The American Spectator

M. Tobias| 11.3.08 @ 10:49AM

I hate to disagree, but I see no large shift or movement in anything other than the polling and the "reporting' on voter's preferences. This election was always a referendum on Barack Obama. John McCain was just "the Guy Running Against The One".

I think that the vast majority of the American public made up its mind on Barack Obama long ago. And the majority said no. When the McCain campaign fielded Sarah Palin and virtually assured a majority of the Conservatives, in this country, would go to the polls, it was all over.

This campaign has been the last big hoorah for the liberal MSM. They became the PR arm of the Obama campaign. Now, they and the professional pollsters face ruin if they continue to spout propoganda for Obama and he does not secure the Presidency. Vitually no intelligent person will ever take them seriously again. So a little truth leaks into their reporting, finally.

No big swings here, simply reality rearing its ugly head. If vote fraud can be contained to marginal levels and voters go to the polls McCain & Co. win. Therefor, watch for the polls to be vitually dead even or have McCain slightly ahead on Tuesday morning. CYA in the polling community is in full swing. Except for polls that don't care, such as AOL. They still show McCain at 58%.

Ned| 11.3.08 @ 10:51AM

You mean there is a chance we won't all be living in Uncle Barry's Obamanation come Wednesday.

David| 11.3.08 @ 11:13AM

That would seem to be in line with the latest TIPP poll that had the race at 2 points with the late voters and undecideds breaking for McCain.

Where are you getting your information from or is this just a "gut" feeling?

wjk| 11.3.08 @ 12:06PM

Quinn,
We meet again.
Your total lack of rationality, let alone objectivity is astounding. Take a look at RCP national poll average for the past couple weeks. Obvious that there is a steady, overwhelming improvement in Obama's numbers. For the last couple days has been over 50%. McCain has essentially stayed the same for the past month.
If I were you I would give up prognosticating for good. This wipeout will actually be worse than the polls currently indicate.

Bob| 11.3.08 @ 12:08PM

What are you guys drinking? The polls indicate the Obama lead is widening:

NBC/WSJ +8
Rassmusen +6
Gallup +11
Diageo +5
Zogby +7
CNN +7
CBS +13
GWU +6
Pew +6

As I said the other day, the TIPP poll has sampling issues and the results are suspect in many of the subsamples.

At this time last election, Bush was up by an average of 1 point. Anything above a 6 point win is a blowout giving about 340 electoral votes.

The problem is that rather than all of you being objective, you listen to the talking heads who mislead you. Go to the polling summary sites and do the homework yourselves.

Polls on a national basis have tended to be extremely accurate within a +/- 3 point range. All major polls 4 years ago were within this range. State polls tend to be more tentative but the Quinnipiac poll for PA that came out today said that Obama is ahead by 10 points - 52 to 42.

Again, the polls are NOT TIGHTENING -- they are actually moving in Obama's favor. Hey, guys, denial is not a strategy.

Bob| 11.3.08 @ 12:16PM

Quin,

Don't you do your homework regarding clean coal? The technologies for clean coal exist but are right now unprofitable. Obama was telling the truth about the technology. It is estimated that clean coal will not be economically viable until 2020 to 2025 if at all. Lying to the American people is not a good strategy. But then again, neither McCain or Palin really know much about energy beyond oil and gas.

I agree with you on racial preferences, but you'll lose more votes that you will gain. Obama is wrong on ethanol subsidies for the same reason he is right about clean coal -- it is not economical.

By the way, can I have some of the stuff you are smoking?

David| 11.3.08 @ 12:27PM

There could be something to this!

MSNBC is showing that there is movement in the Mason/Dixon polls toward McCain. If he can win Penn. and hold Florida McCain can pull this off.

WendyG| 11.3.08 @ 12:36PM

McCain leads:
Mason Dixon: NC McCain 49%, Obama 46%;
OH McCain 47%, Obama 45%;
MO McCain 47%, Obama 46%

Mason Dixon
CO: Obama 49%, McCain 44%, Undecided 4%
Richmond Times-Dispatch: Obama 47%, McCain 44%, Undecided 9%%
Mason Dixon NV: Obama 47%, McCain 43%
Mason Dixon VA: Obama 47%, McCain 44%
Mason Dixon FL: Obama 47%, McCain 45%, 7% Undecided

These are not big leads for Obama.

