mccain vs. obama
The State of the Race in the Rockies
Palin power doesn't seem to have led to the massive Western swing toward McCain that some expected. Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico remain fierce battlegrounds and could decide the election.
By Matthew Frank, 9-21-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Electoral votes in the Rocky Mountains. | |
|
Emboldened Democrats spent the summer eagerly looking West with the expectation of picking up electoral votes in the Rockies while skittish Republicans have fretted about losing what once was a reliably red region. In particular, Barack Obama’s campaign has been courting voters in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico—all states carried by George W. Bush in 2004. Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, have campaigned extensively in the Rockies and—perhaps most telling—Democrats decided to stage their convention in Denver in an effort to reach out to the region’s voters. But all this was before the Republican National Convention and the arrival of the much-loved and much-loathed Sarah Palin. An unpretentious Idaho native and the governor of the wildest of Western states, many assumed that she would crush the Democrats’ Mountain West insurgency. Now that we have some distance from the conventions—and before the debates commence—it’s a reasonable time to examine where the race stands in the Rockies.
Nationally, John McCain clearly won the battle of the conventions. One week before the Democratic convention (and the hype surrounding it) began, Obama enjoyed a 3.0 point advantage over McCain according to the Real Clear Politics’ (RCP) average of recent polls. But now, two weeks after McCain’s acceptance speech at his convention-enough time to have seen him get a 2.9 point post-convention bump before the race returned to some state of equilibrium-the RCP national average shows an Obama lead down to 1.9 points, for 1.1 point McCain swing.
The best way to assess where things stand in the Rockies is to take this national figure as a baseline and compare it to those coming out of specific Western states. It should be noted, that polling isn’t an exact science and that the comparison isn’t perfect because the polling done in individual states is generally less reliable and less frequent than that done nationally. Due to the relative scarcity of state polls, it’s also impossible to take daily measurements as national tracking polls do. Nonetheless, taking RCP-like averages of the state polls from early June (when Obama dispatched Hillary Clinton) until prior to the conventions, and then comparing those figures to the state polls released in the two weeks after the conventions, offers a good glimpse of where the race stands-and how the conventions and Palin affected-Rocky Mountain voters.
From a regional perspective, the results indicate that, with the exception of Montana, McCain’s numbers in the West lag behind his national gains. In Colorado, Obama actually extended his advantage. Prior to the conventions, Centennial State polls showed Obama with a 1.71 point lead over McCain while an average of the state’s six post-convention polls gives him a 2.66 point advantage.
The other three western battlegrounds show McCain gains. However, in Nevada and New Mexico, they lagged behind the national figure. Pre-convention, Nevada polls gave McCain a narrow 1.0 point lead, while a pair of post-convention polls average out to give the Arizona Senator a 2.0 point edge, for a gain of 1.0 point. Similarly, New Mexico appears to have moved slightly in McCain’s direction—a 4.5 pre-convention Obama advantage has trickled down .2 points based on three post-convention polls—but, again, less than the national average.
Among the Western battlegrounds, McCain has only exceeded his national gains in Montana. Prior to the convention, Big Sky voters were surveyed twice with results showing Obama ahead by an average of 2.5 points. But the one poll since the conventions shows McCain up by 11, for a pro-GOP swing of 13.5 points. Something seems to have resonated in Montana that missed the rest of the Rockies.
Three conclusions can be drawn about the state of the presidential election in the Rockies. First, and again with the exception of Montana, Palin power doesn’t seem to have led to the massive Western swing toward McCain that some expected. In fact, his numbers in the three other battleground states lag behind his national gains. Second, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico remain fierce battlegrounds and could decide the election. And finally, Obama’s flirtations with Montana are probably over. With the presidential election surprisingly close, Democrats must focus solely on winning a bare majority of electoral votes. Indeed, this task will be difficult enough. Summer dreams of a landslide—in which winning conservative states like Montana would underscore claims on a national mandate—no longer seem very realistic short of a major change of events. Expect more of Obama in the Rockies, just not in Big Sky Country.
Robert Saldin is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Montana.
[End of article]When it comes right down to it, the common sense folks of the west won't vote for an empty suit.
Comment By Daryl L. Hunter, 9-22-08It has been widely reported that Barack Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate; out of curiosity I wanted to see where the Senate’s only self declared democrat socialist was on the list. Bernie Sanders (DS) Vermont came in as fourth most liberal in the Senate right behind Joe Biden.
America’s cities are ready for socialism but I don’t think rural westerners are yet.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts now that Palin's speech has been shown to be mostly composed of lies, and now that she has had to say something unscripted.
Comment By Daryl L. Hunter, 9-27-08Flounder,
I'll take a diamond in the rough conservative over a polished, smooth talking socialist any day.
If you are concerned about liars you must be upset that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and, your socialist, Obama are blaming Bush for the failure of Fannie Mae when the genesis of the problem belongs to Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and the Community Redevelopment Act.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
Please, please, keep telling people that the Community Redevelopment Act, a law passed in 1978 is responsible for what happened to the U.S. Housing markets starting after 2000. Please. Seriously.
and I think that there is a misconception with a lot of you wingers that Fannie and Freddie mismanagement is the biggest problem we face. I wish that were the case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?_r=2&th;&emc;=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Good luck with your "conservatives". Like Chris Cox. Who runs the SEC:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/christopher_cox/index.html?inline=nyt-per
"Christopher Cox, a Republican United States representative from Orange County, Calif., and a Republican, was sworn in as the 28th chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2005.
“As a champion of the free-enterprise system in Congress, Chris Cox knows that a free economy is built on trust,” President Bush said when he nominated Mr. Cox, who in his 17 years in the House was known as an ally of Silicon Valley companies and the accounting industry. He opposed taxes on dividends and capital gains, and fought against accounting rules that would have toughened tax treatment of executive stock options. And he sponsored legislation to limit shareholders' rights in lawsuits."
Janet Yellen, President of the San Francisco Fed Branch notes that lenders not under CRA obligation (e.g. Countrywide) made irresponsible loans at twice the rate that old school banks. She says:
"There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households"
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html
Please keep saying this stuff though, it appears to be getting racist "conservatives" like Michelle Bachmann in hot water. Let's see if the next Republican Convention can get even more white and pasty.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/27/cbc-bachmann/
Flounder,
I know that the Community Reinvestment Act came out of the Carter Administration but did you know In 1995, Bill Clinton's administration, implemented regulations for the Community Reinvestment Act which strengthened it by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs.
These revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for seven years. So in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.
Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide, that do not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits as do traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions allowed the securitization of Community Reinvestment Act loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns. The number of Community Reinvestment Act mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks. By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.
Flounder – yes the Community Reinvestment Act modifications by Clinton wasn’t the sole reason for the melt down and that it goes much deeper than frannie and freedie. The Financial Services Modernization Act, of 1999 which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services, Phil Grahm was culpable in that. I also believe that the Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 allowed Adjustable rate mortgages helped the collapse.
There have been plenty of mess-ups by both republicans and democrats, many because legislators meant well. It just ticks me off when some of the most culpable legislators lake Christopher Dodd, Bill Clinton and Barney Frank try to lay it all on Bush when there is a clear paper trail that started long before 01-20-2001.