9.14.2008

Today's Polls, 9/14

Two new polls from Minnesota suggest a tight race in the Land o’ Lakes. The Star Tribune’s poll, which had shown a double-digit lead for Barack Obama in May, now shows a dead heat at 45-45. Although the results of these two polls are not directly comparable, since the Star Tribune has switched over from a registered voter to a likely voter model, it is hard to interpret this as anything other than unambiguously good news for John McCain. Meanwhile, SurveyUSA, which has always posited a tight race in Minnesota, gives Barack Obama a narrow 2-point lead, unchanged from last month.

In both Minnesota and Colorado, recent polling has run slightly ahead of where our model thinks it should be for the party that held their respective convention in the state. Although I’m not necessarily persuaded that there should be some sort of localized bounce from the conventions – these events are staged for the national TV audience, and not for the locals – it’s something to keep in mind when evaluating polls from these states. Minnesota now rates as a fringe swing state, and arguably is more fertile territory for John McCain than Wisconsin.

Over in Iowa, Ann Sezler’s poll for the Des Moines Register has Barack Obama with a comfortable lead of 12 points. Selzer polls have had a pronounced Democratic lean this year, and so the results need to be interpreted in that context (Obama led by 17 points in their poll in February) -- if Selzer polled all 50 states, we’d likely wind up with a very blue map. Of course, Selzer polls are also the highest-rated in our database, and nailed the Iowa caucuses this year. In any event, Iowa is a state where both campaigns might consider removing resources from.

Finally, in New Jersey, a Research 2000 poll for the Bergen County Record has Obama ahead by 9 points. The McCain campaign is not really invested in New Jersey, and although other polling has had it tightening some, it is unlikely to be a decisive state.

Overall, the landscape has not changed very much since the Republican convention – we’re just collecting different evidence about where the bounce might or might not be in different states. Arguably, however, there are a few signs that McCain is beginning to come off his peaks. Between the four national tracking polls, McCain now leads by an average of just 0.25 points, his smallest margin since the convention.

475 comments

PeteDrum said...

McCain's convention bounce will disappear soon. (Day 10)

Jack-be-nimble said...

It will disappear completely on the first "Wednesday of Novermber.

AxmxZ said...

Question: given that your model predicts the RNC convention bounce to peak between 9/11 and 9/15 and diminish only very slowly afterwards, is McCain underperforming?

Jack-be-nimble said...

Sorry Nate,

There are not four national tracking polls. Even RCP is not including the DKos vodoo poll.

Maybe we should have a poll designed and set up by NRO or REDSTATE or Hugh Hewitt.

MATT J. H. said...

Chuck Todd said today that Wisconsin is now in play, we need to see some polling, and that Palin has had no effect in the West which leaves Obama playing offense in the West and McCain in the rust belt as anticipated.

Nates model seems to be diverging from current polling. It appears Obama is doing better electorally than nationally. What do you guys think.

Jack-be-nimble said...

I can see by the configuration of your posting that you are not Christian, but are Muslim. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

sulthernao said...

If it was actually a dkos poll and not just commissioned by dkos then I would agree not to use it. But it is a R2000 that is actually doing the poll. I don't think that it would be in their best interests to mess up the polling.

John said...

Nate, you know better than to report the unweighted average of 4 polls with very different sample sizes.

If you weight for sample size, McCain's lead is 1.3 points in the tracking polls.

To Jack-be-stupid: The DailyKos poll is conducted by Research 2000. There's no evidence that it's biased.

jdk said...

What does the tipping point state analysis even mean anymore now that California shows up?

There has always been a problem sorting out information from noise in this metric, because

a. You've felt a need to do a David Letterman and have a list, when it might be that only 2 or 5 or 8 or 10 are meaningful numbers.

b. the anaylsis has never separated out the O tips from the M tips.

The EV chart for a couple of weeks has revealed about 6 or 7 really likely scenarios. That would be a more interesting chart -- the mostly likely outcome combinations of states producing O as a winner and the mostly likely combinations of states producing M as winner. Reviewing those two charts\liss would quickly and more accurately reveal the real tippers\battleground and then the ROI would make sense (one for M and one for O only involving the the real tippers\battles.

Minnesota Mike said...

A couple of thoughts on Minnesota.

- I think there may be somewhat of a local Convention bounce. Lot's of local positive press about the Republicans and I think there is some blowback against the tactics of some of the demonstrators. We expect our visitors to act Minnesota Nice.

- I think the likely voter screens are screening out some young local voters who intend to vote. I know SUSA uses being registered to vote as part their LV screen (Not sure of the Star Trib). Since there is same day registration in Minnesota there is no need to register before election day. Most first time voters will not register until election day, they may be likely voters but SUSA does not treat them as such.

fred said...

DCM in fl in prior thread. Is this the beginning of the end for Sarah and John?

" DCM in FL said...
PETE

well, I posted on the Palin favorables much earlier with links to the Research 2000 data for yesterday when she was down to +9.

Now today, poor old Sarah is in even worse shape... Palin down to +5 and falling hard...

read 'em & weep Palinistas !

Favorable/Unfavorable
DATE CANDIDATE FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
09/14 MCCAIN 53 44 3
09/14 OBAMA 54 39 7
09/14 BIDEN 49 33 18
09/14 PALIN 47 42 11

@ http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/09/14

Maybe it was the Tina Fey smackdown last night ??? the lipstick is already smudged, or should we switch to the sows ear/silk purse comparison now...

But the bloom is already coming off that rose & it is starting to fade fast.

Wait until Palin has negative favorables...

ciao PETE"

T-Bone said...

If these polls aren't due to a convention bounce, God help us, because that means that the electorate eats up outright lies and can't distinguish them from the truth. These aren't even complicated or subtle lies. They are very simply demonstrated to be false.

fred said...

t-bone-

Relax, it is a bounce, and Palin is falling fast.

Relax, have a local beer.

MATT J. H. said...

I'm not sure the public cares much about candidates lying. I think it comes with the territory when your a politician. Its actually quite sad really. Obama wants to spend, spend, spend. Money for health care. Money for students. Money for energy research. McCain wants to implement a monstrosity of a tax cut to corporations that would add trillions to the deficit, then when prodded what tax cuts he'll make he says "Airmarks" which account for about $30 billion per year.

With the division in congress and the Senate, and the special interests owning the politicians, i doubt our government will ever get on track. When you can't even count on conservatives to cut spending, your in trouble.

VinceP1974 said...

Relativism explained: creating a whole alternate "reality" in which McCain's manifest and rank dishonesty compells virtious and pious church members into the camp of infanticide-defending, stealth Marxist Obama

filistro said...

Robert, if that's what they're really saying in the basements of Baptist churches, then this perception of "McCain as a liar" is spreading even deeper, farther and faster than I thought it would.

And it is LETHAL for John McCain.

Darío said...

I think Obama will win MN at the end.
If you saw the RCP average in the 2004 election, Bush leads in some polls before the election and Kerry won the state.

filistro said...

Dario... do you think anything has changed much, (state by state) since before the conventions?

Sean said...

@Darío

Kerry won NM in 2004? News to me. Though I have no doubt the Dems will pick up NM this time around.

AJC said...

Jack-be-nimble:

Are you Irish American?

OzJohnnie said...

To Jack-be-stupid: The DailyKos poll is conducted by Research 2000. There's no evidence that it's biased.

You guys argue endlessly that Ras is hopelessly biased, and then you want Kos polls to be accepted unquestioningly?

I suggest you all stop arguing about the methods - it's too late to change them with any objectivity. Just watch for errors in the algorithms and leave it at that. Nate had already defined a method for weighting polls and determining their eligibility. Follow the rules and see how his formula works. Tune it for next time.

Oz.

AxmxZ said...

I think Minnesota Nice is one of the reasons why McCain won't win there. He's being too nasty.

fred said...

I have never argued Ras is biased, I have questined their methodology. You just can't do nuance can you, repug? Isthe world all "good v evil" to you?

How did that "axis of evil" thing work out?

DCM in FL said...

JACK

there are 4 legitimate national trackers now to keep the old guys in line.

Hotline is already proving to be rather useful.

Research 2000 has established that it is more on top of the real trends than either Rasmussen or Gallup.

Rasmussen is a partisan pollster, Research 2000 is not.

get a grip. whine about a house effect, but so far both the new polls are proving that the old polls have the GOPer +2-3 bias that Pollster showed through analysis last month.

sorry, they have been outed

Darío said...

Sean, i said Kerry won MN, no New Mexico.

fred said...

oz-

Who has argued Ras polls should be removed or that Nate should change his methodology? I have only argued Rasmussen should not change his methodology at this late hour EITHER!

Darío said...

Filistro, no.

DCM in FL said...

JACK

also, you say RCP doesn't list Research 2000

BIEG SURPRISE !!!

RCP is a RIGHT leaning conservative site. I am amazed they are listing Hotline !!!

RCP loves all things RR & Gallup & FAUX

once again, get a clue

MATT J. H. said...

Whats Rove doing today on FOX saying the McCain camp is going to far. Is he up to something, or giving an honest opinion?

I don't know if the right understands how much democrats hate Karl Rove. Bush we think was just incompetent. Rove is smart and knew what he was doing. I'm a live-and-let-live guy, but I'd like to inflict bodily harm on Rove...

and Sean Hannity for good measure.

Minnesota Mike said...

FWIW Rasmusan just posted a Delaware poll.

Obama 55
McCain 42

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/delaware/election_2008_delaware_presidential_election

Minnesota Mike said...

whoops, that should

Obama 55
McCain 43

OzJohnnie said...

AxmxZ;

I think Minnesota Nice is one of the reasons why McCain won't win there. He's being too nasty.

Yeah. And McCain will type up that new mean ad just as soon as his pain killers start working.

:eyeroll

Oz.

Darío said...