Bob| 11.3.08 @ 12:47PM

David/Wendy - as MSNBC also said this morning, the Mason/Dixon polls also use small samples and are outliers -- just like the TIPP poll. McCain is falling way behind in PA as today's Quinnipiac poll has Obama leading by 10 points. Personally, I think that McCain will win in Ohio because of the number of older voters and the Bradley effect but the polls show Obama ahead. MO will also probably lean towards McCain. Virginia will go to Obama because of northern VA. FL all depends on turnout. I think that given all of the last minute efforts by Obama in FL and the lack of a strong ground game in FL for McCain, Obama will overperform and take FL by at least 300,000 votes. I have no opinion on NV -- I haven't been following it closely.

Thomas| 11.3.08 @ 12:49PM

At first glance, it seems as if Mr. Hillyer and commenter M. Tobias both have their heads buried deeply in the sand. How is it even possible that Obama's six hundred million dollar public relations campaign failed to convince these two of his inevitable rise to the presidency? Do they not recognize an impending and stunningly successful socialist takeover of government when they see one?

To both Mr. Hillyer and M. Tobias, I wish to offer a simple, two-word comment in response to their respective commentaries. "Thank you" sums it up about right, I think. At this dark hour, when America is poised on the very edge of a socialistic electoral abyss, your assessments provide a ray of hope to those who support it's traditional ideals that all has not yet been lost.

M. Tobias, you deserve an extra "thanks" for the clarity of thought so unfailingly displayed in your comments and also for taking the time to enrich the rest of us by making them.

David| 11.3.08 @ 12:55PM

Bob:

No dought that McCain's chances are very slim. My point is that a shift could happen very quickly given the large amount of undecideds and weekend polling bias. Tipp nailed it last time .

I also have been following DJ over at WIZBANG and he has been pretty consistant in his methodology.

But there is no dought that McCain's chances are extremely slim.

I for one welcome our new socialist overlords!

WendyG| 11.3.08 @ 1:14PM

Bob, personally, I tend to trust Mason-Dixon over Quinnipiac. That comes from my years of observing and following both polling outlets.

Look, if McCain were in Obama's position I'd probably have the champagne on ice. But this is also a strange year. New polling methodologies based on registration expectations that have yet to be proven accurate. And although it's totally anecdotal, as I have posted here before, my little liberal town is far more pro-McCain than I expected. I have actually been collared by people, when I wear my McCain pin - people who are passionately pro-McCain and want to talk about it.

Sure it probably means nothing, but darn it, can we have an election before we declare a winner? Is that too much to ask? Having watched the media carry Obama's water for the last year, I guess I just won't buy their polls. Tomorrow night, if Obama wins, I'll accept it, albeit I'll be be very sad and stunned, that a hardcore left-winger will be in the WH .

Spicy Joker| 11.3.08 @ 1:25PM

Quin,

I, too, would love nothing more than to see these smug liberals vanquished and humiliated on Wednesday morning. But conservatives are in severe denial right now. If I hear conservatives blame ACORN or "voter fraud" one more time, I'm going to scream.

Bob| 11.3.08 @ 1:34PM

David:

Be careful with TIPP results. They show that McCain is winning 74-22 among 18-24 year olds. Almost all other polls show Obama winning at least 65-35. In 2004, the number of people voting in this range was smaller and they were equally divided between the candidates. That's why most statisticians believe there are significant sampling errors in that poll. The 2004 results were just luck. I find that most political commentators are not mathematical geniuses and don't understand these polls.

Again, I think you'll find less socialism in Obama as President and more pragmatism. I've never looked at him as a liberal, but more as a really good politician, realist and orator. He will not succeed as President by governing to the left. If he does not succeed, he will doom Democrats for a generation. His history is replete with doing what he has to do to maximize his career and this will be no different. He will have conservatives in his cabinet -- just watch. He's read books about Lincoln and will do similar things.

The really good polls, IMO are NBC/WSJ, Gallup, Zogby, Rassmussen, and ABC/Wash Post. They all have consistent internals. By the way, Marist and FOX just came out this last hour with +9 and +7 for Obama respectively showing the Obama lead gaining.

Obama will destroy the Republican Party if he is successful in governing, and that is his goal. Many people on this blog don't understand that because they are purely ideologues. By the way, that's what I like about McCain, he is not an ideologue, either.

J Scott| 11.3.08 @ 1:36PM

WendyG, Ditto in Northern VA; I wear a McCain pin everywhere and am surprised at the number of African Americans who say they're afraid of the thug messiah---at least five or six in the last week. I believe there's a level of fear of the thug messiah that should not be underestimated. As a people we have in many areas become docile, and the aggressiveness of the Obama and his surrogates (promising violence if he is not elected) leave many people saying one thing to pollsters, but quite likely to vote otherwise.

