Election Central Morning Roundup
NYT Goes After Obama On Ethanol
Barack Obama's squeaky-clean image is targeted in a new article this morning in the New York Times, challenging his support of corn-ethanol subsidies. "And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn," the paper says, "he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates."
McCain To Propose Cash Prize For Clean Car Technology
John McCain is set to deliver a speech today in Fresno, where he will lay out his proposals to encourage cleaner cars. The key proposals will be to offer a $5,000 tax credit to the auto companies for every customer that buys a yet to be developed zero-emissions vehicle, and to offer a $300 million prize for the successful development of battery technology that can overtake current plug-in auto solutions.
Obama Courting Women Voters In New Mexico
In a further act of outreach to women voters who supported Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama will be holding a campaign event in Albuquerque today to discuss "the unique economic challenges facing working women," according to his campaign's morning e-mail to reporters.
Obama Campaign Working To Turn Out Black Voters
The Obama campaign is working to boost African-American turnout in crucial swing states like Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and others in order to turn those states from red to blue. It will be a delicate balancing act, though -- while Florida has more than half a million black voters who didn't turn out in 2004, for example, the campaign will have to focus on that community without embracing identity politics and alienating white voters.
SurveyUSA: Obama's Lead Slipping In Oregon
A new SurveyUSA poll of Oregon gives Barack Obama only a 48%-45% lead, within the ±4.3% margin of error. Their last poll from three weeks ago gave Obama a 49%-39% lead.
Alaska AFL-CIO Endorses Dem Against Ted Stevens
In a blow to the re-election campaign of GOP Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska AFL-CIO has endorsed his Democratic opponent, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. Unlike most states, unions in Alaska often endorse the dominant Republicans, and the AFL-CIO has endorsed Stevens in all his past re-election campaigns -- but his lagging both numbers and ethics investigations may have changed the calculations this time.
"SurveyUSA: Obama's Lead Slipping In Oregon
A new SurveyUSA poll of Oregon gives Barack Obama only a 48%-45% lead, within the ±4.3% margin of error. Their last poll from three weeks ago gave Obama a 49%-39% lead." Is the Shine Coming Off the Apple?
June 23, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, is a single poll. Smart people don't read too much into a single poll, especially when nothing has happened that would make one expect such a decrease in support.
Don't you have a troll convention to attend..?
June 23, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's just interesting that a single poll showing GA shifting sets off fireworks and champagne corks around here and this one leads to "cricket chirp- cricket chirp".
June 23, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well yeah. This is a site with a mostly liberal readership (at least as far as the commenters go). They're bound to be more excited about positive poll results. For the record, I don't think McCain's going to win Oregon or that Obama's going to win Georgia. It's just conversation fodder.
June 23, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is how I see it.
Since Obama is going to have a significant money advantage and a full-fledged 50-state strategy, a poll like this out of Oregon doesn’t change anything for him. He was going to fight in Oregon regardless of polling. However, for McCain, positive polls for Obama in states like Georgia will force McCain to spend money and time in states he otherwise wouldn't have. It’s not about winning – I don’t think Obama will flip Georgia. But like he did with Clinton in PA, he’ll be able to force McCain to spend money where he doesn’t want to and can’t really afford to.
June 23, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, however, Barack Obama goes into Labor Day -- when John McCain accepts federal election matching funds -- with $75 million less in the bank than McCain. Barack Obama won't have time to do any fundraisers as McCain will be able to barnstorm the country flush with sufficient cash to win all the states Bush carried in 2004 (an Electoral College Majority).
It just shows how far Democrats are from wrapping this baby up. In the next two months, Barack Obama has to pick a running mate, run a convention, pay a visit to Iraq, and raise at least $200 million so he has a sufficient reserve ($80-$100 million) from Labor Day to Election Day. Wow. Just wow.
June 23, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
In case you haven't noticed, Obama hasn't been raising record amounts of money by "doing fundraisers." McCain had the opportunity to gain an advantage for the general election by starting to "define" Obama since he wrapped up the nomination much earlier, but he had to spend all that time holding big-dollar fundraisers instead, since he can't compete in the small-donor arena. Obama raised record amounts of money, mostly from small donors who didn't need to be schmoozed at a fundraiser to contribute, and did it while contesting primaries and caucuses, which took a lot more time than it takes to "pick a running mate, run a convention, pay a visit to Iraq."