Delaware, 55-42 Obama.
Well, this state isn´t in play.
And it´s the old Joe state.

Darío said...

RCP average is McCain up by 2.2 but the electoral college is Obama 273 McCain 265.
The "right-wing" RCP gives Obama victory and Nate McCain.

The Real Mike Is Back said...

Chuck Todd is correct - 48 percent is the magic number in these polls. 48+ means the candidate has got to make a major mistake to eat away at the structural advantage of that number.

Darío said...

RCP, Pollster and electoral-vote.com gives Obama victory in Colorado.
Why you not Nate?.

OzJohnnie said...

prof skunk;

In Oz we had our own Palin several years ago (Pauline Hansen) who wasn't a 'hockey mom' but an owner of a local fish and chip shop.

I'm well aware of Hanson. I'm also well aware of how stupid Labor and the Greens handled her presence electorally.

They ostracized her and her supporters (25%). The drove from the field the only candidate that ever pushed Howard from the right, leaving him near infinite room to move left and squeeze Beazley, who was forced to bargain with the Greens and Democrats (forcing him further left).

I guess poor electoral strategy is not something confined to the American Left.

Oz.

VinceP1974 said...

Comparing Palin with Hansen is completely absurd and just goes to show how wrong the Leftist conception of a libertarean-leaning Republican is.

You guys have come up every lie on earth about her... all of which have been debunked and yet none of you seem to have reevaluated what she is about. It's just mental laziness. If you put as much thought into actually knowing about someone as these silly numbers maybe there wouldn't be so much hostility

Karlo said...

I know these comments have been taken over by partisan hackery as of late, but I have a question maybe someone can help me with.

Look at the MN polls. Obama is tied recently, but used to be up big. Now, take a look at party identification. When there's a low REP ID, Obama wins big, if not, it's a tie. Now, do people really change party affiliations that quickly? Or do pollsters actively go after what they consider a representative sample? I could see it being tied up if conservative democrats or independents were switching to McCain, but its as if the electorate composition itself is shifting. Is that real?

DCM in FL said...

the internals of the Research 2000 tracking polls are dreadful for the GOPers...

@ http://www.dailykos.com/dailypoll/2008/09/14

Research2000 Polling Data for September 14, 2008
MCCAIN OBAMA BARR NADER OTHER UND
Overall 45 47 2 2 1 3
MEN 49 42 3 3 1 2
WOMEN 42 52 1 1 1 3
DEM 13 83 1 1 1 1
REP 91 6 1 0 0 2
IND 47 42 3 3 1 4
OTH/REF 46 42 3 3 2 4
WHITE 56 35 3 2 1 3
BLACK 4 93 0 0 0 3
LATINO 32 65 0 1 0 2
OTHER/REF 4 89 0 0 0 7
18-29 31 62 0 1 1 5
30-44 49 43 4 1 1 2
45-59 45 47 2 3 1 2
60+ 54 39 1 3 1 2
=========================
NORTHEAST 37 56 1 2 1 3
SOUTH 55 37 3 1 1 3
MIDWEST 43 49 2 2 1 3
WEST 43 50 2 2 1 2
-------------------------------------

McCain has a lock on the South +18, but loses the NE [inc NH] -19, and McCain is down in the West -7 & Midwest -6...

OUCH, GOPers are losing 3 of 4 regions. No wonder even RCP has Obama still winiing the EV.

Smells like TROUBLE in Palin Paradise !!!

AA support @ 93%,OTHER @ 89%, LATINO @ 65% for Obama.

IF Obama gets his DEM support up from 83% [which is doable], then there is no way for John & Sarah to prevail with a split IND vote - even if Rasmussen claims that GOPer party ID #'s are rising fast...

Research 2000 new tracker polls & internals beat the snot out of those for either Gallup or Rasmussen. Hell, the Diageo Hotline is already proving it has a better snapshot track record than the oldline pollsters in this 'bounce' period...

competition is a good thing, no ?

maybe it will keep the partisan thumbs off the scale... oh, that;s right - it is just a harmless 'house effect' !!! ROFLOL

OzJohnnie said...

fred;

Who has argued Ras polls should be removed or that Nate should change his methodology? I have only argued Rasmussen should not change his methodology at this late hour EITHER!

You're either ignorant or disingenuous. All pollsters of any quality move from RV to LV as the election approaches. Many of the best pollsters also weight for party. Ras's results and high ratings in Nate's Pollster Rates pretty much speak for themselves.

You don't like Ras's results, so you blame the poll. I understand that. When you're completely wrong on a matter which you profess so much expertise, it probably helps to assume that others are wrong as well.

Oz.

Darío said...

Interesting data from Scott Rasmussen.

"The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator shows McCain leading in states with 200 Electoral College votes while Obama has the edge in states with 193 votes. When “leaners” are included, shows Obama leading 259-247".

So neither takes 270 EV for Rasmussen.

MATT J. H. said...

I like having more national trackers, as long as they are credible, I say let em have at it. Gallup seems to bounce around a lot and Rasmussen is fairly frigid.

You guys like the Tina Fey impersonation of Palin. I thought that SNL skit was golden. Top five this year. I'd say Hillary and Bill are already plotting 2012 strategy against McCain and Palin.

migpower said...

Typically in past elections, McCain has not gone negative to the extent he has against Obama. Personally, I think he justifies it since Obama backed out on his pledge to take public financing. In addition, Obama backed out of the verbal agreement to campaign via town hall meetings across America with McCain. By giving into his fundraising capabilities and pundit recommendations, he lost his "new politician" virtues. Therefore, McCain followed likewise to level the playing field and went negative.

Boomshak said...

You can't possibly be taking ther Hotline and DailyKos polls seriously.

I mean, their party affiliations in their samples are ludicrous.

They both give Democrats and 9 point sampling advantage over republicans while Gallup and Rasmussen both claim this has shrunken to between 3 and 5.

fred said...

oz-

you are completely clueless. We are not discussing LV/RV but party ID. Call me when you get a clue. Go read the last threads comments and come back, with a clue, or just drop your Ras BS.

filistro said...

Sean, if you're still hovering in this thread...

I'm very curious about this bit from your Nevada post below:

Palin said she’d “championed earmark reform” and had opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. The crowd exploded.

Given that Robert tells us they're even talking about these untruths in the basement of his Baptist church, the folks in Nevada must know she's fibbing. Yet they "explode" when she repeats it.

Why do you think that is? What was your feeling, being there...is it just a thumb in the eye of critics? ("Call US liars, will ya? Well, we'll show YOU.")

It seems so incredibly, disturbingly BRAZEN... almost surreal...but I guess they know their audience.

DCM in FL said...

PEOPLE [as posted on the last thread]

let's get some perspective...

on Monday, 8/25 when the DEM convention convened in Denver:

Gallup Tracker - McCain 46 Obama 44

3 weeks later, Sunday 9/14 after BOTH conventions:

Gallup Tracker - McCain 47 Obama 45

On 8/26 Obama's convention 'bounce' began to climb

Tomorrow, it looks likely that Gallup will revert to another 'tie' - so what did we learn ????

regression to the mean for both candidates for at least one more week AS WAS PREDICTED BY NATE over a month ago... wait until the next BIG event - probably the first debate.

In the meantime, the Palin effect will settle in & most likely simmer down - the question is how low will it go ??? Sarah's favorables are already beginning to tank nationally @ +47 vs -42 [paltry +5 & falling]

BUT which POTUS candidate is currently trending UP ??? [hint - it starts with an O]

AND which candidate leads in 3 of 4 regions ??? [hint - same as above]

It is Deja Vu all over again...

So, something for everyone to slice & dice.

Still please try not to get too excited or to depressed & enjoy your Sunday evenings !

Darío said...

Rasmussen said:


Many websites compile averages of public polling. However, the FiveThirtyEight.com averages distinguish themselves in several ways, which are designed to provide for a more scientific outlook on polling and election outcomes.

Firstly, FiveThirtyEight.com does not treat all polls equally. Instead, polls are weighted, with more reliable polls having more influence on the averages. The polls are weighted based on three factors:

(i) The pollster’s historical track record of accuracy. We determine the amount of error that particular pollsters introduce based on a rigorous analysis of more than 160 elections dating back to 2000. For a fuller description of our methodology, click here, and for our current pollster ratings click here. Rasmussen Reports is presently rated third out of 32 public pollsters.

(ii) The poll’s sample size. Larger sample sizes are not a cure-all for poor methodology. In fact, polls begin to encounter diminishing returns fairly quickly as they increase their sample size. All else being equal, however, a larger sample will give you a more reliable result, and so larger sample sizes are weighted more heavily by an appropriate amount.

(iii) The recentness of the poll. Instead of arbitrarily deciding which polls qualify as “recent”, our methodology instead assigns an exponential decay function to each poll, such the reliability of a poll will decrease gradually with each passing day.

The second way in which the FiveThirtyEight.com averages are distinct is that we combine the polling results with a demographic model based on regression analysis. This analysis considers as many as 16 variables such as race, religion, age, socioeconomic status, and the partisan affiliation of each state. In states where there is abundant polling data, the regression analysis will receive relatively little weight. However, in states that have not been polled for a long time, the regression analysis may be the primary component in the polling averages. The regression estimates are updated continuously based on any new polling data that comes in.

Finally, FiveThirtyEight.com simulates the election 10,000 times each day based on the current polling averages. The simulation recognizes that the amount of uncertainty is higher the further we are from Election Day Months before an election, a state may be considered a toss-up if a candidate holds a 5-point lead in a given state. If the same 5-point lead were held on the morning of the election, however, the candidate’s odds of winning that state would be very good. In addition, the simulations recognize that the polling in one state is not necessarily independent of the polling in other states. Oftentimes, if a candidate receives a bounce in his polling, it will be reflected nationwide.. For a fuller discussion of our simulation methodology, please see the FiveThirtyEight.com.


