Leaving for New Mexico....

I'm in a rush today as I prepare for the long drive to New Mexico to canvas for Obama on Saturday and hear him speak. Here are some of the best stories of the day:

from Politico:

"When it rains it pours"

"Seems like McCain just can't catch a break. Pittsburgh station KDKA reports that Ashley Todd, the 20-year-old McCain volunteer who claims to have been mugged by a black man and had a "B" carved in her face, today admitted to fabricating the attack.In short: It's like a political version of the Susan Smith or Charles Stuart storiesDrudge gave big play to the incident, and both McCain and Palin called the girl's family. Obama's campaign issued a statement expressing concern and calling for a prosecution of the assailant."

From Huffington Post:

"Palin's Makeup Artist is McCain's Highest Paid Staffer"

From The New Republic:

Reagan Appointee and (Recent) McCain Adviser Charles Fried Supports Obama

From The Wall Street Journal:

Obamacans: Prominent Republicans Line-Up Behind Obama

From Washington Post:

Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation

"Adult Supervision:" why America needs Obama

Joe Klein of Time Magazine had a great piece on the election today called "Why Barack Obama Is Winning." Klein argues that Obama's steady temperament - particularly during the first throws of the financial crisis - helped Americans feel more confident with a potential Obama administration.

Personally, I could not agree more. At every turn, Obama has been more mature, more measured, and yet, more responsive to the needs of everyday Americans. While Obama has not been in the White House, I always felt as though he was already the true emotional leader of the country. When he traveled abroad, he gained the attention and admiration of world leaders. When the Georgia crisis happened he was diplomatic, even handed, and presidential. He was a calming voice at a stressful time.

And when the economy finally reached the brink, it was Obama that was finally able to make the case to the American public that something had to be done. It was Obama, at the debate, who told America what would happen if we allowed the credit markets to fail.

For the last several months, whenever things seemed bleak for his campaign, or when Liberal Democrats called for more attacks on John McCain, or when the Rev. Wright mess threatened to force him into the standard, heartless, idiotic politics that we have all come to know, it was Obama who offered something different. It was Obama that offered change - and not by his rhetoric, but by his deeds.

I have watched, over the last year and a half, as the country has acted like a bunch of two-year-olds. I have said many times by now, that Obama seems like the only adult in America (including myself).

Obama is no Messiah. And he is not a perfect man. But right now, at this moment, he is exactly what we need: "adult supervision."

I cannot wait to say "President Obama." And that is why I'm getting off of the sidelines this weekend and lending a hand. My vote may not count in Oklahoma, but my feet and my voice will count in Albuquerque New Mexico, where my mother and I will canvass together on Saturday.

And in the waining days of this long campaign, as fate would have it, Obama will be giving a speech... On Saturday night... In Albuquerque NM.

Too Perfect!

Cuba Seeks to End U.S. Trade Embargo - FOX News

I'll write some more on this tomorrow, but, it may end up being an interesting wrinkle in the Florida race. The FOX article is here

More on state-specific voter supression

A nice concise piece from Salon Magazine on states where voter suppression is taking place. View article here

Election update: refs are beginning to call the fight

As I pointed out in a previous post below, the election appears unwinable for Sen. John McCain for a variety of reasons. The mainstream media is a bit more resistant to step in and call the fight, but the more independent experts are beginning to line up to make an early prediction. While nobody (besides my non-audience having ass) has made a definitive pronouncement, you can tell that they really want to.

Chuck Todd, from MSNBC, pointed out - as I did a month ago - that the election all comes down to Colorado and Virginia.

If Obama holds all states where he now leads by large margins (New Mexico, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania in particular), then he needs only one of the Colorado/Virginia duo. The rest, is just gravy, adding to his mandate for "change." No, not a "man-date, for pennies."

Also lining up with me is one of my favorite analysts: Nate Silver, at fivethirtyeight.com. He sited, among other things, the fact that McCain appears to be pulling his ad monies from Colorado. He was also on MSNBC taking about McCain's Colorado problem, and he said everything BUT, "McCain will win."

