LA Times' Phony Presidential Poll

McCain and Obama are neck and neck, but some polls haven't figured that out.

Two mornings ago you probably heard that the Los Angeles Times poll showed Barack Obama with a national lead over John McCain of 49% to 37%. Time to panic?

Perhaps until you heard Carl Cameron of FOX (one newsman who has a brain) say that the Gallup (Daily) Tracking Poll shows McCain and Obama in a (drum-roll) "statistical dead heat," with both men polling 45%. Gallup, despite a few bumps in its long road, is in fact "the gold standard" of polls.

The LA Times survey is more a political statement than a scientific poll. When it comes to the Times, liberals seem always to "poll" very well. There's only one California poll with a record for accuracy: the Field Poll. But as the Times has disovered, releasing a cockamamie poll is a good way to sell papers.

Should you instead depend on a newsman like the esteemed Chris Wallace? Today, Wallace was speaking about Pennsylvania, where I live, and he said, "Hillary Clinton won it by 20-30%.
Oh really? Mrs. Clinton won Pennsylvania by 9.2%. Chris Wallace was off by roughtly 11-21 percentage points. Isn't political coverage supposed to be his strong suit?

He may have been confusing PA with WV, where Mrs. Clinton won by 41%. (I guess WV must have a 5,000 truckoads of "bitter" people.)

Chris Wallace also repeated the rumor (it's not much more than that) that Obama is ahead by 12% in the critical state of Pennsylvania. I wondered if the LA Times had conducted a survey here (without my knowledge). Like all states, we have our versions of Mom n Pop polls, which are always wrong.

Trust me, McCain is doing well in Pennsylvania, and he will win this state. As Mrs. Clinton demonstrated in the Primary, Obama is not well-liked here. Our state's animosity toward him mirrors his hostility to us. We're much too busy clinging to our guns and our Bibles to embrace an unarmed man who has Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger confused with Christians.

More about polls later. I love them, but I don't trust them -- except for Gallup, especially when it's in line with my wishes. By the way, McCain being even with Obama, if Gallup is correct, means he almost certainly ahead in electoral votes. Obama is over-performing in three large states, and that skews the polls.

There, didn't I make you feel better about things political?

Hillary Winning in PA, Nationwide

NOTE: MY MONDAY (AND TUESDAY) COLUMN WILL COME UP ABOUT 7 P.M. THIS EVENING. I'M STICKING BY MY PREDICTION THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL WIN BY DOUBLE-DIGITS IN PA. GOV. ED RENDELL, A HILLARY CLINTON BACKER, IS PREDICTING A SINGLE-DIGIT WIN, BUT I BELIEVE HE'S ENGAGING IN THE TIME-HONORED TRADITION OF "LOWERING EXPECTATIONS."

The column below is reposted from my Pennsylvania site (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.com. In this year's election, Pennsylvania is going to be what the pundits call "highly competitive." Generally, the columns on the Pennsylvania site will be "states-specific," recognizing that PA is going to be a critical battleground state. Later today, I'll be putting up a new -- and extremely important -- blog called: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. When Obama wins the nomination, as he presumably will, many Hillary supporters -- perhaps one-in-four -- will be inclined to vote for John McCain, and the Hillary site will involve discussions about that development. I urge you to visit both these sites.

Hillary Winning in PA, Nationwide
On Sunday, April 20, the results of the latest Gallup "Tracking Poll" were released. They showed Hillary Clinton leading nationally among Democrats by one percentage point. A week ago, Obama's lead in the Gallup Poll was about 11 points, so there's been a dramatic drop in his national support.

In Pennsylvania, the average of polls shows Mrs. Clinton's lead at about five points.Some analysts, including this one, believe it's entirely possible that Clinton will win in the Keystone State by approximately 10 percentage points. I've guessed it will be approximately 55% to 45%, although it could conceivably be by as much as 57% to 43%.

Clinton is stronger in Pennsylvania than you might have been hearing on TV. Right now, she's tied or leading in every demographic except Blacks and the wealthiest of Democrats.

