Polls Show McCain-Obama Close

Okay, Zogby has Obama ahead by two points (as did Diageo, which has been in the tank for Obama), and Hotline has it at one point. I've written recently about what we should do (fight like h--l) "when we take the lead again." I said I thought that would happen sometime around the beginning of the third week of October but perhaps as late as early November. Obama all through the primaries "over-polled" and "under-performed in the voting booth."

In the PA Primary (April 22), Wolf Blitzer and others said the race was "tightening" and we even heard their favorite cliche ("too close to call"). I said that Hillary Clinton would win by 10 percentage points. On April 23, it was at 10 points, although it fell to 9.2% by the end of the day. I do know PA voters (ornery!).

I also predicted Clinton could win OH, TX and IN, in all of which Obama "over-polled." Sen. Clinton won all three.

In 2004, Gallup came under heavy criticism from the far-Left for having "too many Republicans" in its survey template. Like terrified rabbits, Gallup changed its legendary template ("the gold standard"). As a result, it got both the national and the state races wrong.

It said in early November, 2004 that Bush would win PA by two points and Kerry would win Ohio by two points. I told the editor of the Pittsburgh daily that maybe Gallup had gotten the states confused. Kerry won PA by three points, and Bush won Ohio by two points. Gallup also predicted that Kerry could win FL, which he lost by hundreds of thousands of votes.

There has been a lot of talk about "the Bradley Effect," referring to the fact that voters tell pollsters that they will vote for a Black man -- and then don't. It does exist in this campaign, and there are a (very) few people trying to figure out its effect on this year's election. Why do people tell pollsters "fibs?" Because they think (correctly) that's what the pollsters want to hear.

One great caller in Beaver County, PA (Audrey) is so sweet and friendly that when she asks voters if they support John and Sarah, EVERYBODY SAYS YES!

Gallup's "internal numbers" have had McCain ahead as recently as last week (45-39), but it's buying the heavy "new" (Black mostly) vote theory, so it put McCain behind. Say what?? In the PA primary, Obama lost approximately 60 counties out of 67. He won some suburban Philly counties by relatively narrow margins. He won Philly (big), Pittsburgh (city), Harrisburg, and downtown Lancaster. Otherwise, he didn't win squat. His support in PA is very soft.

Beware the polls (especially CNN), my friends. I love those polls of course, but I don't really believe them on a day-to-day basis.

Warning: Be Skeptical of Pollsters!

Sharon Caliendo, formerly from Ohio, now in Oklahoma and a Republican activist there, sent me the following link from YouTube -- it's an Ohio GOP ad, and Sharon says it makes her proud of her home state: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkytVjgn-Uc Other states, please take notice . . .

Bulletin: There's growing evidence that Bill Clinton is NOT going to back Barack Obama. See my Monday column on: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. I've titled the column, "Bill, Hillary MUST Denounce Obama." See also the following link: http://purplepeoplevote.com/2008/08/04/clinton-remarks-bolster-mccains-claims-that-the-race-card-was-played/

"Don't always take at face value what pollsters tell you."
"A lot of people have gone broke betting that the pollsters are right."

One point to remember about Barack Hussein Obama is that he "polls" better (usually by 3 points or more) than he does on the day of the balloting. In contrast, McCain tends to do BETTER than he polls.

You may (vaguely) remember that in the Pennsylvania Primary (balloting on April 22) the MSM was saying that the race was tightening, and they even used their favorite phrase "too close to call." I predicted just before the Primary that Sen. Clinton would win by about 10%. She carried PA by 9.2% -- actually by a margin of nearly 15% outside Philadelphia County.

The results were similar in Ohio, where we were also told the Clinton-Obama race was "too close to call" and that Obama "was closing strong." Actually, he almost NEVER closes strongly. The undecided and the unsure (at least those who vote) almost always go for Obama's opponent.

The real situation in an election depends on the Likely Voters (those who vote with some regularity in elections). Obama tends to do well with "registered voters," a good portion of whom do NOT vote. (In fact, a significant portion of Likely Voters also don't vote -- about two out of ten or more -- but that's another story.)