WendyG| 11.3.08 @ 1:45PM

Bob, re: the polls today, weekend polls tend to skew Dem. That said it looks bad for McCain, but I prefer to think that it will be close, if not a McCain win. I guess I just don't want to embrace the notion that America has moved so far to the left, that they will elect Obama, whom Lawrence Eagleburger called a con man this morning on Fox. There was a time when such a man could never get elected. But I suppose when Annenberg Foundation money is being poured into school systems, for programs being put together by radicals like Ayers, maybe this is what you get.

Bob| 11.3.08 @ 1:52PM

WendyG:

Thanks for the objective response. I think that Mason-Dixon and Quinnipiac have their strengths and weaknesses. In the past, I would have agreed with you but Quinnipiac has done a good job this year of improving their sampling given the new voter dynamics. Mason-Dixon is still using the old model oversampling Republicans and older voters. Most people don't realize that these are all weighted polls. They are highly accurate, generally, by segment (except for TIPP), but it all depends on turnout. That's why the final results depend more on voter turnout. This is the first year that Democrats have a better turnout ground game than Republicans so it will be interesting to see how that works out tomorrow. We have the plus of the Democrat ground game with the negative of the Bradley effect. There is no way to do an objective analysis on either right now.

Wendy, I'm a business strategist so I get my jollies by doing research and developing new strategies. Because I've spent my entire life doing this, I'm pretty good at it. I don't see how McCain can be elected. What I am really interested in, however, is in rebuilding the Republican Party to a unified group representing center-right principles (not ideologies). Right now, there is no consistent definition of a Republican. Until there is, we won't be able to regain a majority.

David| 11.3.08 @ 2:04PM

Bob:

I think Obama has a tremendous chance of winning. I am no numbers man but do deal with the public in sales. I have watched Obama , his body language and the words that he uses. I do feel from my past experience that he parses his words and is a far left candidate. I think he will try to govern as far to the left as possible and use his first 100 days in office to try and fundamentally change the country to a socialst system where he can "buy" enough votes to stay in office .

Again, you must listen closely to what he is NOT saying when he stumps his pitch.

Such as , "I will not take away the guns in your home. If you have a firearm, you can keep it".
Great, but no mention of banning importation of firearms by executive order, supporting a ban on concealed carry, ban on semi-autos etc. A very careful parseing of words. Again, just an example of salemanship.

I do think he is overestimating what power the executive branch has and as Bush was unable to push his agenda I think he will be able to accomplish much less that he desires and it will be fun to watch how frustrated he becomes.
Also, I would suspect that Congress will over reach and that a backlash will occur at least in the next 4 years if not the next two. This is a center right country and will gravitate back that direction at some point.

Bob| 11.3.08 @ 2:05PM

Wendy,

As opposite to Eagleburger, Ken Duberstein, Reagan's Chief of Staff as well as Colin Powell think Obama is the better choice. Fox really skews stuff as much right as MSNBC skews it left. The Annenberg's are Republicans who support McCain and they are the ones that chose both Obama and Ayers. The Ayers thing is really weak and besides, just doesn't work. Obama could have gone in this direction and didn't:

http://www.eons.com/blogs/entry/1157559-McCain-Associations-To-Keating-Racists-amp-Others

Begala tried to get the Obama campaign to fight back with this but Obama refused as McCain did with Wright. McCain should have also stopped the Ayers thing. Obama also didn't go after Palin when that was an easy hit.

This election should have been about issues, not character assassinations. I still have not heard a real economic blueprint from McCain -- only criticism of Obama. I'm really disappointed in his campaign.

WendyG| 11.3.08 @ 2:12PM

Bob, thanks for sharing your expertise .

I certainly agree that the Reagan Revolution model is frayed, and the party is fractured. Just look at how many so-called Republicans went over to Obama's side.

But I think in politics it's not just what you believe that can be a building block to defining a movement or a party, but what you are resisting or fighting against that can serve as a platform upon which to rebuild (putting aside events over which nobody has control over, that can shape the political landscape, such a war, an attack, etc.) And certainly if Obama is elected we will have much to resist and use to rebuild the GOP. I don't think Americans will like Obama's socialist policies. So we go from there.