If Mrs. Clinton has a double-digit win in Pennsylvania, look for to call on Super Delegates to support her. Presumably, she will point directly to the Gallup Poll as illustrating that she's the most electable candidate. She would have a powerful argument in her favor.

Clearly, Obama has been hurt by two factors: (1) his "bitter" comments about small town America; (2) his poor performance in the recent debate. The national media, many of whom obviously support Obama, have been slow to report on the dramatic changes taking place in the Democratic race.

Keep a close eye on those Gallup Tracking Polls. If Senator Clinton extends her lead, the Democratic race may become more chaotic than it already is. My own guess? That the battle will go right to the convention floor in Denver, an eventuality that will help John McCain.

In fact, McCain is looking like a probable winner in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and even New Jersey, usually thought of as a solid "Blue State." Mrs. Clinton had solid wins in Ohio and New Jersey, and she should have a similar result in PA.

Pennsylvania the Key in 2008

Recently a reporter asked Hillary Clinton about the rumors that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Apprently, her answer was that he's not a Muslim "as far as I know." I doubt Obama called to thank her for that response. "All's fair in love and war."

Note: Within one hour on another blog (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/), I got visitors from Canada, Portugal (two), Japan, and Spain, as well as several from the U.S. I have no idea what brought them, but I hope they return often. My main blog is at: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/.

Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, a traditional back-slapping, arm-twisting Philadelphia politician and staunch backer of Senator Hillary Clinton. Rendell is thoroughly corrupt and (of course) a great fundraiser, but on the positive side, he's generally amiable. Who wouldn't be?

"We don't hide from history.... We make history." (John McCain, last night in Dallas)

Pennsylvania seems destined this year to make some history of its own . . .

I started writing today's column, and then the power went out (destroying what I'd written) for two-plus hours. Ah, the wonderful (?) weather of western Pennsylvania in winter. At least, it didn't destroy my capacity for alliteration!

Much to the amazement of most of us who live in Pennsylvania, the April 22 primary here this year will really matter, at least for the Democrats. We are the last big state left that hasn't yet held a primary, although people in Florida (a huge state) and Michigan might disagree. Those two states, stripped of their delegates by the authoritarian national Democratic Party, are in political limbo.

(Oops, the power went out again, proving that this probably isn't my day!)

The Pennsylvania Primary will be an important one. Knowing what I know now, I expect the person who wins a majority of the votes in PA will be Hillary Rodham Clinton. There's no reason she shouldn't do as well here as she did in Ohio. I predicted (see below) that she'd win that state by a comfortable margin, which she did. (I also predicted she'd win Texas by a relatively narrow margin, and she carried that state by almost 100,000 votes out of roughly 2.75 million cast.

(There are problems with the Obama Campaign that even the notoriously clueless media are starting to pick up on. Mrs. Clinton has been attacking him on his thin national security credentials and his shaky views -- whatever they are -- on NAFTA. After taking off like a rocket, Obama shows some signs of falling like a rock. He is not a credible candidate for President, although he may end up with the nomination.)

Since I'm making predictions: I believe the Democratic race will be decided at the convention in Denver. I have a feeling that a significant majority of the Democratic "Super Delegates" are going to discover that Obama is not ready for Prime Time. If that happens, Mrs. Clinton could end up with the nomination. But that's a a long way away . . .

If Pennsylvania will be significant in April, it will be profoundly so in the general election. This is a state that's difficult for Republicans to win -- Gore carried it in 2004 and John Kerry won by a small margin in 2004 -- but it's one that John McCain probably has to win if he's to prevail next November.

Why? Because Ohio, the state that put GWB over the top in 2004, is looking as if it will go for the Democratic candidate (probably Obama). In presidential races that Republicans win, they generally have to carry Ohio. However, that state's generally miserable economy, especially in manufacturing, could put it in the Democratic nominee's column.

Pennsylvania is an unusual state in its politics. Statewide, the Democrats have a big registration edge (about 600,000), but many of the Democrats here -- including those in Beaver County, where I live -- are moderate or even conservative. The state has a huge number of military veterans, many of whom will be attracted to John McCain, who of course is a veteran and a former POW.

