The Gallup Poll is Misleading

About the new Gallup Poll showing Obama ahead NATIONALLY among likely voters by 2% and ahead by a somewhat higher percentage among registered voters (in the "expanded" model):

I'll be writing more about Gallup's so-called "expanded" model, which contains some major flaws. The expanded model looks for a very high turnout among the "new" Democratic voters. We heard the same thing in 2004, where there was high Democratic turnout -- which was offset by extremely high Republican turnout.

We also heard in 2004 (from Gallup and others) that 8 out-of-9 Independent voters were breaking for Kerry, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.

In 2004, Gallup also said Bush would win PA; he didn't; and that Kerry would win OH, which he didn't.The expanded model over-represents votes in a number of states that Obama is already going to win, including DC (not a state), California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Michigan. It doesn't matter in terms of electoral vote whether he wins those states 51-49 or 90-10.

Also, the "expanded" model doesn't include the Bradley Effect, which means Obama polls better than he does on election day (as happened in the PA Primary). Ironically, Obama's own internal polls (showing PA as close) are probably a better model than Gallup's.

On "likely voters": In past elections, between one-in-four and one-in-five "likely voters" did not vote. Among registered voters, the ratio of non-voters is significantly higher. I believe Barack Obama probably will win a majority of the votes cast in the U.S. However, because he's getting a disproportionate number of those votes in states McCain is NOT contesting, the Republican candidate conceivably could win a majority of the electoral votes.

That's a major reason for Obama's panicked return to Pittsburgh, which is the wrong city for him to visit, since he's already going to win the 'Burgh. McCain and Palin are going to the right places (including Beaver County, Hershey, and State College).

Note: If John Kerry had gotten 150,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won a majority of electoral votes. Yet countrywide, Bush still would have won by 2.9 million ballots.

If John McCain wins FL, OH, and PA, he will be the next President of the United States. Keep your eye on Zogby, which hit the 2000 race dead-center.

John, Elizabeth Edwards: Dishonest Couple

Note: You can find everything you need to know about starting a blog that will play a role in defeating Barack Obama in November by going to: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. The site contains critical information about how you can help defeat Obama.


The Haircut Man (and Ken-Doll-lookalike) John Edwards hugging his adoring wife . . .

"Rielle Hunter" was the perfect mistress for John Edwards, a man she once compared (accurately) to a "Ken Doll."

In his statement, John Edwards noted that he had been 'stripped bare' by the sex scandal. I imagine he had . . .

This evening (Saturday), I'll be writing on two blogs (the ones with links below) about the John Edwards scandal. In their statements, both Sen. Edwards (the "haircut man") and his equally cynical wife, Elizabeth, talked about the Senator's "honesty." His mistress, Rielle Hunter, had talked about his being "open . . . authentic . . . real." Please give me a break.

When Senator Edwards, a thoroughly despicable man, talked about his being "honest 99% of the time," he demonstrated his self-acknowledged "egomania" and "narcissism." As GOP strategist Alex Castellanous explained, honesty is not a matter of percentages. Alex said, "Either you're honest -- or you're not."

Neither Sen. Edwards nor his wfie are honest people. Rather, they are very ambitious individuals. Because of people like John and Elizabeth Edwards -- who was John's attack dog against Hillary Clinton -- it's becoming progressively harder to get decent people to have anything to do with politics.

Why did Sen. Kerry, who knew Edwards to be a dishonest man, choose him as his V-P candidate? How did the good Democrats of Iowa think such an individual was a suitable candidate for President? Why did the media present Moveon.org and Daily Kos leftist Elizabeth as some sort of saint?

And, why are we to assume the massive payoffs to Ms. Rielle Hunter (born "Lisa Druck") and Edwards staffer Young are anything other than payoffs?