Nate and Scott, one only heart.

fred said...

Time will tell , it is way too early.

electoral-vote had a nica analysis showing Palin has made the red state redder, but has niot helped much otherwise.

Brian said...

Hey Nate and Sean,

Today on "Meet The Press," Chuck Todd said that 70% of undecideds will likely vote for McCain on election day similar to how undecideds tended to break for Hillary during the primaries. Do you two beleive this to be true? And if you do feel it's true, have you accounted for that in your predictions?

Thank You,
Fletch

Boomshak said...

Let's bottom line this and clear away all the smoke.

Democrats have not gotten more than 50% of the vote in 30 years. This is because America is a center/right country.

Do you really think a center/right country will give absolute unchecked power over all branches of government to liberals?

No, it will not happen. Obama has already lost.

The Real Mike Is Back said...

I think I hear Scotty Rass singing....


"CAN YOU FEEL
THE LOVE
TONIGHT..."

Darío said...

Diageo/Hotline isn´t a Democratic pollster and Rasmussen isn´t a Republican pollster.

OzJohnnie said...

fred;

you are completely clueless. We are not discussing LV/RV but party ID. Call me when you get a clue.

What, do you think that your claiming I didn't mention party ID means that I actually didn't mention it?

The clue you need is that in a rhetorical match, you're like a baby against Fedor.

These are the facts: Ras rates highly. They predict well. You hate them for noticing party ID shifts, but they are not alone. Basically, your only resort in the face of evidence you don't like is to throw a tantrum.

What will be your tantrum when Ras is right again and Obama goes down in flames? You had just hope that Gallup is wrong and the Reps have not caught up in general preferred party for Congress, or you may lose the house as well. As the Dems are opening up an drilling vote before the election, I think they may agree with the polls more than you do.

Oz.

Obliterati said...

Minnesota tied? Iowa +12 for Obama?

Is somebody hacking these polls?

fred said...

Scott helped make Nate, thus we can assume Nate will not attack Scott. That does not mean that either Nate or Scott chaninging their methodology less than 2 months from the election is sensible.

Scott changed his methodology significantly around voter ID, Nate did not, although Nate did tweak the demographic stuff for AK and DE yesterday.

I question any huge change right now. Why? PARTICULARLY WHEN rAS MODEL WORKED WELL IN '04.

Boomshak said...

Mark my words, "absolute unchecked liberal power" is the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

DCM in FL said...

DARIO

your post on Rasmussen is on point.

Scott R. uses Nate & 538 to validate his own polling data as THE epitome of accuracy - even though it is not in mid-cycle & has a proven bias or 'house effect' of +3 GOP/McCain.

RR voluminous data is still over-influencing the projection analysis & steering the simulations on this site with far more impact than should be allowed or is warranted in a controlled model.

NATE - you ARE being used for Scott's partisan purposes to further legitimize his narrative. Many of us are aware of this, but it is not properly disclosed to the MSM & public at large...

Daniel said...

McCain has been slowed - not dramatically, but Obama has gained on him over the past 3-4 day. This is in line with Nate's 2-convention graph -- that McCain would, by the 27th of September, be even with Obama at least in terms of popular vote totals.

What is becoming alarming, as I watch a little news here and there, is that the talking-point of McCain's dishonesty and outright lying is taking hold -- and I think the electorate is paying attention. September is NOT the time to lie your ass off to Joe Public. And even in polls where McCain may lead, the overall perception of those polled is that, by a large margin, feel that Obama is more trustworthy and shares their values.

Lie once your woman, she forgives you...lie twice to her, she is now suspicious...lie three times to her, she leaves you. Right now, McCain is squarely on LIE #2 and if he keeps it up, Independents will leave his side very quickly.

One other note, Karl Rove, it hasn't occured to anyone else that Rove and Bush may want Obama to win? Should McCain win and serve two terms, then Palin runs and possibly serves two terms -- well doesn't that leave Jeb Bush out of the lineup? Trust me, they want to align it so that Jeb Bush can run in '16.

The Real Mike Is Back said...

Um, boomshak? 1977-1980? 1993-1994?

OzJohnnie said...

fred;

electoral-vote had a nica analysis showing Palin has made the red state redder, but has niot helped much otherwise.

This comment shows how you and your fellow travelers are living in the land of wishful thinking.

Assume this is true: Now McCain no longer needs to play defense, does he? He can spend the rest of the campain working the Maverick line in MI, PA, NH, NM to put Obama on defense. You can already see this happening. Obama's 50 States is now a 22 State strategy. How much further can he fall back?

I suggest that you look at the evidence and find a new plan. Whining about how mean McCain is or how much a liar he is won't get the red States back that you have lost since the conventions.

Better thinkers needed on the Left.

Oz.

fred said...

Ozlied about my position by stating:

"You hate them for noticing party ID shifts"

No! I don't hate them. I question changing his party ID model at the elevnth hour when it has worked well before. He changes his model of when to correct for voter ID and how much data he will use to determine voter ID. He does this 2 months out, why?

Got it yet?

Boomshak said...

Rasmussen is the only pollster who will be adjusting his weightings based upon the prior 6 weeks party affiliation data on a weekly basis.

This will begin tomorrow.

He is the one to watch until election day.

All these other polls with their lopsided demographies are just noise and talking points for MSNBC.

fred said...

OZ-

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A 22 STATE STRATEGY.

Boomshak said...

real-mike,

"Um, boomshak? 1977-1980? 1993-1994?"

In the last 60 years, only Jimmay Carter (50.4%) and LBJ (63%) have gotten more than 50% of the popular vote. Bill Clinton never did.

Them's the facts Jack.

DCM in FL said...

DARIO

you are wrong about Rasmussen. He is a GOP pollster & shows his partisanship.

Nate is a DEM analyst.

BUT only Scott R. has his fingers massaging the hard 'data'.

Nate attempts to counter-weight this - but his model is overwhelmed by the sheer bulk of the RR releases & the high degree of 'confidence' he assigns to them which has NOT been borne out for mid-cycle polling. The RR +3 'house effect' is not fully factored into the model, soyou get GIGO...

Aaron said...

I think the Kos polls should be counted for, and I think it's quite silly that RCP won't put them up. R2000 is entirely forthcoming with their numbers, and that counts for a lot. Nothing particularly suspect in any of the crosstabs I studied, besides the somewhat depressed performance it portends for McCain in the midwest and the west. Also, RCP included the Kos/R2000 state-by-state polls earlier this year, as well. It's an odd reversal on their part without any particular reasoning for being as such.

(I am a fiscal conservative who isn't quite sold on McCain, by the way. I'm about as far from a Kossack as you can get without venturing to Redstate. I find both sites deplorable, but these are polls by neutral observers no matter who pays them. It's silly to pretend they're unworthy of being counted, just as it's silly to pretend that Rasmussen polls shouldn't be counted. A poll is a poll.)

fred said...

boomshak-

Could be, but now we have to throw out his pretty good prior track record, cuz he changed his model. We will only know if it was a good idea in retrospect.

shadowguidex said...

There was an amazingly insightful C-SPAN program a couple days ago that talked about this political race in terms of product branding. The guy who gave the presentation and took questions had worked for the Clinton campaign against Obama and had some very poignant things to say:

The number one rule in product branding is: "Never go against your brand". Obama has run for over a year as the candidate of hope and change, and this is his brand. To run negative or attack ads, or even pessimistic ads which counteract his own brand, it will never help him. The first time he started implementing negaqtive ads was the Pennsylvania primary, and from that day on he has gone downhill. Despite the suggestions by many man people that he needs to hit back harder and stronger, and attack, this goes against his brand. He actually needs to rise above the fray, not be dragged down, and point out subtly that McCain is fighting dirty without stooping to doing it himself. Soft voters who like his hope and change message are immediately turned off by attack ads.

Another change he made - his original message was totally hope and change. Now the hope portion is gone, and the change portion has morphed from "rising above the fray change" into "different from GWB change". The difference doesnt seem very large, but it is in fact enormous. They had decided that the more generic change message wasn't enough to beat McCain who also benefits from a maverick "shack up Washington" persona. Attaching McCain to Bush seems a good tactic, but in actuality is is inherently a negative approach that appeals to fears more than hopes.

The subtleties are huge, and whoever has been branding Obama needs to get back to the core message of pure Hope and Change, lose all forms of negativity, and make a stark contrast between his high-minded form of campaigning and McCains dirty deeds type tactics.

Each and every time Obama "fights back", he just hurts himself.

Darío said...

Nate didn´t say thay he´s a democrat.

OzJohnnie said...

fred & DCM;

He changes his model of when to correct for voter ID and how much data he will use to determine voter ID. He does this 2 months out, why?

Because he believe shifting his models for shifting party ID's creates a more accurate result. Nate's rating of Ras over the past 8 years confirms Ras's accuracy.

Turning on Nate by alleging him to be in affect the "tool" of Ras, of being compromised by allegiance to Ras, may work well in decreasing Nate's prestige, but will do nothing to decrease either Ras's accuracy or what the polls are saying.

Oz.

Darío said...

boomshak, Carter won because the democrat southern vote.

fred said...

Ras polls should be counted, it just sucks that they should now be couted as heavily. Who knows if this is the right change.

OzJohnnie said...

fred;

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A 22 STATE STRATEGY.

You have got to be joking. Field offices in AK, Montana, Georgia, NC? Why all the "concern trolling" in the MSM about wasted funds?

You are fooling yourself. No one else.

Oz.

The Real Mike Is Back said...

You're right about 50%, boomchak. But you're wrong about control of branches of government.

Oh my, listen to me. What's the point in arguing with you or trying to correct you?

Alex S. said...

I think Iowa has more or less adopted Barack Obama. I have a big trust in Selzer´s polls. From their websitem I got the impression that they regard polling as an art. If they are a bit pro-Obama this year...good for Obama.

