WASHINGTON, D.C. -- America's youngest voters are mindful of history and the impact on their own lives as they prepare to cast ballots on Nov. 4. Among 18- to 29-year-old registered voters surveyed for a USA Today/MTV/Gallup poll, 61% support the Obama-Biden ticket, versus 32% who prefer the McCain-Palin ticket, with Obama's voters being far more likely to be certain about their vote than McCain's.
Obama's strong appeal to younger voters is apparent in that he outperforms McCain by double digits on every single character dimension tested in the poll of more than 900 18-29 year olds nationwide, conducted by Gallup for USA Today and MTV Sept. 18-28, 2008. The 47-year-old Obama swamps 72-year-old McCain, 71% to 12%, on understanding the "problems of people your age" and even wins on what is a McCain strength among the broader electorate, being a "strong and decisive leader," 46% to 36%.
While only a minority (37%) of young adults have qualms about McCain's age, a majority (55%) do have concerns about his running mate Sarah Palin's qualifications to step in as president if necessary. In contrast, a majority are satisfied with both Obama's experience and running mate Joe Biden's qualifications. (The poll was conducted before the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate.)
Obama also beats McCain on several lighter dimensions tested in the poll. A majority of 18- to 29-year-olds would choose Obama over McCain as a teacher, boss, drinking buddy, or advisor. McCain's only appeal on this level with young adults appears to be his personal life story as young adults are more likely to be interested in reading McCain's private diary than Obama's. While such items may seem trivial, basic likeability can be a key indicator of a presidential candidate's ability to win votes.
When asked in an open-ended fashion to name the single most important issue affecting their vote for president this year, 18- to 29-year-old registered voters most often cite the economy (30%), followed by the war in Iraq (13%), healthcare (5%), energy and gas prices (4%), and international issues (4%). These issues are, in a broad sense, little different from those listed by all voters, regardless of age. Asked which candidate they think would do a better job on their top-priority issue, 58% say Obama versus 27% who say McCain, again echoing their basic candidate choice.
On the Outcome
The poll results make it clear that young Americans perceive that the outcome of the election really does matter, both to the country and to their own lives. Nearly-two thirds (64%) of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed say they have already given the election a lot of thought. Nearly half (44%) consider this election to be the most important of the last 50 years, and another 37% consider it more important than other elections.
When asked about the consequences of the two possible election outcomes, 84% say an Obama victory would have a great deal (47%) or moderate amount (37%) of impact on their lives and 72% say the same about McCain (36% great deal, 36% moderate amount).
Going a step further, the survey asked those who said an Obama or McCain victory would impact them "a great deal" or "not at all" to explain in their own words why they feel that way. In Obama's case, nearly one in four (24%) volunteered that good or positive changes would take place, while in McCain's case, the most common responses were negative or pertained to the War in Iraq.
Asked in a separate question how a McCain administration might compare to the Bush administration, 55% said they would view a McCain victory as "four more years of the Bush administration" versus 37% who said they would view it as "real change from the Bush administration."
The two tickets this year also carry the distinction of the first major party black nominee in U.S. history, and only the second major party female vice presidential nominee. In the eyes of young voters, victory for the Obama-Biden ticket would be much more of an historical event than victory for the McCain-Palin ticket. A majority (53%) agree that if Barack Obama is elected president, it would be one of the most important advances in racial equality over the past 100 years. By contrast, only one-third (32%) agree that if Sarah Palin becomes vice president, it will be one of the most important advances in gender equality in the past 100 years.
Bottom Line
A majority of 18- to 29-year-olds are registered to vote in this election and have given it a lot of thought. They prefer Barack Obama, both as an alternative to John McCain, but also as the candidate who is the most likely to understand their problems and to bring positive change to their own lives. Casting a ballot for Obama also carries the excitement of making history. Nearly 8 in 10 consider this election to be more important than other elections, if not the most important in the past 50 years. What remains to be seen is how many of this highly sought-after demographic will in fact turn out and vote on Election Day, and thus help to determine the winner.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews conducted September 18-28, 2008, with 903 U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 29, 633 respondents of whom were randomly selected from a national sample of landline and cellular telephone numbers, and 270 respondents of whom had participated in earlier national Gallup polls and agreed to be re-interviewed for a future poll. For results based on the total sample, which is weighted for demographic information to be representative of 18- to 29-year-olds nationwide, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points. For results based on the sample of 742 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
>Note. This 3 day running average goes back to the start of Sarah Palin's "heels on, gloves off" campaign. While it appeals to the 18% of the electorate that constitute her die-hard base, it appears to be turning off the independents. This is the first time any candidate has gotten a 51% posting on the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll.
PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking poll shows registered voters preferring Barack Obama to John McCain for president by 51% to 42%.
The nine percentage point lead in Oct. 4-6 tracking matches Obama's highest to date for the campaign, and the highest for either candidate. Obama led McCain by 49% to 40% near the tail end of his international trip in late July. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)
Obama has now held a statistically significant lead since Sept. 24-26 polling and has not trailed McCain since Sept. 13-15, roughly coinciding with the intensification of the financial crisis.
McCain has an opportunity to try to reverse Obama's momentum at tonight's town hall style debate in Nashville. -- Jeff Jones
I got a sample of it over the last couple of days of watching Fox.