Almost everywhere, voters who are -- or lean -- Republican are more likely to vote than Democrats. Also, on election day there are "exit polls" that tend to be presented as Gospel, but that can be very misleading. If you doubt that, just ask "President Kerry," who won all the (early) exit polls on election day in 2004.

Why does that happen? Because voters favoring the Republican candidate in a national (or other other federal) election tend to vote LATER than those favoring the Democratic candidate. That situation happens always -- in every election.

Also in 2004, some national polls (Zogby was one) said that last-minute-deciding Independents were "break eight-to-one" for Kerry. Again, "President Kerry" could only have wished that were true, which it was not. GWB won in 2004 by about 3 million votes, and the Independents generally vote for Bush. Pollsters are really bad at determining what late-deciding Independents are doing.

In 2004, Gallup responded to public pressures (from the MSM and Democrats) that accused it of including too many Republicans in their surveys. Gallup in fact changed its "gold-standard" polling template. It ended up predicting that Bush would carry PA -- and Kerry would carry Ohio. I said at the time that Gallup seemed to have mixed up the two states. In fact, Bush carried OH narrowly -- and Kerry did the same in PA.

Gallup also suggested that Kerry might win FL. In fact, he lost it by 300,000-plus votes.

Independents are less likely to vote than either Democrats or Republicans. In fact, some people who claim to be "Independents" are in fact uninterested in politics. "Independents" in that category rarely vote.

Bulletin: McCain Leading Nationwide

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

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

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

The LA Times survey is more a political statement than a scientific poll. When it comes to the Times, liberals seem always to "poll" very well. There's only one California survey with a record for accuracy: the Field Poll.

But as the Times has disovered, releasing a cockamamie poll is a good way to sell papers.Should you instead depend on a newsman like the esteemed Chris Wallace? Today, Wallace was speaking about Pennsylvania, where I live, and he said, "Hillary Clinton won it by 20-30%.

Oh really? Mrs. Clinton won Pennsylvania by 9.2%. Chris Wallace was off by roughtly 11-21 percentage points. Isn't political coverage supposed to be his strong suit? He may have been confusing PA with WV, where Mrs. Clinton won by 41%. (I guess WV must have a 5,000 truckoads of "bitter" people.)

Chris Wallace also repeated the rumor (it's not much more than that) that Obama is ahead by 12% in the critical state of Pennsylvania. I wondered if the LA Times had conducted a survey here (without my knowledge).

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

More about polls in later columns later. I love them, but I don't trust them -- except for Gallup, especially when it's in line with my wishes.

By the way, McCain being even with Obama, if Gallup is correct, means he almost certainly well ahead in electoral votes. Obama is over-performing in three large states (NY, IL, and CA), and that skews the polls.

One other fact to keep in mind: Obama has a history of showing up better in polls than he does with real ballots. For whatever reason, he does about 5% better with pollsters than with real, live voters.

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

GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!

A great resource for McCain bloggers and other supporters is Kathy's site at: http://mccainbloggerresources.blogspot.com. Please visit it.

Note: C-Span has honored me by asking that I participate in its coverage of the Pennsylvania Primary, and I've agreed to do so. Thanks C-Span! As many of you know, I have a blog that concentrates on the state: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com.

Today (Wednesday), I received the following from Patrick Hynes, a key political operative for John McCain:

Gallup Poll: “Sizable proportion of Democrats” would vote for John McCain over Clinton or Obama . . .

Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama = 28%·

Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton = 19%

“The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx

If you'd like to receive regular updates straight from the McCain Campaign, please e-mail Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. He's as good as it gets.

Later today I'll write on this blog about the national implications of the information from Gallup. On my three state blogs, I'll write about what the Gallup information means in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey:

http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/
http://ohioforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/, and
http://newjerseyforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/.

Why are these three battleground states so critical to McCain? Because if he can win two (or three) of them, he will almost certainly be the next President of the U.S. Your comments are always welcome.

The Gallup Poll's findings have national implications, particularly in the many battleground states, including: Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. John McCain has a decent chance to win all (or at least most) of those states, and if he does, he will win the presidency.

Between now and the election, McCain and the national Party should focus heavily on Florida and Michigan. The message will be that Democratic Party bosses (especially Howard Dean) have denied residents of those says a say in which candidate gets the nomination. Michigan and Florida Democrats are likely to desert the nominee (probably Obama) in droves. Remember, Hillary Clinton "won" both primaries -- with Obama being on the ballot only in Florida.