The self-described "vote master" at electoral-vote.com said today that "all the metrics point to an Obama win." He also points out that Charlie Cook listed some good reasons why McCain won't win in an article that received wide readership last night:

1. No candidate this far back two weeks out has ever won;
2. Early voting is going strong and even if something big happens, those votes are already cast;
3. The Democrats have a 10% advantage in party registration; in 2004 it was even;
4. Obama is outspending McCain 4 to 1 in many states;
5. There is no evidence for the so-called Bradley effect in the past 15 years;
6. Obama is safe in all the Kerry states and ahead in half a dozen states Bush won.

My gut tells me to be wary of predicting Colorado for Obama because of the Republican voter suppression there (see previous post). That's also one reason why I didn't feel comfortable calling Ohio for Obama. The other, was the extreme reaction that Ohioans had to the ACORN B.S., even calling their offices with death threats and racial slurs. But barring an obscene number of voter who are turned away due to illegal purging of the rolls there, I am still confident that we can start calling Obama "Mr. President."

Kennedy Jr explains Colorado, Iowa voter supression (video)

Robert Kennedy Jr. offers a great explaination of voter supression tactics in Colorado and Iowa, and shows a solid understanding of what really happened in the ACORN case. Great interview, video here.

You had me at Colorado: why McCain can't win

I've been pouring over the numbers this morning, and I feel like we have reached a point where I feel safe calling the election - for Sen. Barack Obama. Though Sen. John McCain has made headway with a certain swath of Americans (I'll get to that in a second) in his last push for office, I do not believe that it will be enough. Now you can't always count on the polls to give you an accurate picture of reality (whatever that is), but, they can give you a good sense of the direction things are going. Here are the latest national polls courtesy of one of my favorite sites, electoral-vote.com:

• Battleground (Obama +4)
• Diageo (Obama +5)
• Gallup expanded (Obama +9)
• IBD (Obama +6)
• Opinion Rsearch (Obama +5)
• Rasmussen (Obama +4)
• Research 2000 (Obama +8)
• Washington Post/ABC (Obama +9)
• YouGov (Obama +6)
• Zogby (Obama +6)

While these are not insurmountable numbers in terms of national polling, as McCain has had periods where he lead by similar margins, they do indicate that the very small bump that McCain received from his debate performance has subsided. The important thing to take from these numbers, is that voters are beginning to harden in their preferences, and moving them will become increasingly difficult. Neither candidate, at this point, seems to be able to move the polls in one direction or the other, meaning that McCain has to find some way to create cognitive dissonance and doubt about Obama if he hopes to win (and he must chose very carefully where he does it).

But as we all know, the battle is truly about the electoral college votes. And in looking at individual state polls, McCain is getting crushed in the most important swing states. His campaign admitted today that he will likely lose Colorado, which, in my opinion is like inaugurating his opponent two weeks before the election.

Here is why:

In order for Obama to gain the 270 electoral votes that he needs to win, he must carry all of the states that John Kerry won in 2004, including Pennsylvania, which Kerry won by a narrow 2.2 percent margin. Obama currently leads in all of those states by extremely wide double-digit margins, giving him 253 reliable electoral votes.

Additionally, voters in Iowa fell in love with Obama early on, while, McCain decried ethanol subsidies (oops). Iowa now favors Obama by double digits, despite favoring President George W. Bush in 2004. That gives Obama 260 reliable votes. From here, Obama needs just 10 more votes to win.

And in that 260 vote total, I have not included New Mexico, where I personally will helping out this coming weekend (assuring certain victory). The state has been in the Obama column for many weeks now, and the latest polls there show double digit leads for Obama. That gives Obama 265 electoral votes.

So whats left?