My first peek came on Fox and Friends with anti-Obama hatchetman Stanley Kurtz, from a right-wing opnion-factory named The Ethics and Public Policy Center. Kurtz was given several minutes of free air time to paint a picture of Barack Obama and William Ayers' relationship implying two things: that they were frequently in the same room together, along with scores of other people, and that Barack Obama "funneled" (Kurtz's term) money to one of Ayers' project. Obama was, in fact, on a board that recieved grants and Ayers' project was one of the grant recipients. That is what Kurtz meant by 'funneling' money. Kurtz is obviously confused. "Funneling Money" is what happens when Right-Wing millionaires want to discredit Barack Obama and they make a donation to a 501 (c)(3) called...oh, I don't know, say...The Ethics and Public Policy Center so a slack-jawed bottom-feeder like Stanley Kurtz can provide 'unbiased' information to its viewers. Anyway...By the end of the piece, if one was an uncritical viewer of Fox and Friends, one would certainly have the impression that the so-called "Main Stream Media" was trying to 'cover up' something.
Comes now Sean Hannity. A special entitled "Obama and Friends: A History of Radicalism" was launched today. In this so-called documentary, Hannity spends several minutes created dark sounds about Saul Alinsky, a widely read and much beloved community organizer of the 1950s and 1960s. By the end of the Alinsky discussion, he is characterized as a communist who launched the 'community organizing' movement as a means to manipulate well-meaning people; whatever that means. And Fox News certainly knows something about manipulation. Hannity then draws a line connecting a horrible patch-up inlcuding grainy newsreels of radical islamists leading to Barack Obama and an extreme subculture of Chicago.The racist subtext is undeniable, inspersing images of Jerimiah Wright and Malcolm X and other black nationalists and Barack Obama, they are saying in essence--this guy is black, folks and so are these radicals.
Then Fox has also dredged up one of the police officers wounded by the Weather Underground when Barack Obama was all of 8 years old and we can expect to see his recollections of pain to be used by Fox to attack Obama.
Expect the worst kind of McCarthyesque attacks and distortions that have EVER been seen in an American election over the next 30 days. The decision by the RNC-Fox-McCain camp is a political scorched earth policy. If they can't win this election, they will so poison the well of American Opinion so as to make it ungovernable.
> note, we can all be grateful that McCain's 'private accounts/private management' scheme for Social Security was not in place before this latest tanking on Wall Street. Point THIS out to McCain-leaning Seniors when you have an opportunity to do so....
John Neffinger
Hello? If McCain Had His Way, That'd Be Our Social Security Money Wall Street is Losing
What do we democrats have to say about the mess on Wall Street?
And to further confuse the issue, McCain is also saying something about reform, and taking on "fat cats," and accusing Obama of being just as cozy with these Wall Streeters as anyone else. The upshot so far is that slightly more voters trust John McCain to handle the economy than trust Barack Obama.
But as it turned out, we Americans were not about to let our elected representatives turn over our social security taxes to Wall Street financiers to gamble with if it meant losing the guaranteed income that has allowed millions upon millions of American seniors to live out their sunset years with at least a basic measure of dignity.
But while ordinary Americans spoke out, John McCain stood with Bush (hugged him awkwardly in public, even), against the American people. In fact, just six months ago, McCain again let slip his fondness for privatization.
I have been scratching my head why this has not been talked about more, especially since Obama has been having trouble winning votes among seniors. There may well be some good reason I'm missing why it hasn't been a top argument thus far.
But if we had let Bush and McCain privatize social security, some of those people would be losing a lot more. And a lot of other people with less retirement savings would be hurting even more, because they depend on social security to cover basic needs.
This is something Americans understand: social security is secure, and the stock market is anything but. There are few more personal or dramatic ways to illustrate McCain's terrible judgment than to imagine the nightmare scenario so many Americans would face if McCain and Bush had gotten their way on this -- or if McCain were to get his way as President.
The following from military.com
Military Donations Favoring Obama
WASHINGTON - U.S. Soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous White House campaigns in which military donations tended to favor Republicans, a nonpartisan group reported Aug. 14.
Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.
The results also are striking because they favored Obama, who has never served in the military. McCain meanwhile, is a decorated war veteran who spent nearly five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The Arizona senator graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and had a 22-year career as a naval aviator.
Obama has opposed the war in Iraq and says he would withdraw combat troops within 16 months. McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the war, saying he would withdraw the troops only when conditions on the ground warrant it.
"Obama will work tirelessly to uphold this nation's sacred trust with its veterans, to ensure they are not forgotten after they return home and he will provide our troops with the leadership they deserve, as well as the support they and their families need," Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said.
McCain's campaign played down the significance of the donations.
"John McCain has been endorsed by more retired admirals and generals than Barack Obama has military donors," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a statement.
"We feel confident that many U.S. troops stationed overseas will support John McCain in the election this fall, but we suspect most are too busy doing the important work of defending this country than to make political contributions," Goldfarb said.
The report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors.
Among Soldiers serving overseas at the time of their donations, 134 gave a total of $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave a total of $10,665 to McCain. That was less than the amount received by Republican Ron Paul, who collected $45,512 from 99 Soldiers serving abroad, the report said.