The key for Senator Obama will be the Black vote in Philadelphia and, to a lesser extent, in Pittsburgh. The rest of the state -- literally every county other than Allegheny and Philadelphia -- should go for Hillary Clinton. The Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, an old-time back room, arm-twisting politician, is strongly behind Senator Clinton, and his support will help her.

Be aware that Gov. Rendell has a big mouth. He said a few weeks ago that a good segment of Pennsylvania white Democrats wouldn't vote for a Black candidate. He's probably right, much as I hate to admit it. Look for Rendell, a Super Delegate, to make other colorful statements in the next seven weeks. He claims he doesn't want the vice-presidential nod, but many of us don't believe that. Ed Rendell's "wants" are boundless.

Much more on Pennsylvania to come.

If you're a real political junkie, buy a copy of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition. Barone knows a whole lot about Pennsylvania and its unusual politics.

Whither Goest Hillary Rodham Clinton?

8 p.m.: CBS News tonight mentioned that the early exit polls (ones from this a.m.?) indicated that, in Texas, the Hispanic vote (mainly going to Hillary Clinton) was way up over 2004, while the Black vote (mainly going to Obama) was DOWN. Caution: Exit polls taken during the day (remember 2004 when the exit polls suggested a President John Kerry?) are sometimes misleading. For example, Democrats (and liberal) tend to vote early, while Republicans (hey, somebody has to be at work!) tend to vote later. But if the CBS results hold throughout the day, Barack Obama is not going to win the majority of the Democratic primary vote in Texas. CNN is announcing that the vote in Texas is "competitive." Trust me, Hillary Clinton will win a majority of the vote in Ohio. She will also win a majority in Rhode Island.

Above: Obama's soaring rhetoric puts pastor (in Red State garb?) sound asleep.

Even though I expect Hillary Clinton to do well in today's voting in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont, it's nearly impossible for her to do well enough to reduce substantially Obama's 150-vote lead in "pledged" delegates. So, as far as "whither," her campaign -- an ill-conceived one -- may go, it will continue to "wither."

The wild card is this: She may have some damaging information on Barack Obama, perhaps regarding his relationship with Chicago political "fixer" and fundraiser Tony Rezko. The big question is: will she release the material to the media? Her problem is that some Democratic voters regard any criticism of Obama as somehow "unfair."

Today, it looks as if Mrs. Clinton will have a big win in Ohio and a narrow win in Texas, as well as a solid win in Rhode Island. When it comes to "The People's Republic of Vermont," who knows?

Mrs. Clinton has an extremely narrow window leading to the nomination, and if she doesn't have substantial wins in both Ohio and Texas, that window will slam shut. People in the main-stream-media (MSM) still have a hard time grasping that fact, because they're the ones who long ago proclaimed Hillary The Inevitable Winner. So much for inevitability.

Obama would be the most under-qualified presidential candidate since Ohio's Warren Gamaliel Harding, also a silver-tongued orator but an exemplar of cluelessness when it came to being President. He was, however, wise enough to die during his first (and last) term, thereby enabling a better man to become President: "Silent" Calvin Coolidge of Vermont.

If Mrs. Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas tonight, it probably won't help her much in the delegate count. Obama should remain approximately 135-140 votes ahead in pledged delegates. However, if Mrs. Clinton wins three-of-the-four states that vote today, it's unlikely she will withdraw from the race (or "suspend" her campaign). Like Mike Huckabee in the Republican race, she will be hoping for a miracle.

The Pennsylvania Primary is on April 22. If the race between Obama and Clinton continues into the Keystone State, there will be a lot of breathless coverage by the MSM. However, in Pennsylvania the Democratic vote will likely mirror the contest in Ohio. In other words, one of the candidates may pick up 4-5 "extra" delegates. For Mrs. Clinton, that would not be enough. To win the nomination, she's have to win PA by something like 90% to 10%, and that's just not going to happen.