I thought MinnesotaMike´s commentary said all we need to know about that state. Same-day voter registration = Obama win. 4 years of new voters heavily leaning Obama.

Ok, I give Rasmussen a little credit for polling Delaware, a safe blue state. I complained about his red-state polls but it seems that he´s in fact polling small 3-EV states to test his model.
Oh, and I take that credit away for his new weekly changes in party ID. I agree with fred and ask myself why he has changed his methodology from 2004 - although his projection was spot on! I tell you, we will see Democratic party ID mysteriously rising in the final 3 weeks of this election - back to the 41% Dem vs. 30% Rep that we had at May. Rasmussen is not only a republican, but also an evangelical, and although I have no proof at all, I believe he wants to influence the narrative in the way that corrumpies his polls the least.

AxmxZ said...

oz: There are other reasons to open offices in states you don't expect to even come close to taking. Think about it for a while.

fred said...

oz-

you might be right, and Ras must think he is, but this is a numbers site and that type of change should be shown in the data. We aren't supposed to "guess" the we "did the right thing" changing our input model.

Really bad idea to do this two months out. What in the world could be the motivation? He wasn't happy to be within half a point?

Jinx said...

Come on now, that Research 2000 poll was only 26% Republican. All the most recent party ID data puts Republicans at least at 32%. That means, at best, this poll represents a 6% inflation of the Democratic vote.

fred said...

AK, MO, NC, and GA were some of the 22 states. So were MO, CO, NM, NH, etc.

DO you read Nate's posts?

Darío said...

Rasmussen maybe was a republican but his polls are good.

filistro said...

Thanks, Robert. I spend a lot of my time in Canada. I suppose many southern churches don't even have basements?

I haven't noticed you here before, and I very much appreciate your posts. You seem intelligent and prepared to be reasonable, which makes you a welcome voice from the right.

InkStain said...

I'm struggling to figure out how casting a wide net early in the election, then narrowing as it takes shape, is being portrayed as a bad thing for a candidate to do?

fred said...

Dario-

he is a repub and an evangelical. His headlines on his iste lately have really skewed pro-Palin. Not good for a pollster.

Of course, it is better than releasing pure junk polls like Zogby.

Anna Banana said...

It's going to come down to undecided voters, so what's the trend? Are there more or fewer now than before the conventions?

Anna Banana said...

It's going to come down to undecided voters, so what's the trend? Are there more or fewer now than before the conventions?

VinceP1974 said...

shadowguide is right-on

Obama has absolutely no record to stand on, no accomplishments. Plus a lot of things that he could point to as counting toward "experience" he is supressing... so what does that leave? His persona and marketting.

He was going to be Mr New Politics... Hope . Change . Non-partisan. etc..

However, what is obvious to all is that he's very arrogant , vain and also brittle.

McCain's ad strategy is to knock him off his pedastel so that Obama has to go off-message and defend himself.

Thus the ads saying he's a celebrity or the Messiah, and one where they have him in his Greek Temple with all the lights going off.

You know these ads hit the bullseye because Obama has been bitchy ever since.

fred said...

oz-

You really think anyone in BO's campaign ever thought they could win OK? It was never a real 50 state strategy.

fred said...

anna-

We are still in the convention bounce, ask that question right before the first debate.

hosertohoosier said...

Ozjohnnie,

"They ostracized her and her supporters (25%). The drove from the field the only candidate that ever pushed Howard from the right, leaving him near infinite room to move left and squeeze Beazley"

This analysis does not fit with one little fact - Australia's voting system. Because Australians vote by giving a ranked preference of candidates in their ridings, One Nation was not a threat to John Howard. In fact, it provided a means of rallying anti-immigrant working class voters that 20 years earlier would have been a lock for Labour - voters John Howard would have difficulty appealing to directly as a nerdish fiscal conservative. Beazley's real inexplicable failure was in its inability to scoop up those voters after exit stage: Hansen.

I do agree, however, that the comparison between Hansen and Palin is rather thin.

Palin is fairly positive and optimistic, while Hansen is not. Moreover, the dailykos caricature of Palin as a bookburner, etc. is mostly bluster - with Hansen you could point to explicit things that she said that were unashamedly racist, offensive and crypto-fascist. Palin is a professional politician, who has been in public office of one type or another for 16 years. She is a reasonably polished speaker. Pauline Hansen was ridiculously awful, which is unsurprising because she genuinely had no experience beyond 1 year in city council.

Here is the thing about Palin - she offers a new mould of female politicians, for better or for worse. The existing archetypes have either been "I'm tougher than any man" sorts, like Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Kim Campbell, Golda Meir, or Angela Merkel. In other countries, there have been "mother of the nation" female leaders like Benazir Bhutto or Indira Gandhi.

I think this largely reflects a dichotomy you see in male politicians as well - most American elections have featured a "strong leader in tough times" candidate versus a "feel your pain" candidate. Palin has the potential to do both (or neither). For the record, Obama is also a candidate that doesn't fall into this mould - and like Palin you could see him failing on both counts, or succeeding on both.

OzJohnnie said...

Ok, 50 State Strategy -

Huff Post on June 8: For all of the hoopla surrounding the candidates, the 2008 presidential election will be the first truly national test of the viability and prescience of Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.

Newsweek on June 23: The idea is to re-create the kind of success he had in Iowa, but on a much larger scale—mobilizing tens of thousands of volunteers and organizers nationwide in what the Democrats call their "50-state strategy."

Time on June 10: From the earliest days of his upstart campaign, Obama pledged to run a 50-state effort, vowing to move past the traditional partisan divide and expand the electoral map by appealing to independents and even Republicans. But few people, even among his own staff, thought he'd actually invest in every single state. As it turns out, Obama's phenomenal fund raising has allowed him to deliver on his bold promise and place staff in every one of the 50 states, as his campaign announced it would Monday.


And now you guys are trying to argue it never existed. See why Dems lose so much? Self-delusion.

Oz.

shadowguidex said...

Many college students aren't at home anymore, and polling college dorms is a no-no. Many students intercept phone calls from polling agencies when at home over the summer, and give their opinions. Those students are gone, and the parents are answering.

Alex S. said...

50 state strategy = Dean
22 state strategy = Obama

goal of 50 state strategy = promote Democratic goals, establish local and regional organisations, compete in every political race of the nation

22 state strategy = defend, and conquer 2008 presidential election battlegrounds

DCM in FL said...

Past end-of-cycle performance is no indication of future & current accuracy - re: Rasmussen.

Yes, include Rasmussen - but make the proper weighting & adjust for proven 'house effects' such as the blatant party ID #'s game he is running now.

For those who think RR polls are the end-all, be-all:

try doinf some independent research.

Franklin @ Pollster has run numerous analysis articles showing Rasmussen tracker = +3 GOPer bias, and Gallup Tracker = +2 GOPer bias.
--------------------------------------
"How Pollsters Affect Poll Results"

@ http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_pollsters_affect_poll_resu.php

-------------------------------------

Franklin has also written on how polls are chosen for inclusion, including how the sheer volume of RR releases creates an over-reliance on RR data that can skew polling analysis.

"How We Choose Polls to Plot: Part IV" [a 4 part series]

@ http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_we_choose_polls_to_plot_pa_3.php
--------------------------------------
Facts speak for themselves...

Trevor said...

If we want to play the "Dems can't get 50%" game, here's another:

No Republican has been able to win by more than 8% the past 23 years whereas the Democrats have once, and have had half as many wins by over 200 EVs (and half as many wins by over 6% of the popular vote.)

Margin of victory, both by number of EVs and by popular vote, are more important than simply getting 50%.

John K. said...

Anyone who bitches about the economy is lazy, not working hard enough, or just not business savvy.

fred said...

oz-

opening an office in OK is far different from thinking you can win it.

Darío said...

Let´s see some polls from MN in the 2004 election in RCP average.


Poll | Date Sample MoE Bush Kerry Nader Spread
RCP Average | 10/24-11/1 - - 45.3 48.5 5.0 Kerry +3.2
Zogby | 10/29-11/1 601 LV 4.1 45 51 - Kerry +6
CNN/USAT/Gallup | 10/28-30 1098 LV 3.0 44 52 - Kerry +8
Rasmussen | 10/25-10/31 600 LV 4.0 47 48 - Kerry +1
St. PP/Mason-Dixon | 10/27-29 625 LV 4.0 48 47 - Bush +1
Star-Tribune | 10/26-29 996 LV 3.5 41 49 - Kerry +8
Humphrey Inst | 10/24-10/27 690 LV 4.1 47 44 5 Bush +3

Tim R said...

Boomshack

You stated that the country would not give unchecked power to the liberals. The country gave unchecked power to the conservatives from 2000-2006 and look how bad they screwed that up. I think the country is tired of gridlock and wants to give the liberals the chance to fix all the things the republicans have screwed up.

OzJohnnie said...

hosertohoosier;

This analysis does not fit with one little fact - Australia's voting system. Because Australians vote by giving a ranked preference of candidates in their ridings, One Nation was not a threat to John Howard.

I agree that Howard was very unlikely to be threatened with lost parliament seats by Hanson (although the Nats may have been in QLD, where the 25% support for One Nation resided). It is unarguably, however, that there is no far right party in Australia. There is no one to pull the Liberals in their rhetoric and coalition building away from the center. The Labor Party, however, continues to be hassled by the Greens and Independents. In order to build a large coalition, Labor is forced to move left. The Liberals are forced to move to the center. Advantage Howard, and hence, his long ride as PM.

Oz.

fred said...

john k.-

some of us are very well off, but actually worry about our fellow Americans who are less well off. Yes, I know, you and Steve Forbes just want to shoot them.

Trevor said...
This post has been removed by the author.
John K. said...

Fred anyone who can't make it without Daddy Government is just a whiner who needs to learn some personal responsibility.

John K. said...