(Herman Hesse's Siddhartha, A Jungian Fantasy at the Berkshire Theatre Festival, Jill Michael and Joe Jung)
Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
* Small town values - a nostalgic return to simpler times disguises a denial of America ' s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
* Ignorance of world affairs - a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
* Family values - a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be needed.
* Rigid stands on guns and abortion - a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree. *Patriotism - the usual fallback in a failed war.
* "Reform" - an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow - we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
Quit your whining, Democrats. If Obama loses this election, it won't be because he didn't fight back.
Tim Fernholz | September 11, 2008 |
There's a picture being sent around e-mail lists and posted on blogs that many a Democrat ought to bear in mind -- and no, it's not another anonymous smear. It's a picture of an assertive Sen. Barack Obama with a LOL-style caption promising, "I GOT THIS!"
Of course, few political observers are quite that confident. In light of Sen. John McCain's post-convention bounce in the polls and the media obsession with Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, Democrats are starting to panic prematurely. Now they're armchair-quarterbacking Obama's campaign: He should attack! He should attack creatively! Why isn't he more populist/more personal/more disciplined? Obama-supporting friends outside of the realm of political journalism are now asking me to allay their fears.
This is what I tell them: Quit the hand-wringing, Democrats, and don't believe the hype. Barack Obama is a lot of things, but he isn't John Kerry and he's not Al Gore. Obama's campaign has been the most disciplined and aggressive Democratic effort of the last eight years. If he loses, it won't be because he didn't hit back.
Even the Prospect staff is not immune to the paranoia about a return to 2004; each poll jump sends my colleague Adam Serwer into inspired anxiety. Just yesterday, founding co-editor Bob Kuttner wrote that Obama's campaign isn't doing enough to go after McCain on issues. As an example, he cited the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, suggesting that Obama base a major policy speech or advertisement around explaining that these entities, wrongly privatized, were at the root of the unnecessary sub-prime mortgage crisis and that this crisis exemplifies why conservatism is a failed ideology and liberalism a better one. All true, as far as the economic analysis goes. But a campaign commercial? It took an entire article -- a good one at that -- for Kuttner to explain that in these pages.
Instead, Obama is making a simple case, one that he has been making for a while now: John McCain is George W. Bush. Each of his recent ads reflects this message. And look at his stump speeches and the remarks of his running mate, Joe Biden. Obama has carefully cultivated his campaign themes of change and reform since 2007, with specific examples of what that change would be, while forcefully demonstrating that John McCain represents more of the same. If Obama switched tactics now, no doubt the same folks criticizing him for his lack of reaction would criticize him for his lack of message discipline.
At the Republican National Convention, McCain adopted Obama's rhetoric and has promised that he and Palin would be the true agents of change, though he declines to specify exactly which Bush-era policies he would change. Ironically, a common castigation of Obama is that he isn't setting the narrative of the race -- that the debate isn't on his terms. But it should be clear by now that this isn't true: The race is about change and who can bring it to Washington. Obama's campaign is betting that its message will be the one that resonates with voters, and McCain's will be seen for what it is: pure rhetoric. Maybe that's a bad bet, but nonetheless Obama's story has set the frame, and McCain is the one who's had to work within it. Obama should not get nasty because that undermines the entire narrative of his candidacy.
The McCain campaign's stream of personal attacks against Obama, and its emphasis that Palin has been victimized by the media, has the day-to-day news cycle focused on foolish back-and-forths instead of the issues. Make no mistake: This is part of the McCain team's strategy. Rick Davis, a senior McCain aide, explicitly said that they don't want the election to be about the issues; they want it to be about personality. It's a cynical ploy, but it's one that Democrats see working against Obama's message. Liberals and reporters alike recognize that low-information voters are likely to hear accusations louder than rebuttals, or simply assume that both candidates are slinging the same kind of mud.
Obama has responded, however, with vigor, straightforwardly denouncing the attacks and turning the conversation back to the issues important to Americans. Following yesterday's laughably false accusation from the McCain campaign that Obama called Palin a "pig," he accused McCain of not taking the issues -- or the country -- seriously, and his spokespeople turned the charge around on McCain. When McCain falsely accused Obama of supporting sex-ed for kindergarteners, Obama's campaign rightly questioned McCain's honor. When they mocked his work as a community organizer, he laughed off the accusation and asked who, exactly, the Republicans were working for. When Sarah Palin attacked the Constitution, he said in no uncertain terms that she was attacking the fabric of this country. Each time the McCain campaign comes out with a negative, misleading advertisement, Obama publicly sets the record straight, often within hours. Remember how long it took John Kerry to respond to the Swift Boat accusations? And Obama does more than simply correct the lies -- he calls out McCain for his dirty tactics.
Is it enough? Liberal blogger Steve Benen observes that only thing Obama hasn't done so far is fight fire with fire and use the same dishonest tactics as McCain. For instance, Benen suggests, they could argue that McCain wants to cut U.S. military aid to Israel, since that aid is an earmark and McCain claims he wants to eliminate them. Of course, Obama knows that McCain doesn't actually want to cut aid to Israel. But McCain also knew that Obama doesn't want to give sex tips to kindergarteners. Others argue that Obama needs to attack McCain's character. The Obama campaign has gone so far as to call McCain and Palin liars and flip-floppers and to call their attacks dishonorable -- which they are. But some Democrats would have Obama mount a character attack against McCain for abandoning his first wife and family, for instance.