The remaining states where either candidate could realistically win are:

• Virginia (Obama +7 as of Oct. 19) = 13 votes
• Colorado (Obama +5 as of Oct. 19) = 9 votes
• North Carolina (Obama +2 as of Oct. 19) = 15 votes
• Ohio (Obama +2 as of Oct. 19) = 20 votes
• Missouri (Obama +2 as of Oct. 19) = 11 votes
• Nevada (Obama +4 as of Oct. 13) = 5 votes
• Florida (Obama +2 as of Oct. 19) = 27 votes
• Montana (McCain +4 as of Oct. 16) = 3 votes
• North Dakota (tied at 45% each as of Oct. 15) = 3 votes

In order for the good Senator from Arizona to become our next president, he must win ALL of these states. But, as I mentioned above: McCain is giving up on Colorado. Instead, he will go after Pennsylvania, which leans toward Obama by 12 percent, with Obama holding 52 percent to McCain's 40 percent according to the most recent poll by SurveyUSA on Oct. 19.

It seems strange that McCain would go after a state where Obama has such a huge lead, and the main stream media seems puzzled as to why McCain would cede Colorado - where the margin is only 5 percent. But, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the McCain camp is looking at: its a simple demographic choice that aims to exploit the fervor among base Republicans over Obama's supposed associations to Ayers, ACORN and Reverend Wright, his supposed "socialist" agenda, and now, his stance on gay marriage.

As I reported last night, Gov. Sarah Palin has shifted her position on gay marriage; telling the Christian Broadcast Network that she would like to see a federal ban on gay marriage. If you look at the list of states again, they are all sensitive to the same social issues that helped Bush win in 2004. And given Obama's past troubles with "white working-class voters" in those states, and his troubles with Rev. Wright, it seems pretty clear what McCain plans on doing.

But will it work?

I suppose it's possible that he could manage to win every single one of those states based on social issues, as President Nixon did when he famously appealed to the "silent majority," like, say, Joe the Plumber. But, it just doesn't seem likely - or even plausible.

So here is what I expect:

McCain will keep calling Obama a socialist in his stump speeches. His campaign will continue the "robo-calls" and mailers making reference to Obama's associations with Ayers and ACORN. He will add to this, criticisms of Rev. Wright that he had previously called off limits. And he will expand all these elements to his television advertising.

In McCain's defense, he has no other options. If it works, I think the strategy could net him Ohio, North Dakota, Montana, North Carolina and Nevada, and perhaps Missouri.

That would give Obama, in my estimation, Colorado and Pennsylvania, as well as Florida and Virgina. Because of the enormity of his rallies in Missouri, I am tempted to give him that state. But he trailed there for nearly the entire campaign, and is only leading now by 2 points. It will be interesting to see if Kansas City and St. Louis can deliver the state for Obama - I'm just not sure. I'm also a bit less solid about Florida, but I am counting on several hundred thousand registered African American voters that did not bother to vote in the previous election, when Bush barely won.

If the scenario plays out like I think it will, then Obama will end up with 313 to McCain's 225 (giving MO to McCain). If McCain's new strategy fails, or if he sees the writing on the wall and decides not to tarnish his legacy by running such a negative campaign, then this election will be a land-slide.

I told you all of that, to tell you this: barring a disaster of epic proportions, this election is over. Obama only needs one state. And that state, my friends, is Colorado (thank god for conventions).

In essence, when it comes to this election: "You had me at Colorado."

I'll follow this up with some great charts that I'm making later on. For now, prediction made.

Update: It looks like I'm not alone. Today, PEW research, (one of the most trusted research organizations in America, and the basis for the National Conference of State Legislatures and Stateline.org) released a poll showing Obama up by a wide 52-38 margin. Pew Research Center Director said that a lack of confidence in McCain is the likely cause.

Tom Mann of the Brookings Institute said that "McCain does not have a shot absent some cataclysmic event."

Palin makes gay marriage a campaign issue

Gov. Sarah Palin, who had previously sided with her running mate Sen. John McCain on the issue of gay marriage (supporting a ban at the state level but opposing a constitutional ban at the federal level), said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on Monday that she would support a federal ban on gay marriage. Though she had tried in previous interviews and in her debate against Sen. Joe Biden to cast her stance on the issue in a moderate light, she was more forthcoming in her most recent appearance.

