent economic problems are weighing heavily on the minds of voters, and many of them are concerned. 61% of people say it’s likely the country is headed towards another Great Depression. 88% of people say they’re concerned about the affect the possible failure of several banks or financial institutions will have on the economy. Those fears have 56% of people saying they want more regulation for the financial systems in this country.

And finally Wisconsin has a poll out that puts Obama firmly ahead by 6% from McCain – 49% to 43%. That state is rather close, all things considered, but this lead is reassuring for Obama’s campaign because polls from last week showed a tight race there. With with the North Carolina poll, and the Michigan poll, it’s already dated due to the past 36 hours of campaign activity. But nevertheless, it’s goo news for Obama that he is firming up in the Kerry states some more, locking in formerly Republican states (Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado), and staying very competitive in the rest of the swing states (Nevada, Virginia) and bring new states into the grey area (North Carolina).

Next week’s polls, from Monday, possibly Sunday, onwards, will be the real litmus test for the next stage in the race. There’s supposed to be a debate on, McCain looks like an idiot, Palin is getting hammered by the media, poll after poll is going Obama’s way. The next round of polls will be a good indicator of the American political psyche now, and trends show little change from the first debate in in terms of reporting numbers. It’s those gap percentages, the undecideds and independents, that will be the deciders in some states – that 4% group that is always left over at the end of the numbers. That’s what the battle will be for from next week onwards. The parties are motivated as much as they can be (though Republican enthusiasm is on the decline), the registration deadlines are approaching, it’s all about independents and their votes, then followed by election day where it’s about getting people to the polls.

Very exciting times ahead!

Thomas.