Remember, right now neither Clinton or Obama has the nomination. When one of them does become the nominee, many of them (as Gallup indicates) will desert the Party. That is very bad news for Democrats -- and good news for McCain.

If Obama does get the nomination, as seems likely, one thing McCain should do in the national campaign is to focus on states Hillary Clinton has won in the primary. He should even take a close look at two big states, California and New York, where a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.

Why Pollsters Miss the Boat

In my previous column, I talked about the limitations (and they are many) of the polls. In the Iowa primary, pollsters dramatically underestimated the number of young voters (those under 30), who voted heavily for Barack Obama. In New Hampshire, the pollsters over-compensated and overestimated the number of young voters.

If you watched CNN (and other networks) last Tuesday, you saw that they kept waiting for the Obama votes to come in from Hanover (Dartmouth College), Durham (the University of New Hampshire), and other college locations (including tiny Franklin Pierce College). Presumably, they're still waiting. Mrs. Clinton held a good lead throughout the night, college students voted in disappointing (for Obama) numbers, and female students who did vote often went for the female candidate.

One reason the polls messed up lies with the concept of "likely voters," a concept invented by Gallup many years ago. Generally, likely voters are those who've voted with some regularity in past elections. If you've voted before, you're "likely" to vote this time -- right? Well, not exactly.

The pollsters have had a terrible time this year with young voters, especially those who may -- or may not -- vote for the first time. If a pollster has no evidence of past voting practices, it's impossible to tell if a voter is actually going to show up at the polling place. In New Hampshire, the pollsters apparently guessed what might happen, and they guessed wrong.

The media, which has significant influence on pollsters, assumed Obama's victory in Iowa would give him a big "bounce" in New Hampshire. It didn't. Poll evidence (?) suggests Mrs. Clinton generated some votes, not a whole lot, from her tearing up episode. Overall, there was a very high turnout in the Democratic Primary (280,000 voters various 220,000 for Republicans), and that apparently helped Mrs. Clinton, something the pollsters should have picked up before the vote.

In a typical election, voters identified as "likely" tend to vote at a percentage between 70% and 75%. In other words, as many as 30% of likely voters end up not voting. They're sick, or they're out of town, or it snows heavily -- or perhaps they're just not turned on by the current election.

Registered Democrats are more likely to vote than the much-heralded "Independents." Registered Republicans are more likely to vote than either Indies or Democrats. Many of the much-discussed "Independents" are not the dispassionate, reflective souls we sometimes visualize. In fact, many of them have little interest in voting. If they see a snowflake, they're likely to stay home.

Gallup is the gold-standard of polls. It skews its likely voter’s concept slightly toward the Republicans. It does so for reasons stated above -- that Republicans are more likely to vote. Apparently, the Harris Poll does something similar. Traditionally, that approach has made Gallup and Harris the most accurate polls.

However, in 2004 Gallup's Polls through the autumn consistently showed George W. Bush doing well, perhaps winning nationally by millions of votes. Many Democrats and many in the media (generally Democrats) didn't like that and suggested Gallup was shilling for the GOP.

Gallup got nervous. It changed its likely-voter template to include more Democrats. Soon, it showed Bush running neck-and-neck with John Kerry. Also, Gallup indicated Kerry probably would win key states like Ohio and Florida. On the other hand, it also suggested Bush had a good chance of winning Pennsylvania.

On Election Night, Gallup (and many in the media) had a huge quantity of egg on their face. Bush won Ohio and Florida by fairly substantial margins. He lost in Pennsylvania, as most Pennsylvanians -- including this one -- had predicted he would.

What about the pollsters' legendary margin-of-error? As both Iowa and New Hampshire exist, the term is largely mythical. If pollsters really knew with precision what inaccuracy there may be in their polls, they'd presumably correct it. The margin-of-error is mainly a way for them to explain why their polls failed to predict an election accurately. They can always say, "Well, I was within the margin of error." I presume Fortune Tellers could make a similar claim.

Actually, I like pollsters, much as I like, say, polar bears. But I don't want to get overly close to either.