Here is a transcript of her remarks:

I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that's where we would go because I don't support gay marriage. I'm not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can't do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that's casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it's the foundation of our society is that strong family and that's based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

I will resist the urge to rip the statement more generally and confine may diatribe to why this is important:

1) It proves that Palin was not entirely truthful during the debate, and;
2) With just two weeks left in the race, we now have to spend the next few days talking about the issue of gay marriage.

My guess is that her resistance to admitting her true feelings was a strategic move to save the matter for the final weeks of the election. Now, instead of voting based on the economy, or energy, or national security, people will be reminded that Obama supports civil unions. If that sows a single seed of doubt in just one tenth of one percent of voters, then it could hand McCain the edge he needs to challenge Obama in states that Bush held in 2004, like Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Nevada or Colorado, and to a lesser extent Missouri, North Carolina and West Virgina (because Obama is likely not going to win those anyway, unless it becomes a land-slide).

I don't think this will turn the election. But, it does shift the focus from more important issues - something that none of us should want to see.

A quick thank you to McCain fans:

I just bumped into this video and wanted to share it. In it, supporters at a McCain rally chase off a small group of McCain supporters that were passing out bumper stickers that had Sen. Barack Obama's name combined with an Islamic Crescent and the Communist sickle and hammer. I would like to have seen this weeks ago, but I am glad to see it now. Thank you McCain supporters for doing the right thing.

View video here

McCain gains traction, finds solid footing on taxes

There are few things Americans hate more than taxes. And while Sen. John McCain has tried in the past to sell the lower taxes argument, it was not until last week's debate that he found a tact that actually works:

"Sen. [Barack] Obama is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of the pie than he is growing the pie," The Guardian reported McCain saying in Toledo, Ohio.

Conservatives have traditionally owned the subject of taxes. But, a combination of a sour economy and effective strategy on the part of Obama has largely taken that away. The reason I say that is this: no body likes paying higher taxes, and Obama's tax plan verifiably lowers taxes for most Americans - if he means it and can pass it. In essence, Obama took away one of the oldest Republican tools in the book, by being the candidate of lower taxes for the most voters.

But as I state above, McCain has finally found an angle that may just work:

"If I'm elected president, I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Sen. Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs," McCain said of his Democratic opponent during a rally at the convention center. "I will keep small business taxes where they are, help them keep their costs low and let them spend their earnings to create more jobs, not send to Washington."

It's an old tact - and one that creates a false choice and obscures the meaning of "small business" - but it's one that Americans are sensitive to and one that has worked many times in the past. McCain has, in recent days, also referred to Obama's plans as "socialist." It's quite a stretch for reasons that I won't get into here, but he bases his claim on Obama's statement about "spreading the wealth around." The charge of "income redistribution," - i.e. taking money from the most "productive" citizens (wealthy) and giving it to the least productive (the needy) - is a line that works well in conservative circles, and some argue, in more centrist circles as well.

And just to be clear, conservatives and liberals don't exactly agree on what constitutes being "productive."

But here is the important thing to watch: the socialism v. trickle-down argument will test the degree to which Americans associate our current economic problems with trickle-down economics, - i.e. lowering taxes on businesses in hopes that the lower rates will encourage investment and lower costs will help businesses create more jobs for all Americans (growing the pie).

What McCain is doing is trying to create the perception that anything to the left of his tax plan, is socialism. Obama has been trying - quite successfully to this point - to create the perception that trickle-down economics has failed us and that McCain's plan is just more naked trickle-down.

The problem with this narrative is that it creates a false choice for us. The choice is not really between socialist-style income redistribution or pure trickle-down economics. Each of their strategies have their perspective benefits and pitfalls.

And while I tend to come down on Obama's side of the argument in this instance - because I believe his plan is less socialist than McCain's plan is trickle-down - the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Even as I right this, the socialism line is finally having an effect on the polls. That effect, in my opinion, is aided by a reduction in the McCain campaign's negativity on the Ayers and ACORN subjects that polls showed angered some voters. I wrongly predicted yesterday that the Powell endorsement would steal headlines today. I was wrong because it is far more interesting to watch one candidate call the other a "socialist," regardless of how idiotic that claim seems to anyone that knows what socialism means (they don't teach that in journalism school).