I do think another weird thing at work this cycle, is white guilt. Perhaps more whites will vote for Obama BECAUSE he is black than will vote against him because he is black. Why? Because liberals and moderates love to see themselves as rescuers, balancing out life's inequities. Forget that when the government gives you everything, you have no incentive to succeed on your own. So lots of liberals (and the radical chic on the right) will go to sleep tomorrow night feeling like heroes (the same people btw who despise Clarence Thomas.) It's just nutty, but it is what it is...

Bob| 11.3.08 @ 3:05PM

Wendy, we are at opposite ends of the party. As a strategist, I don't think you define yourself as something you are against because that does not give you guidepost. If who you are depends on how someone else defines themselves, then you have no real identity.

Secondly, any definition must result in a governing majority. The percentage of blacks and Hispanics in the Republican Party is diminishing. You can't be a party of the future without the inclusion of minorities.

Lastly, and I know it will be a nightmare to you, Obama will govern as a centrist, not a socialist -- it is the only way he will have a legacy. He and the Democrats lose if he governs far to the left -- and he knows that.

As for white guilt, I think there is some of that, but there is also offsetting racism -- it will not be a major factor. By the way, I also did not support Charence Thomas, but I thought Roberts and Alito were good picks. Thomas just didn't have the intellectual heft. I also thought that Bork should have been chosen.

The definition must be based on common ground and not strict ideologies. Without moderate Republicans, you will not have a governing majority and that is simply a fact. People like to say the country is "center-right", but I'm not sure people are able to define what that is.

WendyG| 11.3.08 @ 3:18PM

Bob, I know a little bit about how Foundations work. That the Annenbergs were Republicans is irrelevant. Foundation funds are handled by program managers (sometimes they collaborate with governing boards.) In general they make the decisions in regard to what gets funded. And I am sure whoever funded Ayers shares his radical views. I do think Ayers is relevant, and I am not sure yet why Americans have grown so sanguine about 60's radicals. Maybe just too much time has gone by. Then again Kerry lost because of his 60's radicalism (in part) but that was 4 years ago, and closer to 9-11.

Of course we need a mix of thought in the GOP. I support that totally. Norm Coleman is a moderate. But there is no excuse for the GOPers who are supporting Obama. None whatsoever.

And wasn't Reaganism to some degree defined by Soviet Communism - at least in terms of foreign policy?

Obama is by no means sounding like a centrist to me. But I hope you are right. I pray you are right.

Ned| 11.3.08 @ 9:13PM

Bob writes: Lastly, and I know it will be a nightmare to you, Obama will govern as a centrist, not a socialist -- it is the only way he will have a legacy. He and the Democrats lose if he governs far to the left -- and he knows that.

I hope you are right; however I don’t know what we can base that conclusion on. Obama has come across as cool and measured in all of his responses to questions. He has also shown he can adjust his views to fit the occasion. This performance has been carried out with one goal always in mind, the Presidency. I believe that once his goal is obtained, if it is, he will finally feel that he no longer needs to dance to anyone’s tune but his own. Think of all the unbridled adulation he has received from his followers. He is young by the standard of the office and power it gives. I think this will all go to his head. I suspect it already has. He has had plenty of folks to tell him what he can do, will there be any who will tell him what he should do. You assume his actions will be garnered by concern for a legacy. That he and the Democrats will lose if he governs far to the left. What if he thinks he has risen above these constraints, that he already is the legacy?

Bob| 11.4.08 @ 8:13AM

Ned, if you've studied Obama, read his books, looked at who surrounds him, you'd come to the same conclusion I have. Most people, especially those on the right, will listen to Fox news and not do their own homework. I'm not a young guy and I take these voting decisions seriously. I have read both Obama's and McCain's books, I've studied their histories, done fact checking myself, listened to both sides, and am not an ideologue. Obama doesn't listen to Pelosi and Reid, he listens to Rubin, Volcker, Powell, Lugar, Coburn, etc. He grew up without a father and surrounds himself with father figures (including Wright). That's both his strength and his weakness. Ayers is ONLY a Fox news promotion and is only important to right wing ideologues. By the way, I think Fox news is part of the Republican problem -- it does not reach out to a broader electorate and incites right wingers.

Obama is a no drama, strategist. He always takes a longer term view and sticks with it. His background is replete with pragmatism. He stayed in Wright's church because that was the largest venue for his constituents. He would have moved immediately if there was a better place. Those on the extreme right who are ideologues believe he was there because of Wright's beliefs -- they couldn't be more wrong. He was there to get ahead!! That's been the hallmark of his entire life.

Therefore, he will govern to the center -- he can't help it....