June 23, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no basis for concluding anything changed between these two polls. Last poll he was at 49%, this one he's at 48. That's statistically unchanged. McCain apparently closed the gap because there are fewer undecideds in this one (6%) than the last one (12%).
Maybe the change in the number of undecideds is real, maybe it isn't. You can't tell in a poll of with an n of 600. About 72 said they were undecided last time. About 36 said they were undecided this time. Yawn.
June 23, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve beat me to it.
Eric, you're comparing two polls, both with smallish samples and large margins of errors.
Even if SurveyUSA draws the conclusion that "Obama's Lead Slipping In Oregon," TPM should not report it as FACT.
This poll "suggests" that Obama's lead "may be" slipping in Oregon.
That's all you can reasonably conclude; two such polls do not show a trend.
Needless to say, the same holds equally true for polls that show a jump in Obama's support.
If a series of polls show a consistent long-term trend, only then can you start (cautiously) to assume they reflect an underlying reality.
But
June 23, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the crosstabs -- particularly party turnout -- in both OR polls. You'll see that Obama and McCain perform similarly in each party (Obama getting 80% of Democrats, McCain getting 80% of Republicans, and independents going 50-50), but turnout in the most recent poll gives Democrats a 1% turnout advantage over Republicans in contrast to the double-digit turnout advantage SUSA gave Democrats several weeks ago.
June 23, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The article seems really flimsy. He supports ethanol and some advisors have some sort of interest in it. If OB had big oil interests that would be OK? What about an article on McSame and Phil Gramm.
June 23, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm ...
Ethanol and oil are not even remotely on the same level. 20 years after the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, the oil companies are still fighting tooth-and-toenail against being sued. Ethanol has no such ethical lapses.
June 23, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
r u comparing obama's aura to an apple?
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/dwc-checklist-4-change-part-5/
June 23, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
the new york times has lost all credibility.
June 23, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
For reporting the truth about Obama's connection to the ethanol lobby or was there anything factually incorrect in there?
June 23, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
So was the NY Times reporting the "truth" about McSame screwing Vickie Iseman in 2000 and beyond?
If so, why did you and your fellow wingnutz cry bloody murder?
anxiously awaiting your Republican response....
June 23, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't scream...if it's true it's true. Being a Romney guy I wish they'd have brought it up back when it would've done some good if they were gonna bring it up at all.
June 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Almost all politicians support biofuels, why do they think it is remarkable that Obama does?
June 23, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not remarkable that he does. The fact the the subsidies he backs go to the evil oil companies that are the bane of his existance is remark-worthy. Also, if Bob Dole were McCain's energy advisor y'all would be all over his connections to ADM and big business. Since it's your guy and Tom Daschel it's no big deal.
June 23, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because someone at least tangentially connected to the campaign is also supportive of biofuels! Omg huge scandalz!
That does it! Bob Dole must resign from the Obama campaign!
June 23, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh...I get it now, any lobbists in Obama's camp are "tangentially connected" and he is thereby free from any question of influence on their part. I'm sure the same standard will be applied to members of the McCain campaign...like the wholly unconnected former Hillary supporter and the Thomas Jefferson thing...
June 23, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really could give a shit about "lobbyist" ties, honestly. No campaign is free from someone who didn't work for some lobbying firm. The whole "association by guilt" game this election year has been stupid.
June 23, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh, I worded this really poorly. Too early in the morning.
June 23, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understood everything...unless you meant something completely different...then I didn't...
June 23, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not remarkable that he supports measures that benefit his constituents; one can only hope that research into more efficient sources for biofuels will be productive, such as those that would use vegetal waste materials instead of edible foodstuffs.
This might prove to be one issue that 'ol Grumpytrousers might get some traction out of, but I doubt most people care enough to do the research for themselves.
June 23, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
...there already are more efficient ways to produce ethanol...with sugar for instance. Of cousre when Jindal gets picked as McCain's runningmate all this talk of supporting your constiuents will be out the window and Jindal will be a puppet of "Big Sugar!"
June 23, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can actually get energy from garbage. We learned this from 'Back to the Future II' . . . mebbee we can mine the landfills in Staten Island!