Trevor-

They should work harder. Unemployment is only 6.1%. That's low by historical standards.

If you want to see bad, look at 1980 and what this country was like under liberal rule.

DCM in FL said...

HOSE said:

"Palin is fairly positive and optimistic..."

IN WHAT BIZARO WORLD ???

geez, she is snarky & pessimistic & a hypocritical moralist panderer - but Sarah is a first class liar & exagerator. Like the fake Bridge & Ebay lines she spouts daily... and vindictive behaviour to anyone who is against her [worse than Bush & Cheney even].

sorry, but Palin is a real fraud not an optimist or a uniter or even a compassionate conservative [oxymoronic]

are we doing a Bizarro world post again ??? if so, yours takes the cake !

fred said...

Joihn k.-

did you just admit Clinton was not a liberal?

OzJohnnie said...

fred;

opening an office in OK is far different from thinking you can win it.

And it's money down the gurgler. That's one less office in OH, or PA, or MI, or WI, or... any number of battle ground states.

If you have infinite money, then what's a office in a useless State? But if you are waaaaaaayyy behind your opponent in cash on hand and falling further behind every day, that useless cash outflow starts to look a little... silly?

Oz.

PeteKent said...

It is really sad that you all are relying on the daily Kos' pollster to measure Palin's polularity. Talk about home cooking! Thesea re the people who suggested sarash's youngest, trig, was realy her ledest daudther's baby!

Come on.

Lets not ignore the Newseek number i pirnted in the prvisous thread. Much more authoritative.

Alex S. said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin


Lehman Brothers will file for bankrupcy...


Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers... these are not some marginal companies, they are the cornerstones of the American financial system. Incredible how some people still doubt the disastrous state of the economy.

fred said...

Nah, 5 staffers and an office will cost 5K.

That said, I would have had a focussed ten state strategy and palyed defense in the kerry states plus IA (mostly) and told Howard Dean to go fly a kite.

shadowguidex said...

Conservatives - watch the news and see what your constant drumbeat of deregulation has done to the financial markets. In Bush 41's term, the deregulation lead to massive failures of savings and loans all over the nation, and a recession. This time around, the removal of the uptick rule, coupled with failures of monitoring the oil speculators have lead to yet another disasterous economic situation.

The former FED chairman Alan Greenspan came out today and said McCain's tax plan would be a disaster for America.

When the hell are people gonna wake up and realize that Reagonomics has run its course. You DID the tax cuts thing, back in the 80's, there is just nothing left you can cut without crippling this nation....earmarks? hahaha, those account for a tiny amount of our national expenditures, McCain makes gullible idiots think that earmarks are half our budget. For fucks sake, why do you feel it necessary to continue to destroy this country??

After World War 2, USA had gold reserves that was multiple times larger than the next closest nations on earth. Today, we have squandered it all, and we're pathetically deficient. There is NOTHING propping up our economy without those reserves that Reagon spent, nothing. China is killing us, it's time to stop the hemorhaging of American dollars and elect Barack Obama. Your pathetic individual wallets are insignificant compared to the stability and longterm prosperity of the United States of America. Just suck it up, pay a bit more in taxes, and stop being a bitch.

[url]http://www.globalfirepower.com/list_gold_reserves.asp[/url]

relentless said...

http://reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com/

I'm quite new to this, but I would like you to take a look at my blog and see if you find it interesting enough to post a link to it on yours.

If not, thank you for your consideration anyways, and great blog!

AxmxZ said...

john k: Spoken like a guy who doesn't know shit about the economy, how it works, and where it is. I'm in one of the brackets that doesn't have to worry about their mortgage/debt/insurance/groceries/gas etc, but I'm shitting bricks. Not really for myself but for the 95% who aren't as well off.

PeteKent said...

MattJH:

Please take an economics course when you get to college. You will learn that tax cuts actually raise money for the treasury by stimulating economic activity. Spending is what causes deficits

Trevor said...

Fred, that's the exact argument used, that Clinton was centrist enough to win (at least compared to Obama/Kerry/Gore,) and was checked by a GOP congress.

Darío said...

Clinton wasn´t a liberal.
He was a centrist.

migpower said...

Any word on Colin Powell giving an endorsement?

InkStain said...

"Please take an economics course when you get to college. You will learn that tax cuts actually raise money for the treasury by stimulating economic activity. Spending is what causes deficits."

Spend a little more money on college, and you'll get into one good enough to teach you that it's a bit more complicated than that.

fred said...

petekent-

where is that Bush tax cut driven surplus? Hmmmmmmm, guess that didn't work out for you.

Alex S. said...

From a fiscal point of view, the Carter years were the best years of the century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USDebt.png

Darío said...

shadow, the Bush administration is different than Reagan.
Bush was the most big government republican president.

Kurt Kaletka said...

The McCain/Palin ticket's been getting so much gushing press. I'm really starting to get worried here. Will the media throw this election for the Republicans, just like they did for George W. Bush in 2000?

VinceP1974 said...

I've been telling everyone the Fed Govt is bankrupt for about a year now... especially my lefty friends who can't wait to expand the Fed govt more


All the politicians have failed us.

The Democrats act like nothing is happening.... McCain gives a few mentions to it.

All I know is, if Obama wins and radically inept Pelosi and Reid are still running a Congress devoted to crushing the people in this country, this country is in real danger.

fred said...

I agree Clinton was in the center, but I think BO is closer to the center than most think.

PeteKent said...

Robert is an Obama concern troll in disguise. I don't believ a word he says.

No one but the media is talking aobut the liar thing. it has not yet become aprt of the narratve.

InkStain said...

Vince- Any comment on how you were completely and utterly exposed yesterday on the citizenship issue? Do you ever want to learn to think for yourself and not just buy what people tell you if it fits your desire to see the world in a skewed light?

Trevor said...
This post has been removed by the author.
fred said...

Pelosi and Reid do suck. I think Peolsi has run her course...

DCM in FL said...

PETE

why do you insist that a single Newsweek snapshot poll taken several days ago is better than a fresh tracking poll by a more reputable pollster taken today ?

nice try, but you lose PETE.

Research 2000 results are more reliable since they have a daily tracking record to compare trends & movements & internal demos...

does yours ? didn't think so. It just has a result that YOU want to cherrypick...

ciao

Alex S. said...

petekent said:

"Robert is an Obama concern troll in disguise. I don't believ a word he says."

I don´t believe that PeteKent doesn´t believe Robert. I don´t believ a word he says.


"No one but the media is talking aobut the liar thing. it has not yet become aprt of the narratve."

lol

PeteKent said...

Fred,

Check the figures revenues are at record levels. The Bush and Congressional spending has drivn spending.

You are as ignorant as Matt JH (who should know better since he is a Mccain concern troll in disguise)

Darío said...

vincep1974, the Federal Government is bankrupt because Bush was the most statist republican president.

VinceP1974 said...

inkstain: Try reading the comment at September 14, 2008 4:42 AM

migpower said...

The issue I have with wealth redistribution (Democratic policy of taxing the richest people disproportionately)is that additonal tax burden cripples those who invest in and own companies. I understand its easy and an emotional appeal to have the rich pay more but....The more you take from the wealthy the less risk they are willing to take starting businesses or funding them. This cripples new jobs, innovation and overall growth. Take more away from the rich and they don't hire....unless you've had a poor boss before

InkStain said...

Honest question:

"Check the figures revenues are at record levels."

Is that inflation-adjusted?

VinceP1974 said...

dario: No, the govt is bankrupt because it has debt over 50 trillian dollars that it will never catch up with.

This goes way beyond Bush.

Though i wonder if you hyperpartisans really actually give a shit because you never seem to be able to look at the whole picture if it might work agaist you

The Real Mike Is Back said...

I'm bitching because not enough of my customers have disposable income to keep the economy going.
Very poor reflection on you, John K, indeed.

I was waiting for someone to mention the economy. Tomorrow will be a bloodbath on Wall Street. Whenever Drudge uses that much red in his text to talk about the economy, you better hang onto cash for as long as you can. Is this the week that Merrill, AIG, Lehman, and WaMu all get crushed?

couchpotatoxxx12 said...

Man, things are looking pretty grim for McCain...

Convention bounce still in effect + 9/11 anniversary + weekend polling (where obama does worse), and he can only manage a 2-3 point lead? (Some even have ties or Obama winning).

This is definitely a sign of things to come next week.

fred said...

Pete-

Revenues are irrelevant , it is the difference between revenues and spending.

We should have the highest revenues ever, the dollar has been intentionally devalued by these didiots. The question is how much did it increase, the rate if increaase, before and after the tax cuts if you hold the valuation steady.

PeteKent said...

Alex,

The liar thing started on friday. All the news coverage until this afternoon was on the Hurricane. I doubt if the Liar thing has really penetrated, particularly to the basements of baptist churches which are far removed from most political discourse.
It stretches reason to be leive that few mccain adds are going to make fundamentalist christians vote for someone who is a birderline supporter of infanticide and wants to teach sex education to kindergarden kids.

Stop the wishful thinking. You will need less psychiatric care after Nove 4

InkStain said...

I read your "explanation."

It doesn't change the fact that is shows you are the type of weak-minded individual who will believe anything someone tells him, and repeat it to other people, so long as it supports your preconceived worldview.

NJ_Moderate said...

fred, Obama is as close to the political center as Cheney is a liberal. He is the most left-of-center candidate since McGovern (no mean feat when Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry were all nominated).

To the early point, a 6-point deficit for McCain in the Midwaest is pretty good news for him since IA and IN cancel each other out and IL, the biggest state, is so blue it skews the survey. Removing IL, it is essentially 50-50 in the Midwest.

DCM in FL said...

DARIO

interesting 2004 MN polling results you posted above.

you forgot to include the final MN results for direct comparison...