TWO VIEWS OF MIKE HUCKABEE: MATT & STEVE

Note: As the week goes on, I'll talk about a few of the many columns I've written on Gov. Sarah Heath Palin and why I think she would be a dynamic -- and successful -- candidate for the nation's highest offices. On my blogroll you'll find dozens of bloggers who support Sarah for the nation's highest offices. If you'd like to "sign-up" as a Sarah supporter, please contact Adam Brickley at his site (http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/)

Before that, however, I'll talk about correspondence I've received from Matt in Washington state (http://senseinpolitics.blogspot.com/) and John Hawkins in Florida (http://theforgottenstreet.com/)

In response to my recent column indicating that I believe the Mike Huckabee's effort to get the Republican nomination cannot not succeed, Matt in Washington state sent me the following e-mail:

Stephen, I saw your posting in which you say you withdraw Mike Huckabee from consideration. I understand your reasons why, and let me add some [about] why I support Huckabee. It is because he has articulated so eloquently things I have been thinking of for quite some time. Things I would expound on if I were running for political office. Positions I would collectively call " Practical Conservatism." He seems to be trying to lead the conservative movement away from vitriol and rhetoric to more practical solutions to problems. That is where you and I are.

As for his winning, well, he could just be another Goldwater. He'll blaze the trail for another person who will come along and say the same things to a more receptive audience. I think that some of his ideas are light years ahead of what is currently being preached as policy, particularly in the realm of health care. Because he thinks outside the box, and because he holds to his principles while still being likable, he is the one I am truly fired up about. Some had the same feeling for Bobby Kennedy.

But I am realistic, I will be satisfied if Giuliani or McCain get in (hopefully with Gov. Palin). Giuliani being president won't mean that we'll have more abortions in this country, and I doubt that the current status would change even if Huckabee got in. Giuliani comes across as urbane and sophisticated; heck, he's from New York! Sure he's had issues in his personal life that make me have a few questions. But we've had a divorced man as Commander in Chief -- Reagan, who also was Republican -- so that should be put to rest. Giuliani has crossover appeal, and could actually put my state (Washington) in play.

I want to run for office someday, and I think that a variation of Huckabee's platform would appeal to the large number of Independents we have here. I'd have to be looked at as a moderate if I wanted any chance of winning statewide office as a Republican.

This e-mail has run longer than I originally wanted, but I wanted to say check out my newest posting today on "Gun Control for Criminals" and let me know what you think.

Thanks for listening . . .

Matt (E-mail at: corpsole2@olypen.com)


Steve's Response: Matt, your supportive comments about Mike Huckabee are pretty much in line with my own views of the man. I just don't believe he or Fred can win a year from November. (Admittedly, in the early part of 1992, I didn't believe Bill Clinton had a chance against Bush, Sr., who was coming off a period of great popularity after the Gulf War.)

What has changed since then is the huge amount of money needed to advertise on TV in the Super Tuesday states (including California and New York, as well as several other large states). Super Tuesday comes shortly after the Florida primary, which will also require a lot of money. I expect Giuliani and Romney to have significant amounts of campaign cash, and Thompson MAY have enough to keep afloat. McCain is always a question mark, but he seems to be doing better.

Can Mike Huckabee possibly have a dramatic surge among primary voters? In that regard, one candidate in modern times has had an amazing take-off, and that was John Kerry, who was at 9% in late November, 2003 and was at 52% in February, 2004. (Howard Dean screamed himself out of the running, and John Edwards was always more popular with the media than with voters, so it was relatively easy for Kerry to move up quickly.)

In the race for 2008, the only real movement in the polls over the last several months has been by Hillary Clinton with her putting distance between herself and Obama. Giuliani has been at 30% since the last Ice Age.

By the way, one national poll showed Romney with higher unfavorables than Hillary Clinton. She has high favorables (high 40s) and high unfavorables (mid-40s). The highest favorables of any candidate are those for Giuliani. People who say they aren't going to vote for Rudy in the primary still have a favorable view of him.

I've read that nearly six-out-of-ten Americans haven't seen so much as ONE debate. The current campaign started very early, but it's still mainly of interest to political junkies like us.

Evangelical-type candidates in the Northeast and West (Dreier in Cal., Irey in PA) tend to be gravitating toward Rudy. Hard-right evangelicals like Dobson are attacking Thompson, mostly for his virtues rather than his faults. He's not for an amendment banning gay "marriage," mainly because such an amendment doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of passing.

Also, he's against a total ban on abortion because (1) it wouldn't pass either the Senate or the House; (2) it would criminalize women and doctors involved in early-term abortions. There's massive national support for allowing such abortions -- 84% believe it should be allowable.

Overall, Mike Huckabee should have a bright political future. With Fred Thompson, I believe his political career is behind him.

If I had to go way out on a limb, I'd guess the Democratic ticket will be: Clinton-Richardson. The Republican ticket may well be Giuliani-Palin.