One thing is for certain, McCain is picking up some steam. But it remains to be seen if it will be enough.

Update: before I forget to go on record, expect to see a tightening in the polls on the subject of who is better to handle the economy. That's all.

Media Matters takes aim at main stream media

With their usual clarity and solid research, left-leaning Media Matters goes to work on how the main stream media treats McCain, lamenting their shoddy reporting and utter lack of research. See full story here.

FactCheck.Org adresses McCain's ACORN claims

Here is a report from FactCheck.org (as published at Newsweek) on the McCain campaign's charges against Obama and ACORN.

Powell stops McCain's momentum, conservatives play race card

Just when Sen. John McCain had managed to curb Sen. Barack Obama's momentum, things turn against him yet again. This morning on "Meet the Press" Gen. Colin Powell, a centrist Republican and former Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, endorsed Obama for president. Though this was expected, and it will likely not make a huge difference in the eventual results, Powell's endorsement of Obama is important for several reasons:

First: it may very well blunt McCain's turnaround after he had managed to gain some momentum this week - showing the old John McCain on the David Letterman Show and during the Alfred E. Smith Dinner, and putting in a reasonable debate performance (video at the bottom);

Second: it will be media fodder for at least a couple of days, keeping the subject on Obama and his growing list of endorsements by conservatives;

Lastly: Powell made a very solid case for why it is important to repair America's tattered image abroad, and further more, why Obama is the right person to do it.

And, not only did Powell endorse Obama, he indicted McCain's negative campaign tactics, which I will get to here in a later post, and derided the Republican establishment for "narrowing" its focus to more distracting issues when the important issues are those like the economy, energy and national security. And, it would seem to me that quite a few republican are feeling the same way.

"I have some concerns about the direction the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes," Powell said.

He later added that "the party has moved even further to the right and Gov. Palin has indicated and even further rightward shift. I would be concerned about two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that is what we would be looking at in a McCain-Palin administration."



There will no doubt be some upset Republicans in the wake of Powell's endorsement and, already, conservative media types are begging the race question - since Powell, too, is half African American. The Drudge Report's first headline on the subject, even with all that Powell had to say, was that he had said it "wasn't about race." In fairness to the folks at Drudge, they did not right the story, just the headline. http://www.drudgereport.com/

Others were more direct, outright suggesting that Powell is racist. The perfect example is Rush Limbaugh (surprise) who asked which "white liberals" Powell had endorsed.

The Politico reported on a Limbaugh email which stated: "Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race. OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

Fox News, meanwhile, gave the story a dinky headline in the corner of the front page, prefacing the story by mentioning that Powell had helped to sell the Iraq war to the American people - a subtle stab at his judgment perhaps. Also note in the right column of this page where I have top headlines that Fox does not have a single story about the endorsement on their news feed.

Update: before I could even post this entry, Fox News buried the story - it no longer appears on the front page.

As I pointed out in my previous (and first) post on Friday, McCain's debate performance had cooled his "burning hemorrhoids" and helped him recover a few points in the polls. Well now, it would seem, he is having another flare-up. It is not so much that people will be swayed by Powell's endorsement, but rather, it serves as further evidence that McCain is scaring away the more thoughtful moderate Republicans, while, Obama continues to solidify his commander in chief credentials.

This endorsement won't move the polls, but, it will stabilize them in a way that may prevent McCain from gaining a momentum advantage. In essence, Powell just granted moderate Republicans permission to vote for Obama despite his perceived lack of foreign policy experience, and, more importantly, stole two to three days of media time for McCain to close the gap.

Mark Halperin of Time Magazine has an interesting take on just that:

"The decision is not only symbolic but, in terms of timing, one of great tactical importance. Powell is a brand unto himself in American politics, and clearly transcends the media's tendency to hype endorsements more than their actual importance to voters. However, the indisputable benefit that Powell brings Obama is that the former Secretary of State and general is sure to block out any chance McCain has of winning the next two or three days of news coverage, as the media swoons over the implications of the choice. It is simple political math: McCain has 15 days to close a substantial gap, and he will now lose at least one fifth of his total remaining time."