Minnesota Kerry 51.09% Bush 47.61%

Kerry +3.5

so RCP average was close, but Rasmussen was off by -2.5 in favor of BUSH.... BIG surprise [house effect ?]

Sam S said...

"I agree Clinton was in the center, but I think BO is closer to the center than most think."

fred, what exactly can you point to that he has actually done in his entire life that would give you that opinion? I'm being serious, I considered supporting him but I couldn't come up with one thing that he has ever done that would lead me to believe he would be a centrist.

AxmxZ said...

Fingers crossed - Merrill should pull through, BoA is going to bid on it. WaMu is circling the drain though.

InkStain said...

"It stretches reason to be leive that few mccain adds are going to make fundamentalist christians vote for someone who is a birderline supporter of infanticide and wants to teach sex education to kindergarden kids."

Agreed. But the idea isn't that it will make them vote for Obama. It is that it will make them less inspired by McCain and more likely to not turn out at all.

Darío said...

Vince, i´m not a partisan.

John K. said...

Dick Morris tonight:

"I used to think Obama would win the debates, but not anymore. Obama comes off as a law professor, but McCain comes off as a military commander. And people want a military commander, not a law professor!"

Truer words were never spoken!

PeteKent said...

Fred,

Before you attempt to argue about something you know knowthing about -- learn something.

You are an idiot. the exchange rate has noththing to do with the deficit. Revenues have exapned to record levels - -there are more of them after the tax cuts and the tax cuts cause the eco conditons that result in enormous amounts of money pouring into the Treasury.

If revenues are irrelevant why not just cut them to zero?

InkStain said...

Obama is definitely not a centrist. He's not "THE MOST LIBERAL CANDIDATE EVER!?!?!?!!!!!", and the bs methodology that proclaimed him "THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR!" would have been rigged to claim whomever the nominee was would be the most liberal.

But there's no way to say he's anything other than liberal.

InkStain said...

"You are an idiot. the exchange rate has noththing to do with the deficit. Revenues have exapned to record levels - -there are more of them after the tax cuts and the tax cuts cause the eco conditons that result in enormous amounts of money pouring into the Treasury."

I may have missed it if you answered my question.

Are the revenues still record if you adjust for inflation, or are they records in total dollar amounts only?

PeteKent said...

Robert is a fake. he is no baptist. he is just trying to cause concern among the Mccain supporters and I am not taking his bait. Until we get something real on this, like polling data, i am going to ignore information from concern trolls.

VinceP1974 said...

uh i don't uh uh uh. you know... I would... uh dispell the notion.. uh that uh i would uh uh win auh a debate uh uh MCCAIN IS BUSH!!

migpower said...

Obama is not a centrist by any means in policy, yet he speaks a centrist message in terms of reaching out. He has worked with several Republicans during his time in the state legislature of IL ....the key is that all the things he collaborated with him on were very common sense issues that everyone supported that hadn't been resolved....very calculating, cautious politician Mr. Obama is. Thats what makes this race so fun to watch as McCain is the polar opposite......but is being reigned in by his advisors.

Sam S said...

"The Bush and Congressional spending has drivn spending."

I've often wondered how much non-military spending would have increased if the war wasn't going on. I mean, how much of the spending increases are due to the fact that Bush needed to get approval for war funding. Does anyone have any insight on this?

John K. said...

Pete Kent is the smartest person on this board, he's really in touch with the reality on the ground!

InkStain said...

"Robert is a fake. he is no baptist. he is just trying to cause concern among the Mccain supporters and I am not taking his bait. Until we get something real on this, like polling data, i am going to ignore information from concern trolls."

Good rule of thumb:

Ignore all anecdotal evidence.

Ignore anything that has a single poll propping it up as "evidence"

Jinx said...

The only moderate in this race was Hillary... That leaves a race between a conservative McCain and a liberal Obama. Liberals haven't fared well in presidential elections since Carter, but there's always a chance that track record could change.

I'm inclined to think Obama has an uphill battle ahead of him, and polls that only have 26% Republican respondants do nothing but artifically inflate his chances. And I haven't seen a poll yet that takes the Bradley Effect - seen in the primaries - into account for the general.

PeteKent said...

Inkstain__Yes even adjusted for the very modest infaltion over the past six years we have record revnues coming into the treasury.

NJ_Moderate said...

McCaskill's pathetic performance this morning will only hurt Obama as well. The over-the-top hysteria over Palin is playing right into McCain's hands.

If there were any smart strategists for Obama, he would be up 5 points. All he had to do when Palin was picked was congratulate McCain on supporting diversity, say a kind word or two about her and leave her alone.

You can NOT beat the Republicans in a mud-fest. They are too good at it.

AxmxZ said...

john k.: You and 'Pete Kent' are a singular exercise in cyber autofellatio.

fred said...

sam s-

I went to U of C and know of him via the grapevine.

The organizing stuff was funded by the catholic church, no real radicals there.

The Wright stuff is bunk, all African-Americans in Chicago who want to move up go to one of two churches. That is the closest one to him.

He holds a very normal position cetrist position of the Constitution, he taught Con Law at U of C.

He was raised in NE.

He has never argued for anything wacko in the state senate that would anyone think he is hte radical he is protraying.

Name on thing he has done that is true, that shows he is a wacko radical.

And living in Hyde PArk near a bunch of college professors will not sway me.

michael said...

Politico and RCP both have moderate degrees of right-leaning instincts, editorially. Rasmussen's site is much more obviously right, opinion-wise. Of course, Huff Po and Daily Kos are partisan left.

It does seem to me that if a self-identified conservative evangelical republican pollster has so much cred on this site, then surely an independent pollster in research 2000 which is being completely transparent as to its crosstabs should be welcomed to the party, regardless of who is paying them. The RCP boycott of the Research 2000 is very odd, since they continue to print their state polls, including one today.

Here's the deal, folks. No matter how wrong the pundits are (see Clinton loses in 1996, is impeached, Hillary can't lose the nomination, bloviators like Broder, Steph and yes, even the sainted Chuck Todd keep on spewing and predicting. There is no consequence for being wrong in this business, it is like being a weatherman.

As it becomes clear to many americans that McCain's stunningly reckless and irresponsible pick was beyond the Palin, I expect the trend to continue back towards Obama, and he will be up 3-4 points following the 9/26 debate.

There, it really IS is to make predictions - hey look at me, Ma, I am Chuck Todd!!!

DCM in FL said...

John K. said...

"Dick Morris tonight:..."

LOL, now that is a troll post.

who in their right mind would quote Dick Morris of all people on this site where most bloggers have some brain function ???

even Karl Rove has more cred here than Dick Morris.

ROFLOL

FCOL - Pete would know better than to try to use Morris to base an argument on, right ???

Darío said...

Well, remember that Bill Clinton was viewed a leftist in 1992, and he was a centrist at the end.

VinceP1974 said...

As much as the stupid Republican Congress spent, I really find it hard to believe that had the Democrats been in control that less money would have been spent.
So in a way I see all the Democrats complaining about spending as being somewhat disingenious because i never hear them say what they wouldn't spend.

They voted for the Iraq war too.. so it's not like there wouldn't have been that.

John K. said...

AXMXZ

How will it feel when your Messiah goes down to a stunning defeat. Will you cry in your wine? ;)

NJ_Moderate said...

The Bradley effect will only be in effect in the Industrial Midwest (PA, MI, OH, WV and possibly WI) and the deep South. I think Obama may be helped in the Pacific Coast states as there is a trend to vote for 'diversity. It will be a wash everywhere else as states Obama should win, he will win and states McCain should win, he will win.

VinceP1974 said...

"Well, remember that Bill Clinton was viewed a leftist in 1992, and he was a centrist at the end."

Bill Clinton's ideology is Bill Clinton

DCM in FL said...

PeteKent said...

"Until we get something real on this, like polling data, i am going to ignore information from concern trolls."
-------------------------------------
begs the obvious but...

PETE - you are a concern troll of the first magnitude.

so are you going to keep your promise and ignore yourself ???

one can always dream !

Darío said...

The Republican congress wasn´t stupid.
The only stupid was GW Bush.

InkStain said...

"http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysFY2000.gif"

Here's good graph on inflation-adjusted revenue. I wonder what caused the dip from 2004-2006.

Michael said...

With Minnesota tied it is absurd to say McCain's bounce is fading nationally. The poll results today in Minnesota confirm Obama is in serious trouble.

Minnesota's "Gold Standard" the StarTribune poll came in this morning!

Minnesota Star Tribune Obama 45, McCain 45 Tie

The 'money' factoid from the poll and quoted from the Minneapolis Star Tribune this morning is:

"Despite the widespread belief that Obama is overwelhmingly popular among young voters, he and McCain are essentially tied with voters younger than 35" (Actual numbers for 18-34 are: McCain 46 and Obama 45.

As with todays Minnesota Poll the youth vote advantage of Obama's is being severely diminished by the 'Palin Effect' and is being ignored by this blog and others to say nothing of the MSM. This is the basis of the Obama strategy - to bring in new young voters to overwhelm the Republicans. What happens if they vote for Sarah as this poll shows?

The Real Mike Is Back said...

weatherman? Ayers? Wright? Rezko? Obama!

AxmxZ said...

fred: I'm a U of C grad, and I've got a mutual friend with Obama. Dude says they've been friends since they were btoh working on anti-apartheid stuff in the 80s, and Obama is the apparently every inch the mellow nice guy he appears to be. Except in real life he's far more boring than on the podium.

VinceP1974 said...

dario: I agree with you with the nitpick that: Congress controls the purse strings and they are ultimately responsible

Bush is stupid in very many other ways... though it's not all bad.. The past two years though has really been a failure.

As far as i'm concerned he has been coasting off the momentum of his first two years... the rest of it it seems like he just gave up.

AxmxZ said...

john k.: I love the whole Messiah meme. It's actually kind of awesome. Obama must've really scared the shit out of the rednecks for them to birth that meme.

