Today, with the 24-hour news cycle--I like to call it the electronic tape worm... it always needs to be fed--it becomes more difficult, as we saw with the coverage of the War in Iraq. As a result, the press is doing some self-examination right now on how they got conned [over the war].
Because of the 24-hour news cycle and television, we're in a perilous situation right now when you can't figure things out behind closed doors.
I know for a fact that registered Democrats in the state of Oregon far outnumber their GOP counterparts, and the margin is has vastly widened as of late. To quantify this, so you don't just think I made this up, Oregon pollster Bob Moore reported the day after the Oregon primary (May 19, before this spate of new Democratic voters got registered) that the partisan makeup of the state breaks down thusly: 39% Democrat, 36% Republican, and 25% unaffiliated.
Now when you compare these real numbers--real data, not polling--with this current SurveyUSA poll, things just don't add up right. Kerry and Bush are statistically the same among their parties (89-9 for the President, 88-9 for the Senator), so right there Kerry should have a slight lead of two to three points just from the partisan makeup of the state. Next, when you look at the independent/other category, Kerry has a massive lead of 53-39 over Bush, indicating that his lead in the state is acually quite significant.
When you actually take these percentages and put them up against the actual Oregon electorate rather than the theoretical one created by SurveyUSA, here's what you get: Kerry 50.81%, Bush 45.3%, a decent lead for the challenger in this state. Although this margin is not as large as double-digit Kerry lead in the latest Zogby poll in the state, it still indicates that John Kerry is doing quite well in the Northwest corner of the nation.
Anyone know how that pans out against previous cycles?
According to Stephen J. Wayne's "Is This An Wat to Run a Democratic Election" 2nd Ed. (Houghton Mifflin, 2003):
"Did you know that...
nine members of Congress ran unopposed in the general election? One out of four House members won his or her election in 2000 with 75 percent or more of the vote; more than half had 65 percent or more of the vote?"
I'm assuming these numbers are right. I got this reading for a college course I'm taking currently.
That's a likely voter model, not the Registered Voter model that has always been used at this point in the past. The 49-48 is among RVs, and the polling indicates that Gallup's RV poll at Labor Day has been one of the most effective tools to analyze elections in the past (not their LV polls).
McCain's speech will not lower the great cost of the war, nor will his sections attacking America's former allies bring in new international support. McCain's rhetoric may have been highly meaningful and interesting, but it will not make rebuilding Iraq any easier, nor will it find the WMD that Bush once claimed were in the country. Lastly, and most importantly, McCain's speech may have been highly effective in rallying conservative voters to his cause, but it will not stem the immense loss of life this country is suffering in Iraq.
Perhaps some movement will be seen in the polls following tonight's speech, and maybe it will appear as though a majority of American's once again support the President's vision for Iraq. When America loses its thousandth troop in the coming weeks, however, and there is no end in sight to the continual bloodshed in Iraq (nor a real hope for democracy their or in Afghanistan), I can assure you that most Americans will be more weary of this conflict than Senator McCain.
He was just talking with John Harwood about the Malkin comments and said that she "made a fool of herself." Olberman then asked Harwood if this has crossed the line and Harwood said (in a very polite way) that we'll find out after the new polls come out.
It looks like all hell is about to break loose, and the Bushies are going to face some serious political fallout soon.