Obama won't do that, though, because his message is change, and because he has more integrity than McCain does. This is not "naïve" and "idiotic," as Terence Samuel at The Root calls Obama's response to the "lipstick affair" -- it is part of a larger strategy. Obama has shown as well as anyone that he is a rough-and-tumble politician who doesn't shy from a fight. But his campaign has made central his commitment to changing the way we do politics. That doesn't mean he's a wimp, but it does mean he can't buy into the Bush-Rove politics that McCain now espouses. Obama remembers, to recall the old adage, it's not worth wrestling a pig: You get dirty, and the pig likes it.
Samuel argues that Obama needs to get down in the mud, but doesn't offer even a single example of an attack that would work -- one that would tar McCain's reputation without sullying Obama's. This is a great example of my favorite kind of liberal armchair-quarterbacking: "We need to hit back harder … but not by saying something I can't print here." As Samuel waxes rhapsodic over Palin insulting Obama, he forgets that just two weeks ago John Kerry and Joe Biden were going after McCain at the convention. This is part of the problem. Even liberal journalists who should know better spend more time giving nonsensical advice to the Obama campaign rather than looking at McCain's shortcomings.
It's not that it's wrong to criticize a campaign, or that some criticisms don't ring true. The Obama campaign and its surrogates need to stop saying that McCain is such a great man before they tear him apart. (Joe Biden, for one, has already gotten the message.) They could be doing a better job sending out rapid responders on the state level, but it's clear they're not in a bubble. They understand the concerns of their supporters. Still, they are on the offensive -- that sex-education smear by McCain was actually a response to an Obama attack ad that ran that morning. The Obama campaign, day-in and day-out, is extraordinarily disciplined about delivering its message.
Obama is essentially tied in the polls with McCain, even as the Republican senator experiences his convention bounce. These numbers will change with events, especially with the debates, and as the sheen wears off Palin. (A reminder: She has been known nationally for less than two weeks.) Obama has invested in a much larger field operation than McCain. The press seems to be developing a spine, if these comments criticizing the media's "outrageous" cowering before the McCain campaign from conventional wisdom apparatchik Mark Halperin are any indication.
But it certainly doesn't help to have Democrats wringing their hands and complaining about problems Obama doesn't have. Enthusiasm is the big indicator in an election that will ride on turnout, and Democrats have every reason to be enthusiastic.
Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton's spokesperson during the primary campaign, has made this point on his new blog. During the primary race, many counted Obama out, didn't understand his campaign's strategy, didn't think he could keep himself in the race. Clinton adopted Obama's change rhetoric and attacked him the same way McCain has -- on experience and for his eloquence. But Obama and his team hewed to their strategy and pulled out the win. The senator from Illinois is known as a closer, and there is plenty of time left. Keep the faith.
A pollster whose mathematical model has correctly predicted every winner of the White House popular vote since 1988 is banking on a decisive victory for Democrat Barack Obama in November.
Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz said Wednesday that according to his "time for change" model, Obama would secure 54.3 percent of the popular vote against 45.7 percent for Republican John McCain.
That margin would virtually guarantee a crushing victory for the Democrat in the state-by-state electoral college that actually selects the next president, Abramowitz said.
He said unknown variables, such as the nation's bitter partisan divide and resistance to Obama's African-American race among some white voters, may result in a slightly smaller popular vote margin for the Democratic nominee.
But, "the combination of an unpopular Republican incumbent in the White House, a weak economy and a second-term election make a Democratic victory in November all but certain," he writes in the October issue of the journal "PS: Political Science and Politics."
"The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, is a time-for-change election -- one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms," Abramowitz said.
His model evaluated Republican President George W. Bush's dismal approval ratings, the change in economic output in the second quarter of the election year, and above all an anti-incumbency mood against the White House party.
"Regardless of the popularity of the president or the state of the economy, it is simply much more difficult for the president's party to retain its hold on the White House," the pollster said.
Abramowitz said his model had correctly forecast the popular vote winner within two percentage points or less in every presidential election since 1988.
That includes the 2000 election, when Democrat Al Gore carried the popular vote. But Bush came ahead in the electoral college after his Supreme Court-mandated win in Florida.
And the model faces a complication this year with the wild-card presence of two third-party candidates, independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, on the ballot for the November 4 election.
Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
>Note. Do you have friends who subscribe to NewsMax? Tell the to cancel...NOW! Also, check out the namew of the Executive Director of the Republican Majority Campaign PAC: Gary Kreep...true story!
~e
Dear Newsmax Reader:
Please find an urgent message from one of our sponsoring advertisers, the Republican Majority Campaign PAC. They are seeking to defend Sarah Palin from vicious media attacks and expose Barack Obama. Please read their important letter below.
Newsmax.com
They will do anything to destroy Sarah Palin.
They will do anything to elect Obama President — the most leftwing candidate in history.
Only you can stop them.
Dear Fellow American:
As I write this letter, the far Left — the Obama campaign, the Democratic Party headed by Howard Dean and the major (liberal) media—are all working in overdrive to destroy and smear Sarah Palin.
They believe if they can destroy this courageous young woman and popular governor, they will end John McCain's bid for president.