May the best man -- or best woman -- win.

_________________________

A taste of tomorrow . . .

This is a big chunk of tomorrow's column. I'll add to it early tomorrow (Wednesday)
In future weeks, I'll be writing some about three controversial topics: (1) Immigration Reform and the need for a comprehensive version of it; (2) Campaign Finance Reform; (3) gun laws, particularly as they apply to urban areas.

On immigration, the key to secure our borders without losing for generations the critical Hispanic vote. Hispanics are the largest minority group (and I'm not talking about "illegals") in the U.S., larger than the number of African-Americans in the U.S. If we lose the Hispanic vote, as earlier we lost the Black vote in the 1960s, we can make all the idological points we want -- and nobody will be listening. Recently, Democrats in Congress undercut the financing for the "double-wide" security fence. Are they going to pay a penalty for that in future elections? Right now, it doesn't look as if they will.

On Campaign Finance Reform: Republicans face a big problem here. The Democrats are raising money at a much more rapid pace than Republicans. The Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee (DCCC) have raised TWICE as much money as the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). What that means is that it's going to be impossible (and I don't mean "nearly impossible") to regain control of Congress. In the presidential race, Obama and Clinton have been raising much more money than their Republican counterparts.

On gun laws: I was recently on Eric Dondero's MainstreamLibertarian program on BlogTalkRadio. Debating against three libertarians (including Eric), I made the point that there are too many murders in our cities, including Philadelphia. I pointed out that Giuliani's (and Police Chief Bratton's) approach to crime has produced dramatic results. Pre-Giuliani, New York was America's murder capital, with nearly 2,500 murders. Giuliani cut the murder rate in half, and Mayor Bloomberg has done the same. The 2007 murder rate in New York was below 500, about the same number as occurred in the much-smaller city of Philadelphia. My point was that when people are rightly fearful to go outside their homes, they essentially have no liberty. In that sense, Rudy, an advocate of gun laws, is one of America's greatest libertarians.

_________

I'm a member of several Yahoo Groups, which is one of those cases of "sin in haste, repent at leisure. Too many members of at least one group seem to be driven mainly by hatred of others, usually starting with Senator Clinton and including perhaps 150 million other Americans.

One of the Yahoos sent out several e-mails blaming homosexuals for most (all?) of the world's ills. I sent him (and others) the following:'

Anti-gay screeds are un-American, un-Christian, and politically unwise. Other than that, I guess they're fine.

As we Republicans decide which people we don't want supporting us, starting of course with gays and lesbians (who don't get MRSA), Blacks, Hispanics, young people, and professional women (journalists, teachers, doctors, nurses, and lawyers), we soon find ourselves consisting of one group: angry white males who spend most of their time denouncing people who aren't like us.

There are some conservatives, thankfully small in number, who want to turn us into The Stupid Party. I pray that they don't succeed.

Any group, on Yahoo or elsewhere, should not be mainly a vehicle for people to demonstrate their mental disorders.

WHY THE POLLSTERS BLEW IT

As you may have noticed, the political polls change with about the same regularity as the weather. However, let's admit it: you believe they tell you something of value, and so do I. For the most part, we should discard that belief.

Right now (Monday night), I'm hearing "from Michigan" that the polls (which ones?) are telling us that John McCain and Mitt Romney are running "neck-and-neck" (is there any other way for politicians to run?). Does that mean we'll have to stay up late tomorrow (Tuesday) to see if Mitt Romney elects to take "early retirement" from the race? Maybe.

I think McCain will finish first, perhaps well ahead of Romney. Mike Huckabee will finish third.

But the Michigan primary, like the previous one in New Hampshire, is impossible to predict. For one thing, Independents can vote in the primary -- Democratic or Republican. No one knows how the "Independents" (a much smaller percentage in MI than NH) will vote -- or even if they'll vote. Also, Michigan is a fully open primary, and Democrats apparently can vote in the Republican primary. The Daily Kos, an extreme leftist blog, is telling Michigan Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney -- the better to screw up the Republican results.

What about the Democratic candidates? Well, for arcane reasons the national Democrat Party has told the candidates not to campaign in Michigan. So, there are only three candidates on the ballot. One is Hillary Clinton, and the other two are the ever-popular Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. What about Barack and John? They're not on the ballot.