Ned| 11.4.08 @ 8:52AM

Bob, I don't believe he was at Wright's church because he believed in Wright. I agree he was only there to get ahead. Why wasn’t he knowledgeable enough to see that Wright would ultimately hurt him? Was it a youthful mistake? You believe Obama to be a pragmatist; I am getting the hunch you are also. I am, to a certain extent, a right wing idealist. Being that, I tend to gravitate towards people who show that they actually have faith in something. I like leaders who will go beyond just getting themselves ahead in life for their personal aggrandizement. I am only beginning to read about Obama, you have much more knowledge of his life and past. I to have come to the conclusion that since he lacked a father he has found other people to fill that void. I also suspect that lacking a father himself, he desires to be a father to everyone else, something many of us don't need and resent having it forced on us.

Bob| 11.4.08 @ 9:12AM

Ned, although I am a white guy, I grew up in a poor black neighborhood. I left home at 15, made my own way, was the first in my family to go to college, served in the Army in Vietnam, and ended up getting a graduate degree from Harvard. You can't grow up that way and be an ideologue. Obama has some blind spots, and Wright was one of them. We are all human and are not entirely rational when it comes to associations. Look at McCain's associations with Singlaub, Liddy, Keating, etc. I could make an argument that McCain hangs around with felons and anti-semites. These arguments are just stupid on both sides. If you want to talk about arrogance, look at George Bush and Dick Cheney. I really don't think Obama could be more arrogant than that.

By the way, I see no evidence that Obama looks to be a "father" to us. Normally, from a psychological perspective, you either desire father figures or are one -- not both.

Ned| 11.4.08 @ 10:42AM

Bob, what is a pragmatist’s motive for any belief or action? Is it only to further their ambition and lot in life?
Thank you for your service in Vietnam. I served in the Marine Corp on the heals of that war. I grew up in a middle class predominantly white neighborhood. I was taught or absorbed from my parents that race didn't matter, only the content of character. Yes we all have associations we might not be proud of at a later date. The legitimacy of the Wright question is Obama kept that relationship going for twenty years with the eventual involvement of his wife and children. I like Bush and Cheney and think one of Bush's problems is that he is not arrogant enough. Anyway we disagree on that. I think Obama wants to be a father to us because of his attitude about social programs. He will save us all if we just hope and all that garbage.
The saddest thing about the Wright affair is, didn't Wright himself say Obama was only doing what he needed to do to get ahead in politics. This leads me to believe that is all Wright is doing, saying what he needs to, to get ahead. I feel sorry for the folks in the congregation who really believe what they are being told. They are simply be used to achieve and end.

Bob| 11.4.08 @ 12:05PM

Ned, the thing I don't like about ideologues is that they believe they are right based upon their own belief system even if data proves them wrong. I don't think any of us is that right or that smart. Bigotry is an outgrowth of idealism. You may believe the Wright association is bad, but I think McCain's association with Keating, Liddy, and Singlaub is far worse because he based those close friendships on common beliefs rather than on someone helping him find himself when he was young. Obama has proved to be a good husband and father and I value that. McCain cheated on his first wife. Obama worked his way up while McCain used his wife's position and money to get there. Obama has supported veterans issues strongly while McCain has among the lowest ratings with veteran's groups in terms of his votes.

I feel sorry for the ideologues who ONLY listen to Rush, Hannity, and Fox news because THEY really believe what they are being told. Pragmatists must be skeptics. Growing up, I was always told to question my religion -- not just to accept it. I read the Bible in the original Aramaic and studied the Talmud.

It is a fallacy to believe you need to be told what is good or evil. We can all see the effect on others and make that judgment ourselves. For example, how can you see a Republican Party with very few blacks and Hispanics and believe that it is not bigoted in some way? Do you know out of the thousands of delegates to the Republican convention, only 36 were black? The lowest in a long time. The results prove severe bias and I think that is wrong. I had this same argument with Quin regarding "racism". McCain, to his credit, recognized the Wright issue as somewhat racist and he would not let his campaign pursue it. It doesn't matter how it is meant -- it matters only how it is perceived by your target audience. I don't believe it is racist, but if it is perceived that way then there is something I don't comprehend.

Ned| 11.4.08 @ 3:32PM

"For example, how can you see a Republican Party with very few blacks and Hispanics and believe that it is not bigoted in some way? "

I see that and wonder if not blacks and hispanics might be the ones who are bigoted. I have the same reaction when 95% of blacks who vote, vote for Obama. A great majority of these votes are based on skin color alone. Something I have never done and never will.

df| 11.10.09 @ 3:13AM

wholesale nike shoes

wholesale shoes