John K. said...

How's it fell to have MN tied, libs? ;)

InkStain said...

"As much as the stupid Republican Congress spent, I really find it hard to believe that had the Democrats been in control that less money would have been spent."

How many consecutive Republican presidents have to run up larger debt that subsequent Democrats before you stop finding it hard to believe? Apparently, Reagan, Bush and Bush weren't enough?

There is no party of lower spending. There is only a party willing to raise taxes to pay for its spending, and one that isn't.

Trevor said...

I've talked to people who say McCain is decent, too (which runs counter to common wisdom on BOTH the right and the left on his temperament.)

It's surprising because very few famous people, especially politicians of either party, fit the bill.

John K. said...

axmxz--

I love how you socialist far left loon shit your pants at the very though of Sarah Baracudda.

InkStain said...

"With Minnesota tied"

If you are arguing that the entire state is actually tied because of a single poll, you obviously haven't learned anything from being around this site and should go hang out somewhere else.

Or you can stay here and learn a few things :)

InkStain said...

"The past two years though has really been a failure."

Really? I think the opposite.

That's the time period of the surge and the economic stimulus, the only two positive accomplishments of the administration that I can think of.

I thought he went from horrible to adequate in the last year or so.

AxmxZ said...

john k.: Sarah is delightful. I can't wait to see that cross-eyed bimbo on stage with Joey. It's going to rock.

Sam S said...

I'll ask again in case it was missed...

Does anyone know how much of the huge increase in spending was attributable to get approval for war funding? In other words, did he have to throw bones to everyone to get them to go along?

Boomshak said...

Politico is "right-leaning"?

Thanks, I needed a good belly-laugh tonight.

VinceP1974 said...

inkstain: They dynamic that worked was a new Republican control of the Congress after 40 years, centered around the Contract with America coupled with the desire to prove they were better wiht the money than Clinton.

That is what controlled spending in the 90s. It was keeping the lid on spending.

The Dems in the 80s and the Reps in the 00s that weren't able to control the outflows.

Until you show me any real desire by Congressional Dems to decrease actual spendign there is no reason to believe the Dems would ever spend less than the Reps.

shadowguidex said...

"shadow, the Bush administration is different than Reagan.
Bush was the most big government republican president."

Bush 1 was in favor of massive deregulation, and it's one of the worst ideas ever. Yeah, deregulation is super-diddly-duper..if you ignore the Savings and Loans, Enron, Oil Speculators, removed uptick rule which allows selling short during bear market, Fannie and Freddie, and the general shitstorm the Bush deregulation has caused. Size of government spending has nothing to do with any of the problems the Bushs caused. Deregulation allows people to do whatever the fuck-all they feel like doing without anyone saying - hey, that's unethical...you shouldn't be able to sell short during bear markets - theres a reason the rule was made ...because the great depression was caused by this problem...here comes Bush and removes it, a couple years later, our financial markets are imploding...great fucking move dipshit republicans....great fucking move.


"Please take an economics course when you get to college. You will learn that tax cuts actually raise money for the treasury by stimulating economic activity. Spending is what causes deficits"

Dude, you know nothing, absolutely nothing. This is the kind of crap you read on the back of a reagonomics book at the library. You are a vacuously narrowminded person who should just shut the hell up. Read more than Reagonomics books douchebag. When interest on our national debt is the third highest budget item, after the military and social security, you know you're fucked. Earmarks...they are piddly shit nothing. McCain can eliminate ALL of them and we're still in severe deficits. Next you'll say "national debt and deficits are a good thing". WRONG. Yeah, they're great for the people who hold the debt (aka China), but they are brutal on American taxpayers. Read a biography on Andrew Jackson, the only president to eliminate our national debt...and just soak all the info in about how good it was to have a situation like that.

Fact: Government spending is invariably more likely to be respent in the shortterm. Take 2 examples of a dollar. The first is a dollar owned by a wealthy person. That dollar is highly likely to be held as an investment and/or not actualy spent. That dollar isn't being circulated, it's essentially locked away - so in the entire year after it was earned, it has cycled once - aka it adds just 1 dollar to our Gross Domestic Product. The other dollar is an "evil" government dollar that is sent to a poor person, who immediately spends it (1). The store they spent it at pays their employee with it (2). The employee pays their rent with it (3). The landlord pays his property taxes with it (4). The state funds a road construction project with it (5). The company building the road makes a good profit, and finally it is taken by the owner who invests it in a long term stock. That same exact dollar contributes 5 dollars to our gross domestic product. The only problem with this is when it gets spent too much, aka inflation.

I'll argue any day of the week, that government spending is not only good for the nation, but it is essential to our prosperity because it keeps the dollars circulating - rich people don't circulate their money.

Well known fact that has been known since the earliest days of currency in ancient times - if you want to stimulate your economy, build a big fucking thing, anthing, can be a huge statue, a bridge, a temple, a football statium, doesnt matter - spend money on big shit, because the dollars the government spends cycles at a fantastic pace and makes everyone's lives better. Why do you think WW2 ended the great depression? We built lots of shit instead of keeping all our money stuck in saving of a few rich douchebags.

Trevor said...

The articles aren't particularly right-learning on Politico.

But the comments, which have to be considered part and parcel of the package, are to the right of Lucianne's.

InkStain said...

"Until you show me any real desire by Congressional Dems to decrease actual spendign there is no reason to believe the Dems would ever spend less than the Reps."

I didn't say the Democrats would decrease spending. I said that history has proven time and again that Republican presidents will raise it *more*. Both parties will raise it.

DCM in FL said...

MICHAEL

The MN poll for the Star & Tribune is hardly the gold standard you claim.

There results in the 2004 election were way off target as shown by Dario in a previous poll. Likewise for the Pioneer Press; although the Humphrey Institute poll was even worse in 2004 as it predicted a Bush victory by +3 in MN.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Star & Trib poll is marginal & the internals are questionable - including the breakout for the young demo. Their result in MN is unsubstantiated & likely an outlier.

But since the election is not for another 7 weeks this single poll is really not a big deal.

enjoy it while it lasts, because MN will stay blue by at least 2-3 points [3.5 in 2004] IMHO & based upon facts & history & realities.

on the other hand, Obama is not going to win Iowa by double digits, and WI might be close but blue in the end too.

hosertohoosier said...

"fred, Obama is as close to the political center as Cheney is a liberal. He is the most left-of-center candidate since McGovern (no mean feat when Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry were all nominated)."

Here is the problem with the "Obama is the most liberal senator" AND the "McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time" theme.

For the majority of the last few years Obama and McCain were campaigning to be president. In so doing, they tend only to vote on key votes, where they are also more likely to be whipped into toeing the party line. If you look at the historical record (I have read an article on this in Perspectives on Politics) all candidates from the senate seem a lot more left-wing or right wing while they are running for president. In McCain's case you can look at his lifetime record, which clearly places him as a moderate conservative a la Bob Dole.

For Obama it is more difficult, but I think the notion that he is considerably to the left of Dukakis and Mondale is questionable. Why?

-Dukakis openly opposed the death penalty in an election where crime was a big issue. Obama has offered his opposition to a supreme court decision that bans the death penalty for child rape.

-Obama has similarly been less clear on abortion (though his voting record as a Illinois state senator was pretty pro-choice). Unlike other Dem candidates, you never hear Obama saying he "supports a woman's right to choose" openly. Instead he couches his language in "above my pay-grade" type lines.

-Dukakis and Mondale supported defence cuts, while Obama does not, and has not mused about a peace dividend, beyond recouping some of the money spent in Iraq. Obama also mused about military intervention in Pakistan.

-Obama is also not campaigning on a platform of universal healthcare - unlike Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney (!) and Dukakis.

Obama is not an extreme leftist, nor is he a centrist like Clinton (though he might be a centrist or extreme leftist in office - it is hard to say). Rather Obama is a run-of-the-mill Democrat, who has appealed to independents by focusing on nuclear proliferation and ethics reforms, and by using mushy rhetoric.

The Real Mike Is Back said...

@ Sam S. Good question, but tough one. I think you'd have to be a deputy White House Chief of Staff or Director of Legislative Affairs to really know that one. What kind of a bone is big enough to go along? What if it meant Bush campaigning in your Congressional district in 2004? You'd need a wiki of every earmark for the last four years, real inside info on what the WH did in that time, same with the Congressional side.

Alex S. said...

I hope Obama will soon address the complete failure of Reagonomics and the trickle-down-economy. But that will probably be the climax of his economic campaign. And with each day, it becomes more obvious.

couchpotatoxxx12 said...

I can't wait until mid next week when the McBush supporters are going to be whining and preaching about their bradley effect, saying how Obama's lead in all the polls doesn't mean anything. :)

John K. said...

"john k.: Sarah is delightful. I can't wait to see that cross-eyed bimbo on stage with Joey. It's going to rock."

Keep making sexist attacks.

Senator Hairplugs is going to make some stupid sexist pig remark that will get played for days on end and be the final nail in the coffin.

InkStain said...

"I hope Obama will soon address the complete failure of Reagonomics and the trickle-down-economy"

I don't. While I believe the Democrats are right on the economics, Republicans will *always* have the better sound bite.

Republicans can fall back on people's primitive ideas that the free market is always right. Democrats have to be more nuanced.

VinceP1974 said...

Obama can't address the "complete" failure because the Democrats are just as implicated.

Especially the whole Fannie Mae thing , which is the Democrat's Enron. Fannie Mae has been collapsing the entire decade.


Through this whole time frame, Industry, the Fed, the White House, The Treasury ALL of them try to get reform passed through Congress.. Yet somehow Congress always gets blocked. These stories dont go into a lot of details as to why they get blocked, it seems like it’s fairly typical and annoying thing when it does, but the consistant theme running through this is that the Democrats shield any action from taking place againt Fannnie Mae because of cries about housing for the poor.