Just this week, commentator Bill Maher ridiculed Sarah's baby son who has Down's syndrome. These people are absolutely despicable.
They have one goal: Put Barack Obama — the most radical left-winger ever nominated by the Democratic Party — in the Oval Office.
Because of this, I am urgently writing you on behalf of the Republican Majority Campaign PAC, one of the nation's largest and most influential PACs.
We are fighting to expose Barack Obama's radical agenda and defend Sarah Palin and John McCain from the liberal media.
We have plans to launch a multi-million dollar TV and online ad campaign to reach millions in the next two weeks, but we need your financial help.
We need it more than ever because Barack Obama will likely spend more money than any candidate in history to get control of the White House.
Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama has very powerful backers.
Obama promised he would abide by campaign finance limits, as John McCain has agreed to.
He lied. This week alone, Obama raised $8 million! He could easily spend $500 million during his whole campaign to buy the White House.
Worse, John McCain and Sarah Palin have their hands tied with public financing limits.
That's why the Republican Majority Campaign needs your urgent help in our major national TV ad campaign to help John McCain and Sarah Palin.
PLEASE HELP EXPOSE THE REAL OBAMA TODAY! CLICK HERE
The Republican Majority Campaign PAC is one of the nation's leading PACs.
Already the Republican Majority Campaign PAC has spent $2 million on grass-roots efforts exposing Obama, voter by voter.
But it's clear we need to do more and urgently.
We need to tell the American people the truth about Obama, his agenda and his radical associates.
In our national campaign we'll reveal the truth about Obama's radical tax agenda, including:
his plan to almost double capital gains tax
his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire
his plan to raise gasoline taxes
his plan to nationalize healthcare
MAKE YOUR MOST GENEROUS DONATION TODAY!
We will also reveal the sordid truth about Barack Obama:
How for 20 years he sat silently as his minister, the radical preacher Jeremiah Wright, said he hated America — the same preacher who blamed the 9/11 attacks on OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.
The involvement of convicted felon Tony Resko in the purchase of Obama's$1,300,000 home.
His despicable association with his friend William Ayers, who was on the FBI's Most Wanted list for over 10 terrorist attacks.
The fact that at age 25, Obama was backed by a radical Muslim activist close to the Saudi royal family when he applied to Harvard Law School.
HELP US REVEAL THE FACTS ABOUT OBAMA! CLICK HERE
The Ayers Connection
William Charles Ayers and Barack Obama have been friends for decades.
There is clear evidence that their lives and dealings have been intertwined for many years.
We have reason to believe that Obama and Ayers were friends way back in 1986.
They even served together in 1995 on the Annenberg Challenge, overseeing the distribution of about $50 million to area schools.
That same year, Ayers hosted Obama in his own home and donated to his campaign.
What does the association between Ayers and Obama say about Obama's political views and perspective?
Ayers was an anti-American, traitorous radical who will stop at nothing to push his hateful communist agenda.
In the 1960s and 70s, he was a leader in the notorious underground terrorist group, the "Weathermen."
The Weathermen declared war on the United States government and they bombed over 30 establishments (leading to multiple fatalities, including police officers).
Obama's friend Bill Ayers
"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."
William Ayers
Ayers is unapologetic about his terrorist activities.
Incredibly, on Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers is quoted by The New York Times as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs … I feel we didn't do enough."
How could a man like Obama associate with such a dangerous radical?
And even defend him?
And now Obama, Ayers friend, could be sitting in the White House next year — unless we tell the American people the unvarnished truth about them!
We Must Defend Sarah Palin and John McCain.
The major media have already decided who their candidate is: MSNBC host Chris Matthews says Barack Obama makes a "thrill" go up his leg when he hears him speak.
Oprah has picked your next president.
But you can stop Chris Matthews, Oprah and the rest of the liberal media.
You can say we the American people will pick our president.
Your voice can be heard — we need your urgent help with the Republican Majority Campaign PAC.
Your maximum possible gift of $5,000 would help us enormously.
Even smaller donations are going to help.
Anything you can do will give us the ammunition we need to fight for John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Any amount — $1000, $500, $250, or even $100 will help show the truth before the November Presidential election.
Even if you can only afford $35 or $25 — we need your help and we need it now.
We must act quickly. We want to have our first ads up reaching millions in the next two weeks. Ronald Reagan once said, "If not us, who? If not now, when?
I will let you answer his questions today.
Thank you, and God bless America!
You Can Make a Difference — Go Here Now!
Gary Kreep
Executive Director
Republican Majority Campaign PAC
Paid for by the Republican Majority Campaign.
Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate's Campaign.
MARK HULBERTCommentary: By Mark Hulbert,
.
A Poor market in September bodes ill for incumbent party and a big clue as to how it is voting is provided by Thursday's dismal stock market, in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 345 points. For the still-young month of September, the Dow is now down by 3.1%. This points to an increased likelihood that the Democrats will reclaim the Presidency in this coming November's election.
The reason I can even attempt to draw these conclusions from the stock market's recent behavior is an analysis conducted by Ned Davis Research, an institutional research firm based in Venice, Fla. Specifically, the firm constructed two market averages out of how the Dow has performed in past Presidential election years (back to 1900, in fact).