What is on the Democratic ballot is an heretofore unknown candidate known as "Uncommitted." In other words, if you don't feel like voting for Hillary, Dennis, and Mike, you don't have to vote for anyone. If Mr. (or Ms.?) Uncommitted gets a lot of support, I'm sure the pundits will tell us what that means.

Given all these factors, don't ask me exactly what's going to happen in Michigan. Anyone who claims to know -- even if their name is Gallup, Zogby, or Rassmussen -- qualifies as an idiot.

In yesterday's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, there was an article about failures of the pollsters in New Hampshire. Writer Daniel Malloy says, "Pollsters argued that the polls weren't wrong [perish the thought!] -- there was just a change in the thinking of voters, especially women, who suddenly became eager to support an underdog, emotional Mrs. Clinton."

Of course, that's all bulldoodoo. When someone presents us with a poll that has a certain "margin of error" and the results far exceed the margin, then we need a new pollster. After all, polls aren't supposed to be a crap shoot, are they?

I'll let you in on a secret. I know precisely -- right down to the percentage points -- what's going to happen in Michigan. But since you don't believe me, I'm not going to tell you now. I will tell you tomorrow night.


Tomorrow, I'll write some more about the polls -- including Gallup's classic blunders in 2004, when they had Bush winning PA (he lost) and losing Ohio (he won).

Are the Political Pollsters Telling You the Truth?

"The undecided vote for Democratic candidates seems to be creeping up." (Steve Centenni on FOX Sunday, talking about the decline support for John Edwards and the increase in the number of people who declare themselves as "undecided.") -- See the comments below about undecided voters.

I wrote the following (the unitalicized part) to a friend regarding my obsession for political statistics, particularly as revealed by poll data. Polling is a little like the biblical line about "see[ing] through a glass [meaning "mirror" in the KJV of the Bible] darkly." To change the metaphor, polling is like a somewhat blurry snapshot, one that's taken ultimately a day or two before an event such as an election. Every hour thereafter, the picture changes slightly but doesn't get reflected in the polls because surveying has ended. So, prepare to stay up late to find out the true results.

It's amazing how many people have connections to Pennsylvania. Bill McAllister of KTUU-TV has links to Johnstown, home of (ugh) John Murtha. In PA politics, there is something called the "T," which refers to the fact that nearly every county other than Allegheny and Philadelphia vote Republican in statewide elections. The "T" reflects the final "shape" of the statewide vote.

The vote in Pittsburgh and Philly goes in a very lopsided way to Democrats (80% in Pgh., more than that in Philly). In 2004, the networks announced at 8 p.m. (polls close then) that Kerry had won 61 to 39 percent. By 2 a.m., the vote was 51-49 Kerry.

Jay Costa on the superb Horserace Blog (pure Internet) announced that Kerry had won PA by less than Bush had won Ohio, which was not yet "declared" by most of the networks, who were responding to Kerry campaign requests NOT to declare. The next morning Kerry conceded Ohio to Bush, and the election was over.

I hope Jay Costa (something of an Illinois version of Adam Brickley) does his wonderful blog in the next election. He is/was a graduate student in statistics at the University of Chicago. Jay almost went ballistic during the day when the exit polls were supposedly showing that Kerry had won the election.

He pointed out -- and I don't believe I'd ever heard it before -- that Democrats vote earlier than Republicans, partly because some of them (like my beloved folks in Pittsburgh and Philly) are not employed and have lots of time to cast ballots. That's the kind of stuff Karl Rove knows by heart. In short, it's probably a good idea to doubt the early exit polls.

One thing you''ll hear a lot about polls is the difference between registered voters and "likely" voters. Historically, the Gallup Poll has a lot to do with this distinction. Registered voters often don't . . . vote. If you get a driver's license in PA (and other states) you're registered. You may have a lot of interest in driving but none in voting. (Remember the famous old lady who said, "Vote? I never vote. It only encourages them."

On the "likely" voters, they're generally people who have voted in the past. However, in most elections, only 60% to 75% of likely voters will in fact . . . vote. Republicans tend to do better with "likely" voters because GOP stalwarts vote more frequently than Democrats. Gallup has tended to skew its totals slightly more to Republicans because of their tendency to vote more often.