Well thank you for your compassion because now we’re all going to poor.

When the full facts come out about this, this nation might be in a revolt.

Fannie Mayhem: A History
September 8, 2008 8:41 p.m.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1014169323358510560.html?mod=Extra

• Fannie Mae Enron? 02/20/02 – Fan and Fred look like poorly run hedge funds: lots of leverage and snarkily hedged risk. Does the word Enron ring any bells?

WSJ notices the debt for FM is going up a lot

• Frantic Fannie 02/28/02 – Companies taking on so much risk and debt, and backed by taxpayers, ought to be more transparent in what they tell the world.

Responding to last week The two biggest U.S. mortgage holders hit the airwaves to denounce us, accused us of bias against “housing”

Ancedote of Rep Chairman wanting to hold hearings, Dem Rep shutting that down

• Inside Fannie 03/19/02 – Fan and Fred don’t function like other companies. They’re allowed to pile up debt, implicitly guaranteed by taxpayers, without being held to even the minimum of corporate governance standards.

• Fannie’s Inside Info 07/01/02 – Even in this post-Enron world, Fan and Fred do not provide as much information about these securities as private mortgage lenders do.

• Fannie Capitulates, Sort Of 07/15/02 – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac end months of resistance, stonewalling and downright crankiness and agree to register their common stock with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

• Fannie Mae’s Risky Business 09/23/02 – We’ve been suggesting that Fannie Mae was exposed to too much interest-rate risk. All of a sudden investors seem to agree with us.

• Fan and Fred Get the Business 02/19/03 – The year has not started auspiciously for the two mortgage-finance behemoths.

• Speaking Truth to Fannie 03/12/03 – The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis warns of a potential crisis arising from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

• Fannie Takes the Hill 10/09/03 – When the House of Representatives can’t get even a modest regulatory bill out of committee, the dangers of Fannie Mae become clear in reality.

Notes that efforts by Committee chair keeps getting blocked, but doens’t say why

• White House Fannie Pack 11/11/03 – White House chief economist N. Gregory Mankiw dares to tell the truth about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The mortgage giants were not amused, which means we’re getting somewhere.

WH attacked by Barney Frank for being against “housing”

• Christmas for Fannie Mae 12/23/03 – The Federal Reserve Board releases a new staff study about the impact of taxpayer subsidies for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So no wonder the companies are fighting so hard to block the Bush Administration’s effort to more thoroughly monitor and supervise their risk-taking

• Fannie’s Risky Business 02/25/04 – Alan Greenspan putshis credibility behind the cause of reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

• Fannie Uncovered 09/23/04 – The housing-finance giant has been engaging in some accounting funny business.

• Fannie Mae Enron? 10/04/04 – The company was cooking the books. Big time.

The target EPS for maximum payout was $3.23 and Fannie reported exactly . . . $3.2309. This bull’s-eye was worth $1.932 million to then-CEO James Johnson, $1.19 million to then-CEO-designate Franklin Raines, and $779,625 to then-Vice Chairman Jamie Gorelick.

• Fannie Mae Liberals 10/14/04 – There were many moments of high entertainment during the House hearings on Fannie Mae’s creative accounting. But our favorite was the Mister Magoo performance given by Barney Frank (D., Massachusetts).

Mr. Frank chided Fannie CEO Frank Raines and CFO Tim Howard, saying, “At the level of compensation you get, we ought to be able to count on you to do your very best without additional incentives.” (THIS AFTER LEARNING ABOUT MILLIONS IN FRAUD!!! we were counting on you??!!?!? WTF)

the good liberals in the Congressional Black Caucus. Members of this group are often the loudest defenders of Fannie and her brother, Freddie Mac. Can it be that the annual donations made by the Fannie Mae Foundation to the Caucus have blurred their vision too?

Maxine Waters (D., California) cooed all over Mr. Raines, and Clay Lacy (D., Missouri) played the race card by calling the hearings a “political lynching” of Mr. Raines, who is African-American

The default position for Fannie’s defenders is that the giant mortgage finance company provides more affordable housing.

Fan and Fred’s Congressional sympathizers (including some of the same Members who lavished valentines over Fan last week) sent a letter to HUD complaining against the new quotas

The evidence is overwhelming that Fannie only pretends to be a tribune of the poor.

• Fannie the Centaur 12/17/04 – Understanding their half-man, half-beast nature is crucial to fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the wake of their recent financial scandals.

• Fannie Turns a Page 12/23/04 – Fannie Mae – a slick, semiprivate firm operating with the patronage of politicians – is the kind of institution one still expects to find in a country like France.

• Fannie’s Friends on the Hill 05/09/05 – Congress finally seemed ready to protect taxpayers from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then Republican Mike Oxley decided to ride to their rescue.

We should have known the two mortgage giants wouldn’t change without a fight. Their new, post-scandal, executives are talking a nice, cooperative game. But their allies in the homebuilding trades are deluging Congress with the usual fears that reining in Fan and Fred will hurt home ownership. They’re even playing the race card, as in the email we received from Mary Mancera of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals. “Reform Proposals Will Limit Latinos Access to Homeownership,” she declared, apparently with a straight face.

At a recent Senate hearing, the best New York’s Chuck Schumer could do on the point is browbeat Mr. Greenspan with studies disputing a Fed study showing that even the implicit government guarantee for Fan and Fred hardly lowers mortgage rates at all.

. Mr. Schumer and other politicians are in it for the campaign contributions, and it is especially amusing to see liberals fight for MBS portfolios that merely enrich already rich Fannie executives.

We hope the Bush Administration and Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee don’t flinch the way House Republicans have.

• Fannie Mae’s House 10/25/05 – Every Congressional session can be counted on to produce its share of bad bills. But the “reform” bill for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is in a class of its own.

The bill’s new “affordable housing” fund confiscates potentially billions of dollars of the profits of these nominally private companies to finance the pet projects of Barney Frank and other Democrats. This sort of targeted profits tax is not only a bad idea in its own right but also gives Members of Congress an even greater stake in opposing any reform that might dent that profit stream. That is precisely why it is being promoted by the homebuilder lobby and others who benefit from Fannie subsidies.

Chairman Oxley seems oblivious to all this, focusing instead on raising PAC contributions and showing he can pass a bill by giving Mr. Frank whatever he wants.

The sad political truth is that a Democratic Congress probably couldn’t pass this stinker without being accused (accurately) of promoting state socialism. That an ostensibly conservative House will pass it is another embarrassment for Republican governance.

• Freddie’s Friends on the Hill 04/27/06 – The Federal Election Commission sheds some light on how Freddie Mac rewards its friends.

The Bush Administration has been forceful in calling for Congress to reform how Fannie and Freddie are regulated and run. But if it wants its effort to succeed, it is going to have to show Fan and Fred and their friends on the Hill that Treasury will act if Congress doesn’t.

• Memo to Fannie 06/14/06 – A joke in Washington these days goes like this: “What’s the difference between Enron and Fannie Mae? Answer: The guys at Enron have been convicted.”

Mr. Quarles said the Administration would prefer that Congress act to give a new regulatory body that power instead. But Fannie and Freddie and their political allies — the homebuilders especially — have been lobbying furiously to stop such reform legislation. So Treasury is telling the mortgage giants that even if they keep blocking reform, the Administration can achieve the same results administratively.

• The Fannie Tax 04/12/07 – Democrat Barney Frank and the Bush Administration seem to have found common ground on new rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Naturally, there’s a catch.

The bad news is that Mr. Frank is an expensive date, and his price for tolerating reform of his favorite corporate giants is dunning them for mega-bucks in the name of “affordable housing.” His bill would tax Fannie and Freddie to the tune of 1.2 basis points of their total book of business — or just over 1/100th of 1% of all the mortgages Fannie and Freddie have bought and packaged to sell to investors. That’s more than $500 million a year, with potential to grow.

• Freddie Krueger Mac 05/10/07 – Just when you think they’re defeated, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac arise in Congress to kill any attempt to clean up their dangerous habits.

The four Members fronting for the scandal-plagued companies are Democrats Melissa Bean (Illinois) and Dennis Moore (Kansas) and Republicans Gary Miller (California) and Randy Neugebauer (Texas). They prove that corporate socialism isn’t partisan, and no doubt they’ll be handsomely rewarded with campaign contributions if their amendment succeeds.

• Fannie to the Rescue? 09/29/07 – Fannie and Freddie went up the Hill to fetch a pail of money.

• Fannie More 10/23/07 – Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer have come up with a proposal that would increase the risk to taxpayers from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

• Fannie Mayhem 11/20/07 – Chuck Schumer is lucky Congress ignored his idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should ride to the rescue of the housing market.

• Too Political to Fail 04/21/08 – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t held to the same standards of accountability as everyone else.

• The Price of Fannie Mae 07/10/08 – It’s time Americans understood the price they could soon pay for the Beltway’s confidence game with these high-risk “government-sponsored enterprises.”

• Fannie Mae Ugly 07/12/08 – Investors continued to flee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac almost as frantically as the political class tried to reassure everybody there was nothing to worry about.

• Paulson’s Fannie Test 07/15/08 – Does Hank Paulson want to leave the U.S. financial system better than he found it? That’s his test in the wake of his commitment to use taxpayer money to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

• Fannie and Freddie’s Enablers 07/21/08 – The same folks who put taxpayers on the hook for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now demanding ransom to let taxpayers bail them out.

• Fannie Mae’s Political Immunity07/29/08 –Congress sets the rules in favor of Fan and Fred, which then repay the Members with cash from their rigged profit stream.

• When Henry Met Fannie 08/19/08 — That taxpayer capital injection looks closer all the time.

• Weekend at Henry’s 09/08/08 — Propping up the living dead at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The Real Mike Is Back said...

John K. - Did you win the biggest flirt contest in high school? Just curious...