The first of these two benchmarks tracked the market's average performance during years since then in which the incumbent political party eventually won the White House, while the other reflected average returns when the incumbent party lost.
Upon comparing these two benchmarks, Ned Davis earlier this week noted that, "There does not seem to be a lot of difference in election years between those years where the incumbent party wins or loses, except in the month of September where the divergence is striking."
How big a divergence? During Septembers of years in which the incumbent party goes on to win the White House, the Dow has produced an average gain of 0.32%.
During Septembers in which the incumbent party lost, in contrast, the Dow has produced an average loss of 0.71%. That difference, which totals just over one percentage point, may not appear to be that big.
But on an annualized basis it works out to around 13%. Good statistician that he is, Davis realizes that correlation is not the same as causation. One needs to couple the raw statistics with a plausible theory as to why the stock market would perform differently when the incumbent party wins the White House than when it loses.
"Perhaps it is the uncertainty over change," Davis speculates, "or perhaps the stock market predicts or reflects the election results." Another qualification that Davis emphasizes: "The sample sizes are relatively small." So we can't be as confident in drawing any conclusions as we would if there were lots more data points. Regardless, however, the stock market's losses this week can't be good news for John McCain's campaign.
Mark Hulbert is the founder of Hulbert Financial Digest in Annandale, Va. He has been tracking the advice of more than 160 financial newsletters since 1980.
> Note. One of the press/public relations games that is played by the campaigns is called "managing expectations". This is related to the maxim that it is far better to under-promise and over-deliver that the other way around. So the way this works for the Republicans going into Convention Week is to predict a massive "bump" for Obama and, when it doesn't quite materialize--rush out the talking heads to wonder aloud what "went wrong".
So this little piece of work (thank you, Jonathan Martin of Politico) is the product of Sarah Simmons, one of McCain's Karl Rove school graduate. Here she is telling the media to look for a 15 point bump for Obama out of Denver. http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/
My next post is going to wonder aloud just how the Bush Administration and the McCain camp will manipulate events to keep that "bump" low.
Beginning Monday, I will be posting from the DNC in Denver.
***********************************************************************************************************
TO: Interested Parties FROM: Sarah Simmons, Director of Strategy RE: Obama’s Convention Bounce DATE: August 22, 2008 Monday marks the beginning of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. A combination of factors makes this particular convention historic on many levels. Democrats have just completed an incredibly compelling primary cycle that has both energized and divided the Democratic Party. Because of the unique nature of the Democratic primary, we believe Obama will receive a significant bump from his convention. This cycle mirrors Bill Clinton’s Democratic convention in 1992: A historic 16-point bump. Barack Obama is more similarly situated to Bill Clinton in 1992 than any other candidate in recent history. Bill Clinton was a new candidate on the national scene; he was running in a "change" oriented election cycle and the economy was voters’ top issue -- a dynamic he was able to capitalize on. He received a 16-point bump coming out of his convention. Obama is also a "new" candidate in a change-oriented environment. And, like Bill Clinton, he will spend the convention presenting himself as the agent of change who will fix the economy. Obama will ride his VP bump. In addition to Obama taking advantage of the political environment, he will announce his Vice Presidential candidate late this week. This announcement typically gives a candidate a 5-point temporary bump that dissipates. However, Obama’s timing allows him to maximize his Vice Presidential bump and sustain press attention for the course of the week. He will ride the wave of an announcement from late this week (announcement expected by Saturday) through his speech on Thursday. This means that whatever bump he gains from the announcement has the potential to be lasting. Obama will correct his underperformance with Hillary Clinton’s primary voters and emerge with a much more cohesive base. This convention gives Obama a platform to unite his base. There continues to be a divide in the Democratic base: Between 10-15% of Democrats are voting for McCain or sitting on the fence. In target states, that number is even higher, between 15-20% in many surveys. The Obama campaign knows that winning or losing in states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania depends on Obama’s ability to bring these voters home. If his convention successfully showcases Hillary Clinton and heals the wounds from the primary, he will move large groups of voters in those key places. Obama’s stadium address on Thursday -- the 45th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s "I Have A Dream" speech -- will result in effusive and overwhelming press coverage. On Thursday, Obama will give a great speech, as has been his trademark. The press will sing his praises and remark on his historic address and Obama’s place in history. For example, The Associated Press today published an article comparing the historic nature of the addresses – a week before Obama’s speech. This coverage will be impenetrable and will undoubtedly impact the polls. We believe Obama will see a significant bump, and believe it is reasonable to expect nearly a 15-point bounce out of a convention in this political environment.
--Rudy singing along with Julie Andrews in 1997.
Here are some signs to wave in their faces when they arrive:
"WHEN ARE YOUR SONS GOING TO IRAQ, MITT?"
Remember, when he was challenged to explain why his several strapping, healthy sons are not over in Iraq fighting in the war he so staunchly supports, Mitt answered that "... have chosen to serve their country in another way: getting me elected..." Well, he didn't get past Florida, that was several months ago...have they signed up yet, Mitt"
"CAN I BORROW ONE OF YOUR DRESSES FOR THE PARTY, RUDY?"
Comedian Bill Maher has made a point of torturing Giuliani on his multiple cross-dressing outings whilst a denizen of New York City.
Here's part of the story....