Look for Hillary Clinton to make a fierce effort to gain an advantage in the "Super Delegates." But it's probable such delegates will vote their own self-interest, which increasingly appears to mean a majority will cast their votes for Barack Obama. It's hard to see Mrs. Clinton winning the Democratic nomination.

Will she get the V-P nod? Not unless Barack Obama has lost his mind. As the V-P choice, she would end up costing him more votes than she would attract.

____________________________

Why America Would be Headed for Disaster Without John McCain

By Yomin Postelnik

Canada Free Press

Sunday, March 2, 2008

For the past 25 years one voice has fought tirelessly to reduce congressional spending, often fighting members of his own party to do so. This is no small feat. Opposing the spending projects of your fellow members does not generally win you any friends.
It touches on the issues most important to them and their individual records, bringing money to their district or their state. Only someone who can put the good of the nation as a whole ahead of the interests of his friends and colleagues, colleagues he needs in order to pass any legislation that he or she wishes to enact, will care to enter this fight. Few will win and even those who do win a few rounds will be easily tempted to back down in the long run. Yet in spite of the consequences, John McCain has fought spending with a remarkable consistency.
The issue is of primary importance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if we do not curb the level of spending immediately, the only alternatives in 20 years will be to either double taxation while slashing spending by at least a half (and those projections assume a sustained level of economic growth) or to watch our dollar become worthless abroad and soon after at home, as few will want to save, trade and invest in a currency considered to be of little value worldwide. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office is equally open about the fact that no member of Congress will do anything about this matter until people realize the necessity to act. Few politicians want to embrace unpopular positions like huge rollbacks and caps on spending. That’s the difference between them and leaders. Leaders work for five, ten, twenty years to alert the public to important realities and awaken their hearts and minds to problems and propose solutions that have little support before the public realizes their need. When it comes to the all important issue of wasteful spending, an issue that can mean the difference between continued growth and expansion or economic collapse, John McCain is such a leader. Remarkably, his battles against pork and pork’s favorite barbeque chefs on both sides of the congressional aisle, haven’t tarnished his ability to work with members of congress. Though a lesser man would have alienated himself from members of both sides with his steadfast campaign against their habits, John McCain’s sincere devotion to this cause, his steadfastness and his reasoned approach to all other issues have earned him a level of respect and cooperation from members of both parties than most senators can ever hope to achieve. The fight against spending is simply another battle the scars of which John McCain wears well. Even more than the need to cut spending is how we go about doing so. John McCain deserves much praise for the way he’s gone about this as well. McCain recognizes the need to invest in education, that every dollar spent on it is of immeasurable benefit to society. From a purely economic standpoint, in the long run funding education saves much more on fighting crime and a whole host of societal problems that correlate with low education. Educational funding also gives our nation’s children the ability to harness opportunity and develop new products and services that will both better society and keep us economically strong. John McCain favors a reasoned approach to spending. While he wholeheartedly supports funding education, the military and our intelligence community that are absolutely crucial to our safety in dangerous times, with equal passion he opposes wasteful spending and unnecessary projects that favor a particular region or special interest. It is these projects that have the potential to cripple the economy and eventually lead to funds being drying up, even for needed projects. To protect our education, economy, safety and security, we need to act now. The national debt is out of hand and we cannot continue to borrow money forever. We are closer than almost anyone realizes to losing our current credit rating and to having our debt turn to junk bond status. The United States has maintained a triple A bond score since 1917, but this year Moody’s attached an asterisk to the rating, a note of caution. The Congressional Budget Office worries about a real decline in rating. This is all thanks to the reckless spending of both parties. There’s one candidate who’s willing to do something about it. His name is John McCain and he’s been fighting ruinous pork barrel spending for over 25 years. This is one of the reasons I suggest that entrepreneurs and all who care for the nation’s economy support John McCain for President. He understands the need to invest in education, defense and technology and brings concrete solutions to the table as opposed to empty platitudes. But most of all, his career-long battle against reckless spending shows him for the man of integrity, sound judgment and leadership that he is.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2106