In 2004, Gallup came under heavy criticism from Democrats for the practice mentioned. In a panicky response, it changed its statistical template so as to pare down the "skew" toward Republicans. That completely screwed up the poll data.

If you have a good memory, you may recall polls that said undecided voters were "breaking" for Kerry by a ratio of eight-to-one. One problem: that never happened. If anything, undecided voters (at least the relative few who voted) "broke" for Bush, who won the popular vote comfortably.

You'll hear a great deal about "undecided" voters. In fact, these are often people who remain undecided unto eternity. Apparently, the reason they stay "undecided" is that many of them are mostly uninterested in the election. Thus, undecided is a euphemism for bored-by-the-whole-thing. They're not really the kingmakers they appear to be.


In the days before the election, Gallup showed Kerry doing well in Florida, a state that went handily to Bush. Perhaps because of that, Kerry skipped re-visiting Florida -- he sent John Edwards -- and made a couple more trips to Cleveland.

Gallup also said in the last days before the election that Kerry was ahead by four points in Ohio and Bush ahead by four in Pennsylvania! My comment then was, "Perhaps they got the states mixed up?" (As expected, Kerry won Pennsylvania and Bush won Ohio.)

In Florida, Jay Costa showed on election eve that Bush was doing well in areas that has grown in population, while Kerry was winning in areas either with no growth or with population declines. If Kerry could have ramped up his support somewhat in Florida, he might have won that state and the election.

My Internet friend Larry Perrault, a fervent and articulate backer of Mike Huckabee, insists that the MSM (and the pollsters) are manipulating public opinion, and I always tend to disagree (slightly) with him.

What happens in very early polls, such the current ones, is that the surveyers are really reflecting name recognition. Larry's candidate, Mike Huckabee, doesn't have good name recognition -- especially outside the early primary states. So, the surveys are showing Mike with relatively low numbers. When the results get published, that tends to keep Mike's numbers down. (http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/)

For a less-well-known candidate like Mike, there's no easy answer to this dilemma. One partial answer is for Mike's supporters to continue what Larry calls "the clamor." That refers to the noise (advocacy) on the blogs, where Mike has many talented, committed advocates. If someone like Mike can move up slightly in the national polls, that could establish a level of recognition (and momentum) that would drive up his numbers even more. In short, some good numbers can lead to even better numbers.

I find all this stuff fascinating. On the key issue of whether polls ever intentionally "slant" their findings: I can't answer that question with certainty. However, I'm one of the people who have serious questions about the Zogby Poll, run by the brother of the president of the Arab-American Association. The Zogbys don't do a good job disguising their preference for Democratic candidates. Zogby also does Internet polls (as opposed to face-to-face or telephone), which seem to be chronically unreliable.

Here I've gone and written an entire column without mentioning Governor Sarah Heath Palin, Alaska's favorite daughter and my favorite candidate.

Stephen R. Maloney, Ambridge, PA

I'll be writing this week about John Edwards' decline in the polls (down to 8%), as well as the same thing happening to John McCain (down to 7%). The latter is losing support and a significant portion of it seems to be going to Rudy Giuliani. Fred Thompson may be looking hard at the "numbers" to determine if there's a plausible scenario where he could win the nomination. (I don't believe such a scenario exists.) I'm also going to write about the question of abortion. Mitt Romney appears to be adjusting his views (surprise!) on abortion by saying that the issue should be returned to the states. Surprisingly, pro-lifer Sam Brownback agrees with him up to a point. Many pro-life people seem to believe that overturning Roe v. Wade will somehow outlaw abortion (in most of its forms?). They are wrong. In the unlikely event Roe is overturned -- which it will not be if a Democrat is elected -- it would return the issue to the states. That's something Romney and Brownback (and we can throw in Giuiliani) do agree would happen. Brownback wants to go further and propose a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion (in all cases? in many cases?). The chances of such an amendment passing Congress by a big margin (and getting approval from the vast majority of states) seems very, very unlikely (read: impossible). Some red states (Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and perhaps some others (Arizona?) would oppose an amendment banning abortion in all cases, including rape, incest, and life of the mother.) At some point this week, I'll jump into this bear-pit.