By Andy Sullivan 43 minutes ago
When Democrats gather in Denver next week to nominate Barack Obama for president, they'll be joined by such uninvited guests as Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
The two former presidential candidates will be among two dozen or so Republicans in the city hoping to get their party's message out during a week dominated by Democratic festivities.
Their slogan? "Not Ready '08: A Mile High and an Inch Deep," a play on the nickname for the high-altitude city in the western United States.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Obama's rival for the November 4 election, is expected to keep a relatively low profile that week, though he is scheduled to appear as a guest on "The Tonight Show" talk show on Monday.
His surrogates will set up shop within walking distance of the Democrats' convention hall, hoping to catch the attention of the 15,000 reporters gathered there.
"With all the hype of the actual convention and all the Obama fans gathered in one spot, we're going to get beyond the glitz and the celebrity and talk about the facts of his record," said Matt McDonald, a McCain staffer overseeing the effort.
Gee...all it takes is a little presidential campaign with Barack Obama challenging idiotic war policies to get things moving in the right direction. I guess the Worst President in History wants to help McSame get elected by moving Iraq off the table. The right thing for the wrong reason; but what can we expect from this bunch? Am I cynical? You're damned right I am!
Here is the article
Blah-blah-blah...
"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement," Rice told reporters after meeting with Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The two sides had come together on a draft agreement earlier this week and Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad to press officials there to complete the accord.
More blah-blah-blah...
U.S. officials have resisted committing firmly to a specific date for a final pullout, insisting that it would be wiser to set a target linked to the attainment of certain agreed-upon goals. These goals would reflect not only security improvements but also progress on the political and economic fronts.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq;_ylt=AsBCy2FTPy7oVAJBA3o07UwUewgF
Days after he cracked that being rich in the U.S. meant earning at least $5 million a year, Republican presidential candidate John McCain acknowledged that he wasn't sure how many houses he and his wealthy wife actually own.
"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain responded to a question posed by Politico, according to a story Thursday on the publication's Web site. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."
Later, the McCain campaign told Politico that McCain and his wife, Cindy, have at least four in three states, Arizona, California and Virginia. Newsweek recently estimated the two owned at least seven properties.
On the campaign trail, McCain doesn't refer to his wife's wealth, estimated by some at $100 million and based on her late father's Arizona beer distributorship.
According to her 2006 tax returns, Cindy McCain had a total income of $6 million. She has not released her 2007 returns, which she files separately from her husband. McCain's tax returns showed a total income of $405,409 in 2007.
In a forum last week with the Rev. Rick Warren, McCain was asked to define the word "rich" and to give a figure. After promoting his tax policies, McCain said: "I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?" The audience laughed, and he added: "But seriously, I don't think you can — I don't think seriously that — the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously — and I'm sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues."
Obama, asked the same question at the forum, said those making $250,000 and higher are in the top 3 to 4 percent and "doing well." Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported making $4.2 million in 2007.
>Note. First, we have a story of the McCain Camp whining about NBC's Andrea Mitchell coverage of Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church colloquy bertween McCain and Obama. Apparently she found it odd, as did many others, including the blog Pensito Review, that McCain seemed to have prescience about the questions when his turn came. Fox is so biased against Obama that we don't even bother to complain any more. Pure objectivity is the goal that trolls use to beat media with contrary opinions. McCain was prepped; Obama was sandbagged. Either quit pretending it was otherwise or shoot those Rove attack dogs you employ, McCain.
McCain camp accuses NBC of partisan coverage
Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:52pm EDT
By Paul J. Gough
NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - The John McCain campaign fired off an angry letter to NBC News criticizing Andrea Mitchell's comments regarding the "cone of silence" at Saturday night's presidential candidates' forum at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.
Campaign manager Rick Davis cited Mitchell's comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the Barack Obama campaign had said privately that they believed McCain "may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well prepared."
Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday sat down first with Obama and asked him the same questions he would later ask McCain.
Davis denied what he called "a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated." While Obama was being interviewed, McCain was driving to the event and then in a green room without TV, Davis said.
In a letter to NBC News president Steve Capus, Davis said that the network's "level of objectivity ... has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain." He requested a meeting with Capus to discuss news standards and objectivity.
"We are concerned that your news division is following MSNBC's lead in abandoning nonpartisan coverage of the presidential race," Davis wrote.
In a statement Monday, NBC News said that it welcomed an opportunity to speak with officials from both campaigns and said it is in daily contact with the McCain camp.
"With all due respect to the campaign leadership, they are viewing our coverage through a political prism," NBC News said. "We stand by our reporting, our journalism and our journalists."
It's not the first time that NBC has been the subject of accusations during the presidential campaign. MSNBC and NBC News were cited several times during the primary campaign over perceived mistreatment of Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Cheating at Saddleback: McCain Appparently Knew Question About Supreme Court
in Advance
POSTED: Monday, August 18, 2008
FROM BLOG: Pensito Review - News and Opinion on Politics, Culture and Media
The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com.
MCCAIN: Could I — are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention –
WARREN: We will get to that.
MCCAIN: OK. All right. OK.