:-P
June 23, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corn ethanol has always been a concern of mine, and the Iowa caucuses have distorted government policy in this area for year. Now with $11b in crop losses, mostly corn, are we still going to force people to put food in their gas tanks? Sugar is more efficient, if you don't mind wiping out the amazon like the Brazilians are doing, or the Everglades like our sugar growers are doing. But at least it has a positive energy balance. Sugar beets are better ecologically, tho not as efficient, but once again, should we be putting food in our gas tanks? This whole area needs a rethink. I know, a lot of folks are talking about cellulosic ethanol, still we have no national manufacturing and distribution network, we have to change our cars and fueling stations, there is less energy per gallon, etc. Oil is using stored solar energy for millenia ago, food is using solar energy from last year. How many acres do we need to plant to really have an impact? How many people will starve as food prices go up? This has always been the problem with government mandates of technical/economic choice.
June 23, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Jindal can perform another exorcism and free you of your SFC demons?
June 23, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am from IL and his support for Ethanol kinda pisses me off. Corn based fuels are not really good for the environment and have contributed to increased food prices.
Ethanol in IL amounts to nothing more than another farm subsidy.
June 23, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
they haven't just contributed G, they're the primary driver. We've got wheat stocks at WWII levels, because corn was the new fools gold. Taking 1/3 of our crop off the market for fuel is the worst public policy decision in my lifetime. It hasn't dropped the price of gasoline one penny, it's driven up food prices, and worst of all -- the producers' aren't even making any money. Anyone checked ethanol stocks lately -- not exactly winners.
June 23, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: the Oregon poll. I'm suspicious of the party ID. At a time when we know the Republican brand is in the dumps, where most polls show a heavy tilt towards the Dems in party ID, this poll shows the Dems with only a 1% pt party ID lead - 42%-41%? Oregon is a blue state and while it has been considered a swing state, it's hardly one that would stick with the GOP until the bitter end. I can see the 15% indie number - Oregonians strike me as those who would generate larger numbers in indie party ID than others. But almost exact parity between the two parties? Color me dubious. And I think the reason for the disparity we're seeing in both the national and state polls is due to varying party ID models used by the pollsters. Whadda y'all think?
June 23, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
not to mention the 85K people who came out to see Obama during the primaries.
Really...who should we believe this errant poll or the 85K folks we saw on the ground listening to Obama?
June 23, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
85K out of 2,845,883...he's a shoe in!
June 23, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Total Number of Votes Cast: 1,170,553, or 58.04%
Turnout in the 2006 Primary: 38.58%.
Democratic Turnout: 75.66% (a new record for an Oregon primary, smashing the previous record of 71.3% set during the 1968 Presidential Primary).
Number of Votes for Barack Obama: 375,000.
Number of Votes for Hillary Clinton: 260,000
Number of Votes for John McSame: 286,000
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/16/121742/983/269/536725
June 23, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
For example, the latest Rasmussen party ID poll had the Dems at almost 42% with the GOP just over 31%. About 27% of the people polled claimed they were unaffiliated. The Oregon ID numbers in the SUSA poll are in line with Rasmussen's numbers for the Dems, but they give the GOP in that state 10% points more than Rasmussen gives them nationally. Again, this is Oregon, a relatively blue state. I don't know who is correct but it seems to me that SUSA is being rather generous to the GOP in terms of party ID in Oregon. (and I think I've seen them recently underestimate Dem ID in others states - at least relative to the other pollsters.)
June 23, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It could easily be a random fluke. That's why polls have error bars.
June 23, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFC Wallace- yep. the shine is comng off, or better still the shine has come off. There- feel better. One poll or a dozen polls- the campaign has not begun in earnest. He is still consolodating the party that God knows is severely divided, given the hysteria of the last few days and a divisive primary campaign. Seriously.....,
June 23, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well,
I can't believe this rajapi..but I submitted a comment where I referenced a former write up by Kleefield and it has been held!
I suppose if you mention his name now in a post it is censured or something?
I will make the remarks again.
I noted that I prefer to believe what I see in photos like this, where oops I was wrong it was ONLY seventy FIVE thousand folks:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html
and we can also recall, how Kleefield is consistent about his faint praise here as well:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/obama_speaks_to_over_70000_in.php
we'll see if this one is held as well.