Steve (e-mail at: TalkTop65@aol.com)

Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson and Evangelical Extremists

Note: Tomorrow I'll be reprinting two e-mails I've received: one from Matt (of SenseinPolitics) about the positive qualities of Mike Huckabee, the other from John Hawkins (of The Forgotten Street) about the conservative credentials of Fred Thompson. Here's the e-mail I sent to them today:

Matt & John, could I reprint your e-mails (one each)? John Hawkins in Florida, a long-time associate of mine who's a supporter of Fred Thompson), wrote a thoughtful e-mail. Matt, your supportive comments about Mike Huckabee are pretty much in line with my own views of him. I just don't believe he or Fred can win a year from November. (In the early part of 1992, I didn't believe Bill Clinton had a chance against Bush, Sr., who was coming off a period of great popularity after the Gulf War.) What has changed since then is the huge amount of money needed to advertise on TV in the Super Tuesday states (including California and New York, as well as several other large states).

Super Tuesday comes shortly after the Florida primary, which will also require a lot of money. I expect Giuliani and Romney to have significant amounts of campaign cash, and Thompson MAY have enough to keep afloat. McCain is always a question mark, but he seems to be doing better.

One candidate in modern times has had an amazing take-off, and that was John Kerry, who was at 9-10% in late November, 2003, and was at 52% in February, 2004.

(Howard Dean screamed himself out of the running, and John Edwards was always more popular with the media than with voters, so it was relatively easy for Kerry to move up quickly.) Kerry it turned out was "everybody's second choice" among the Democrats, which may also be the case with Mike Huckabee.

Remember, however, that Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire, which I don't believe is possible with Mike. If Mike doesn't win Iowa, he should withdraw and begin planning for the next campaign.

The only real movement in the polls in the last several months has been by Hillary Clinton with her putting distance between herself and Obama. Giuliani has been at 30% since the last Ice Age.

There was one poll that showed Romney with higher unfavorables than Hillary Clinton. She has high favorables (high 40s) and high unfavorables (mid-40s). The highest favorables of any candidate are those for Giuliani. People who aren't going to vote for him in the primary still have a favorable view of him.

I've heard that 59% (think that's it) of the American public hasn't seen so much as ONE debate. The campaign started very early, but it's still mainly of interest to political junkies like us.
Of note: Evangelical-type candidates in the Northeast and West (Dreier in Cal., Irey in PA) tend to be going toward Rudy.

Hard-right evangelicals like Dobson are attacking Thompson, mostly for his virtues rather than his faults. He's not for an amendment banning gay "marriage," mainly because such an amendment doesn't have a snowflake's chance in Hades of passing. He's against a total ban on abortion because (1) it wouldn't pass either the Senate or the House; (2) it would criminalize women and doctors involved in early-term abortions. There's massive national support for allowing such abortions -- 84% believe it should be allowable.

Romney said that abortion should be left up to the states, because that's exactly what would happen if SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade. To Romney's credit, he told people the truth, even though some evangelicals didn't want to hear it. Despite Dr. Dobson's and Rev. Larry White's rants, there is never going to be an amendment overturning Roe. If it happens, it would be the result of actions by by SCOTUS, not by Congress and the states.

The problem with the extreme evangelicals -- the "absolutists" as my friend Sanity102 calls them, is their appalling egoism. The define their own form of Christianity as the only type of belief acceptable to God. They believe that because they want a certain political action to take place that the system has failed if it doesn't. I've compared them them to naughty two-year olds, individuals who start screaming if they don't get their own way.

The absolutists do harm to a campaign like Mike's. One evangelical on the main Huckabee blog said that Mike was heading to perdition because his band played some Willie Nelson songs. Another individual said that the election of Hillary Clinton (herself a liberal Christian) would lead to "the persecution of hundreds of Christians." Other supporters deserted Mike because he said essentially that DC residents were being subject to taxation without representation. Still other evangelicals got in an uproar against Mike because he said there was SOME racism in the opposition to immigration reform.

Perhaps Mike's most controversial statement was when he said, "Life begins at conception, but it doesn't end at birth." This was a slap at evangelicals and others who claim to be "pro-life," but show no concern for children outside the womb who need assistance.

As I've said before, Mike is a better candidate than some of his strongest supporters could ever imagine.

steve maloney