WARREN: You’re jumping ahead…
The McCain campaign is fighting hard against charges that McCain cheated on the rules of debate at a rightwing evangelical forum in a California megachurch over the weekend by cribbing the questions in advance. They are so desperate, apparently, that a McCain operative even played the POW card, citing McCain’s imprisonment by the Vietnamese 40 years ago as evidence somehow that he did not cheat Saturday night.What’s suspicious here is that the topic of the Supreme Court had not come up in McCain’s interview, so it was not a topic to go "back" to.Even "Pastor Rick" Warren, the multimillionaire evangelist who hosted the event — and who clearly favored McCain in the questioning — has admitted that McCain was not sequestered during the live session with Obama.
Warren told the live audience in the hall and on CNN that McCain was in a "cone of silence" to prevent him from having the advantage of hearing the questions in advance. In fact, McCain was in his car during much of Obama’s session, where he certainly could have listened to the interview.
And this exchange from the forum appears to indicate that McCain knew that Warren was going to ask him a very specific question about the Supreme Court. Notice how McCain asks if he can go "back" to a question about the court:
WARREN: Let’s deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all of the decisions and all of that. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people, people who believe that life begins at conception, believe that’s a holocaust for many people. What point is a baby entitled to human rights?
MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25- year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.
WARREN: OK, we don’t have to beleaguer on that one. Define marriage.
MCCAIN: A union — a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That’s my definition of marriage.
Could I — are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention –
(CROSSTALK)
MCCAIN: When we speak of the issue of the rights to the unborn, we need to talk about judges. But, anyway, go ahead.
What’s suspicious here is that the topic of the Supreme Court had not come up in McCain’s interview, so it was not a topic to go "back" to. On the other hand, Obama had been asked a question about the Supreme Court during his earlier session, which McCain supposedly had not heard:
> Note. The Conservative and timid MSM blabberclass were all about McCain gaining the 'leadership' initiative during the Georgia Crisis. Lou Dobbs hissed through his abundant teeth that "...McCain stepped up while Senator Obama golfed"...or something to that effect, I paraphrase.Well, as any politician, jounalist or ex-beauty queen will tell you, what events may give you, Time can take away. So it is with McWhatever; from today's HuffPost.
*******************************************
Crisis in Georgia Beginning to Turn Into a Big Political Liability for McCain
Robert Creamer: At first the unfolding conflict between Russia and its neighbor the Republic of Georgia seemed to be just what the McCain candidacy needed: a foreign policy crisis that would allow him to demonstrate a "tough, decisive, experienced" mastery of foreign affairs, and a new rationale for why Americans should choose experience over change in a dangerous world. But it hasn't taken long for the developments in the Caucuses to become a growing political liability instead. Click here to read more.
Holly Miowak Stebing of Anchorage, AlaskaHolly, a 20-year-old Alaska Native Inupiaq, is spending her summer break from Stanford University at the First Alaskans Organization interviewing native elders about their experiences with segregation. Holly is passionate about improving healthcare access for Native Americans, and protecting Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling. The 2008 presidential election is Holly's first as a voter. She says: "This was the first campaign I felt I needed to support. I don't have a lot of money, but I donate what I can because I believe in [Barack]." She will attend the convention with her mother who is the first Native American woman to pass the Alaska bar.
Congratulations, Holly!
>Note. John McCain is being challenged on traditionally Republican ground, on nearly all fronts, by Barack Obama's remarkable movement of hope and change. As noted in the previous post, the Military rank-and-file seem to be enlisting in the Obama army. Four developments out today on the "Faith Front". A Washington Post story today:"GOP Loyalty not a given for Young Evangelicals"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403446.html?hpid=topnews
Another commentary published in the Huffpost, with links, is pasted below, "Will the Real Pro-Life Party Please Stand Up?" Zack Exley makes the case, which those on the Christian Left have known all along, that the Republican Party exploited virtue to deliver Mammon. Neither compassion nor life was really part of the K street agenda.
Finally, two other important developments on the Faith-based front: The launching of the Mathew 25 initiative. Mathew 25, based on Mathew 25:40 (dust off your Bibles and look it up) speaks to compassion and asserts a real faith component in this campaign. I am excited about www.matthew25.org .
And this Saturday there will be a forum hoted by Reverend Rick Warren on the Saddleback Church. Rachel Zoll, AP Religion writer notes:
"Warren is an anti-abortion Southern Baptist who is nonetheless part of a shift away from the religious right's strict focus on abortion and marriage. The environment, poverty and education have also become pressing concerns, especially for younger evangelicals.
Warren is best known for building Saddleback Church into a 23,000-member megachurch in Lake Forest, Calif., and for writing the multimillion-selling book "The Purpose-Driven Life."
But he and his wife, Kay, are also leading advocates for HIV/AIDS victims worldwide. They have invested enormous resources in their PEACE Plan, now under way in Rwanda, which aims to combat corruption, illiteracy and other social problems through church partnerships with government and business..."
Senator Obama is much more comfortabler discussing matters of faith than is Senator McCain and I see this as a real opportunity to resonate with younger evangelicals. Keep watching for stories on this event.
***************************************************************************
Zack Exley: Many Christians are finally getting fed up with the complete failure of the GOP to reduce abortions, even with 20 years of Republican presidency since the rise of the Christian right. If Obama can boldly articulate a pro-life platform to reduce abortion, care for children and families, reduce arms and prevent war then he could bring about a seismic shift in electoral politics that makes the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon look like nothing. Click here to read more.