June 23, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something non-Oregonians may not realize, Portland is a very liberal enclave inside a very conservative, very Republican state. That having been said, there are almost as many people in Metro Portland as in the whole rest of the state.
One interesting anecdotal observation, however, when I drive South on I-5 this year, all I see in the rye grass fields between here and Corvallis are Obama signs. And these days I don't trust any polls....
June 23, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It always amuses me to look at the party affiliation maps for Oregon. All red with only a couple of small islands of blue.
Though that is pretty standard in most states. The more urban the more blue.
June 23, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I understand, Eugene and Bend are pretty liberal as well.
June 23, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're putting your money on Jindal? Seriously?
Wouldn't putting a 37-year-old man (who served 1 term in Congress and who's been Governor for ~7 months) one very aged heartbeat away from the Presidency sort of kill McCain's whole "Obama is too inexperienced" line of attack?
June 23, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
It should...
June 23, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just using him as the exaple of how the tune would change if it were a Republican we were discussing. I really think he'll choose Romney.
June 23, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, gotcha.
Man, I really hope he picks Romney.
June 23, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly don't know why people even bothering responding to you. You've become more tiresome and more predictable even than fogu2 or dijamo (sp?). And that includes myself. I wish there was an "Ignore" feature.
June 23, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er, that's for SFC, not hyperrevue.
June 23, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is an ignore feature...and you failed to exercise it.
June 23, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
haha, I was going to say....
No. I see no problem responding to SFC. I don't think he is a troll (but I could be wrong). I think he is a Republican and makes no apologies for it. He's no fogu2 pretending to be a Clinton supporter. At least that's the impression I get.
June 23, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check, not a troll, certainly not a paid one. A couple of years ago I was accussed of being a room full of Republican operatives. I'm just here trying to win the battle of ideas one mind at a time. I think my current batting average is 0 for 1,842,697...
June 23, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sort of like you pretending to be a journalist/editor. I suppose that's debatable too.
June 23, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I was saying...
June 23, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I actually enjoy the banter and discussions. He is not out in left field. He just happens to disagree with the vast majority of democratic positions. So be it. I kept wanting to put in a slam, but I caught myself. Keep the discussion going. I am not interested in an echo chamber.
June 23, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll third this. Being a Republican is not the same as being a troll. He's not nasty (at least not any more than most of us), and although he's clearly wrong on most things (after all, he is a Republican), he makes occasionally valid points.
Corn ethanol, for example, is a sham. Sugar ethanol is better, and switch-grass ethanol would probably be better yet.
June 23, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Management here apparently agrees, as SFCWallace has been posting here under that name much longer than most user names posting on this thread. Never been banned, and, mho, with a couple of years practice, has gotten quite good at redirecting confrontations about being a troll away from insult games--in that, he's actually a lot better at preventing trollish discssions than many liberals here.
Josh Marshall Dec 2, 2006:
....I treat it as a given that the site will always be a home, predominantly, for people of a center-left viewpoint. But conservatives are welcome here, as our all the shades of people who consider themselves liberals or progressives or centrists or whatever....
It's a place for people of a variety of viewpoints to come together and have fruitful, lively discussions. Broadly speaking, the site has a center-left character....
I can't give a link to that quote because it's on the TPMCafe archive ("Management" section) which hasn't been loaded back up since the software change. But I'm sure SFCWallace knows about it and I guarantee all that Josh Marshall would confirm he said it.
June 23, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. If only "unpredictable" posts were allowed, all the Obamanauts would have to find a new site.
June 23, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
And then you would be left to go back into your corner, pounding your pud.
June 23, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the Shine Coming Off the Apple?
That, or SurveyUSA massively oversampled Republicans in the poll (41%, compared to only 32% in their previous two Oregon polls). Take your pick.
June 23, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I find McCain to be a total weasel, he just scored massive points with this independent voter with his position on clean car technology. That's the type of challenge and incentive this country needs to get off of hydrocarbon fuels as our primary fuel for basic ground transportation. Kudos Mr. McCain! Come on Mr. Obama, if the forgetful Senator from Arizona can come up with this idea you must certainly be able to better it.
June 23, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink