In this post I will try to cover several issues concerning the horse race numbers. First let look at Ohio. Rasmussen has McCain ahead of Obama by 10. The number does not run against Rasmussen other Ohio polling. Without pressing, the lead is 6. Prior monthly polls have the lead at 1 or 2. So essentially the shift is a 4 point shift - pretty much between the MOE range and Obama having lost some of his luster. Nevertheless, has anybody noticed how Obama can increase his popularity with a notch at any given time? BTW- Rasmussen is the only outfit that shows McCain consistently ahead of Obama so his weighing is obviously different than others. An intesting question would be why leaners trend towards McCain- an obvious answer is that while the Republican party has suffered loses in affiliation, the new independents lean conservative and McCain is a good fit for them.  I think polls this year are inaccurate because of the Bradley effect and the new voters surge; however, it is the only thing we have - the RCP average is specially helpful as it incorporates all the adjustmensts done by the different polling outfits in this difficult polling season.  I think Ohio would ultimately go McCain becasue of Appalachia unless 1) it is a landslide (which is a big possibility) or 2) Hillary is in the ticket (my best guess is yes).
Virginia is true a tossup (I live here) but I think McCain will prevail because of the Bradley effect since it clearly happened once before(Wilder).
Florida is in play only if Hillary is part of the ticket. Rasmussen now has Obama ahead by 1.
Ultimately, the election will be decided in Colorado where Obama has a strong advantage in structure, money and demographics. I do not foresee Michigan flipping at all.
The party that wins election would be the party that has won the most the last 100 years. Right now both parties are tied 48-48.
One more observation, after 7-8 months of running one would have thought the McCain operation would have been smoother. There is no reason to think they will improve in the next three months and will probably continue campaigning negatively.        

What kind of perverse jurisprudence Justice Scalia advocates in the latest Gitmo ruling? According the judge, applying the basic right of habeas corpus to all individuals in U.S. custody and in U.S. permanent soil "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." With all due respect to the soldiers who have died, what kind of intellectual vacuousness does this represent? The idea is repugnant to scholastic study. In no way or fashion can one ascertain a future condition based on a predicated past. What if could be shown that the respect of human rights would lead instead to less soldiers killed, would Scalia then have to reverse himself? Let's apply this "legal principle" to every issue- minds ponder whether buying oil leads to the unwarranted death of soldiers; better yet, going to war without provocation obviously leads to more Americans soldiers getting killed than would otherwise, so this war must be unconstitutional. The indolent mind here represents a repeat of lack of legal priciple shown in Bush v. Gore.  Scalia does not use reason in his opinions, he first come to a decision and then works backwards to justify it. Scalia is an intellectual thug. To be clear, the decision today is very similar to Marburry- essentially the Court is disabusing any notion that the other two branches of government can exclude it from weighing in on, of all things, judicial matters.    

My favorite whipping boy wrote such a bad column that it is probably creating laughter across newspaper boardrooms in the country. Oddly the column gets some basic things right (raising gas tax would reduce demand; ethanol is not a panacea), but it the tenor of the column  that shows the markings of an inerudite pundit. Without further ado:
1-Oil exploration is closed in many areas in the country because "exaggerated environmental, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity"- so irrational exaggerations and prejudices are not sheerly stupid- I wonder what other stupid reasons he is talking about (not that I agree with the premise as we shall see)- so if we listen to Samuelson- the best we can do is exert long-term influence which MAY result in affecting the markets if we are lucky (no word on what happens if we are not lucky-LOL)-
2- Increasing production may stabilize output (OR NOT!)- what the hell does he mean?
3- No one knows how much oil we have.
4- Perhaps oil prices will drop (OR NOT).
So his column is a rambling speculation that his views may or may not work; but he knows this: American public opinion is wrong- his views? they may or may not be stupid.        

Tracking poll just released. Obama first lead in a while. I recognize that I cannot be objective but every time the 5'7" John McCain speaks I get shills in my spine. And now we are learning the guy is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. McCain makes Dole (whom I liked) look good. It is no wonder Frank Lutz, who has been remarkably prescient in past elections, is already calling the race for Obama.  The D party nominates very competent candidates for the presidency only to lose to empty suits in the general. I happen to think that Hillary may be more competent (who really knows) but sadly Americans vote for the person they want to have a beer with. In this sense, Obama beats McCain and Hillary.      

This past week a lot of commentary has been devoted to the fact that many supporters of either candidate in the Democratic Party primaries would defect to McCain in the general election. Historically, because the Democratic Party has a wider ideological support, it has hemorraged 10% of its vote in the general (FROM CNN 2004 exit polling: Democrat (37%) 11% R 89% D). Thus, the 20% number represents a normal historical trend. (20% of half represent 10% of the total). The 30% for Hillary's supporters defecting is higher than average and may represent statistical noise reflecting some recent dispirited passion. But the salient point is that one may select an average statistic from elections past and create a narrative where there is none.  

Leslie Byrne voted against NAFTA.  She now has Sen. Webb's support, the senator who voted for one of the amendments that scuttled the immigration bill.  My suspicion is that she does not support the immigration bill that failed.  On this basis alone, I think her claim to that she fights for the less deserving is overrated. She relies on union support, people who have suffered under the current regime, but their misery pales in comparison with what immigrants have to suffer in Virginia.  And she is seemingly willing to keep it at that.  Gerry Connolly, on the other hand, took a tough stance against anti-immigration bashing in Northern Virginia. It is my sense that Connolly is friendlier towards Hispanic issues than Byrne. Both are solid campaigners and very friendly.  Both are also quite accessible.  And Both would be good congressmen. And I still support Sen. Webb, despite his immigration stance, because he is the best Virginia can offer for the job. But the same cannot be stated for Byrne.    

The following represents a first impression view; further elaboration would require legal research.  I believe that the amnesty provision tucked in the telecommunications bill is unconstitutional.  Depriving a cause of action (a transferable asset) without remedy represents a government "taking" and also represents ex post facto legislation.  Inmunity, unlike a pardon, is a temporary resolution that can easily be undone. The current bill may prevent a court from hearing a case based on jurisdictional federal law (power of the purse), nevertheless, constitutional issues  are not subject to such limitation.  The next president may, by fiat, allow criminal prosecutions that cannot be subjected to amnesty without the consent of the sovereign (the president). In other words, amnesty is no pardon which requires conviction and action by the executive. To be sure, the current lawsuits are civil lawsuits subject to regulation.  Now, I know this post scattershots the issue. The point is that the next president will have options concerning the issue despite current legislation. Congress's ability to meddle on jurisdictional/constitutional matters is overstated. Let's put it anothert way; if I burn my neighbor's house, a legislature cannot prevent me from pursuing redress.      

Rep. Kingston just admitted in the Abrams show that questioning the lack wearing of an American flag lapel by Obama, which oddly, the hypocrite was not wearing, was just banter. He also called the good senator Senator Hussein. He said Hillary was not able to put a glove on Obama, and as long as people react to his comments he will continue to repeat them.  So questioning the patriotism of others and diverting conversations from real issues is what this guy stands for- I am sure those who elected this jerk feel proud.