Listening to NPR the other day there was a passing comment regarding the relationship of the US economy to consumer confidence – about 2/3 of the US economy is directly connected to consumer spending. Not news in itself but with confidence in Bush at an all time low what could be the potential economic impact of Obama just winning the election. Some of the data is pretty surprising.
According to recent survey by the International Council of Shopping Centers and Goldman Sachs, 8% of respondents said they are likely to increase holiday spending because of the election of Sen. Obama. Although it does not say how much the spending is likely to improve, a little back-of-the-napkin math can help put this into perspective.
In the 2007 there was about $70b in holiday spending and according to Mastercard about 40% ($28b) was spent online. If 8% of people spent just 5% more that translates into an additional $280m. If it is more like 8% of people spending 25% more the number jumps to $1.4b, or an overall increase of 2%.
Another survey by the National Retail Federation projects that 2008 holiday spending will increase 1.9 percent over 2007 spending. In a nutshell, Obama could provide a lift in Holiday shopping that could double the expected growth in 2008 spending.
Even more impressive is the overall potential impact on the US and the global economy. Gallup daily tracking poll of consumer confidence in the US has shown a 9 point drop (80 to 71) in the people who view the economic outlook as “negative” just over the last week. Not significant? The negative score has not been at 71 since February.
According to a poll taken over the weekend by Fox News and Rasmussen, Sen. Obama has now taken the lead in Missouri by 3% after trailing Sen. McCain for months.
Missouri 10/5, 1,000 LV 3% Obama 50, McCain 47, Barr 1, Nader 1, McKinney 0
CNN also shows Obama in the lead by 1% from a poll taken two days earlier. It will be interesting to see if there is impact from the debate last night and how this story will play out in Missouri - the only state to pick the president in every election for the past 80 years.
Traditionally, when people consider the strength of the American economy, key indicators come to mind: the Dow Jones Industrial Average, per capita GDP, and the consumer price index. These days, the numbers at the pump tell it all. The skyrocketing price of gas has not only revealed how fragile our economy is, but it has also shown how our national energy policy has led us astray.
According to a very interesting and well researched article by Seth Colter Walls the short answer is YES. Polling does not sample recently registered voters and typically the reach out to equal numbers of democrats and republicans causing data to be skewed because there are about eleven million more registered democrats in the United States.
Between hurricanes in the gulf and Palin’s constant stream of new disclosures, most have missed that for the first time 50% of voters polled by Gallup are now saying they will vote for Obama.
PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 30 through Sept. 1, finds Barack Obama leading the race for president with his highest share of support to date. Fully half of national registered voters now favor Obama for president, while 42% back John McCain.
It will be interesting to watch the impact of the GOP convention and all of the Palin news over the next few days to see if the positive trend for Obama is reversed. Clearly the initial Palin impact is not positive for the McCain ticket.
There is a very interesting and thoughtful article today on Daily Kos regarding the "strike" by Clinton bloggers from Daily Kos and the current power at all costs strategy of the Clinton campaign despite the fact she can only win if the super delegates overturn the popular vote. This is made even more acute with the recent delegate shifts to Obama in Iowa.
A few of my favorite paragraphs below...
As reported in the Huffington Post today,it looks like an additional seven delegates in Iowa originally supporting John Edwards are now supporting Obama. The remaining seven delegates remained uncommitted meaning the delegate lead for Obama could continue to grow.
My predictions for Obama's delegate lead will have to be revised again to 160 after the last planned primary in June - not including FL, MI and Supers.
A few weeks back I wrote a blog after crunching delegate numbers and predicted after the remaining dozen or so primaries are completed that the Obama delegate lead will remain about the same – around 140.
The Wall Street Journal ran a very interesting story this week about shifting delegate counts as results are certified. In most cases there is little to no change but something interesting happened in California. Final results expected out this week show that Obama won 167 delegates (not the 163 originally reported) and Clinton won 203 delegates (not the 207 originally reported). Increasing Obama’s overall delegate lead by an additional 8 delegates.
The correction in California delegates basically wiped out Clinton’s delegate margin in Ohio.
Yet to be reported are expected updates in New York once the vote fraud investigation and counting is complete. As reported in the New York Times, the “irregularities” could shift delegates into the Obama column.
So I am not revising my estimate for Obama to factor in the unusual counting errors and will project that when the last primary is done (Puerto Rick June 10th) Obama will increase his delegate count by 10 to a total of 152 – not including Michigan, Florida or the Supers.
In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.
Clinton has been endorsed for president by more than a dozen unions, according to her campaign Web site, which omits any reference to her role at Wal-Mart in its detailed biography of her.
Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.
Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."
Read Entire ABC NEWS story
Great article in the Huffington Post - wanted to share a little.
She has no idea.
She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals -- whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" -- who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.
And then she ran for president.
After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let's face it -- Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen -- isn't it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her -- that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America's Billboard chart anymore.
So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative -- personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama's message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we're to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.
She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad -- which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol' Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband's patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.
Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we're at it, where the hell are those tax returns?
Read entire article by Seth Grahame-Smith
Over the last two days I have been doing some number crunching - delegate crunching to be exact. A less than perfect model for predicting I am sure but it would appear that the upcoming twelve primaries will have exactly no impact on the current delegate situation!
That is correct when it is all said and done my estimate shows that Sen. Barack Obama will still be ahead about 140 delegates - not including any of the superdelegate counts.
After Puerto Rico on June 7, 2008...
Obama = 1,679
Clinton = 1,535
Obama will have won almost two states for every one of Clinton's.
Obama will have more total votes for the nomination that Clinton and the most delegates.
So this leaves Florida, Michigan and the Superdelegates.If Florida and Michigan are counted "as-is" (both unfair and ridiculous), Hillary would gain about 51 delegates - Obama is still ahead 90 delegates.
Obama has significantly narrowed the Superdelegate difference in recent weeks. If you remember Clinton had a bunch early, very few once Obama gained momentum and several who have switched in recent weeks. It is hard to imagine in any realistic scenario how Clinton can win.
Maybe that is why Bill Clinton keeps hinting at a joint ticket – glad to see he is keeping his sense of humor despite all the problems he is causing.
Maybe now is a good time to make that additional $20 donation to make sure this becomes a reality...
Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.
"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Mrs Clinton has made Northern Ireland key to her claims of having extensive foreign policy experience, which helped her defeat Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday after she presented herself as being ready to tackle foreign policy crises at 3am.
"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," she told CNN on Wednesday. But negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years.
Read entire article
