Saturday, 20 September 2008


Ken Berwitz

Ralph Peters of the New York Post has an excellent article today, which talks about who Sarah Palin is and is not attractive to.  While Peters is a touch more sarcastic than I prefer, he is so close to a bullseye that I would not want you to miss it.  So here it is:



September 20, 2008 --

I KNOW Sarah Palin, and so does my wife.

Neither of us ever actually met the governor of Alaska, but we grew up with her - in the small-town America despised by the leftwing elite.

One gal-pal classmate of my wife's has even traveled from New York's Finger Lakes to Alaska to hunt moose with her husband. (Got one, too.) And no, Ms. Streisand, she isn't a redneck missing half her teeth - she's a lawyer.

The sneering elites and their mediacrat fellow travelers just don't get it: How on earth could anyone vote for someone who didn't attend an Ivy League school? And having more than 1.7 children marks any woman as a rube. (If Palin had any taste, her teenage daughter would've had a quiet abortion in a discreet facility.)

And what kind of retro-Barbie would stay happily married to her high-school sweetheart? Ugh. She even kills animals and eats them. (The meat and fish served in the upscale bistros patronized by Obama supporters appears by magic - it didn't really come from living things. . .)

Palin has that hick accent, too. And that busy-mom beehive 'do. Double ugh! Bet she hasn't even read Ian McEwan's latest novel and can't explain Frank Gehry's vision for a new architecture. She and her blue-collar (triple ugh!) husband don't even own a McMansion, let alone an inherited family compound on the Cape.

And she wants to be vice president?

The opinion-maker elites see Sarah Palin clearly every time they look up from another sneering article in The New Yorker: She's a country-bumpkin chumpette from a hick state with low latte availability. She's not one of them and never will be. That's the real disqualifier in this race.

Now let me tell you what those postmodern bigots with their multiple vacation homes and their disappointing trust-fund kids don't see:

Sarah Palin's one of us. She actually represents the American people.

When The New York Times, CNN, the NBC basket of basket cases and all the barking blog dogs insult Palin, they're insulting us. When they smear her, they're smearing every American who actually works for a living, who doesn't expect a handout, who doesn't have a full-time accountant to parse the family taxes, who believes in the Pledge of Allegiance and who thinks a church is more than just a tedious stop on daughter Emily's 100K wedding day.

Go ahead, faux feminists and Hollywood deep thinkers: Snicker at Sarah America's degree from the University of Idaho, but remember that most Americans didn't attend Harvard or Princeton as a legacy after daddy donated enough to buy his kid's way in.

Go ahead, campaign strategists: Mock Americans who go to church and actually pray. But you might want to run the Census numbers first.

And go right ahead: Dismiss all of us who remember how, on the first day of deer season, our high school classrooms were half empty (not a problem at Andover or Exeter).

That rube accent of Palin's? It's a howler. But she sounds a lot more like the rest of us than a Harvard man or a Smithie ever will.

Why does Sarah Palin energize all of us who don't belong to the gilded leftwing circle? Because she's us. We sat beside her in class. We hung out after school (might've even shared a backseat combat zone on prom night). And now she lives next door, raising her kids.

For the first time since Ronald Reagan, our last great president, we, the people, see a chance that one of us might have a voice in governing our country.

Speaking of Reagan (Eureka College, Illinois), every chief executive we've had since the Gipper snapped his final salute as president has had the imprimatur of an Ivy League university. And we've gone from bad to worse:

* George Herbert Walker Bush: Yale.

* William Jefferson Clinton: Georgetown, Oxford, Yale Law.

* George W. Bush: Yale and Harvard Business School.

The first lacked the sense to finish the job in Desert Storm; the second lacked the guts to go after al Qaeda when it was just a startup - and the third, well, let's just say he disappointed our low expectations.

Now we have the Ivy League elite's "he's not only like us but he's a minority and we're so wonderful to support him" candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (Columbia and Harvard Law).

Our country can't afford another one of these clowns. Harvard isn't the answer - Harvard's the problem.

So here's the message Palin is sending on behalf of the rest of us (the down-market masses Dems love at election time and ignore once the voting's done): The rule of the snobs is over. It's time to give one of us a chance to lead.

Sen. John McCain's one of us, too. He raised hell at Annapolis (quadruple ugh: military!), and he'll raise the right kind of hell in Washington.

McCain's so dumb he really loves his country.

Sarah Palin's dumb that way, too. How terribly unfashionable.

Does that encapsulate the gulf between Sarah Palin admirers and detractors, or what?

Now it's up to you.  Which mindset are you more comfortable with in the White House?  Your call.


Ken Berwitz

Ok, this is a trifecta.  The third blog about Sarah Palin today and then I'm finished (at least for the day).

Yesterday I blogged about The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, which disinvited Sarah Palin from an anti-Iran protest because Hillary Clinton (who apparently controls this bunch) refused to be on the same stage with her. 

Hillary Clinton played partisan politics with the protest.  So, like good lapdogs, they kissed her rump and played partisan politics with it too, by telling Ms. Palin, who DID intend to participate, to take a hike instead. 

I e-mailed the organization, told them they were whores and assured them they will never get another penny from me.  I meant it 100%.

Today the New York Post has an editorial on this subject.  Since I agree with almost everything the editorial says, I am posting it below:


September 20, 2008 --

With one astonishingly clumsy public temper tantrum, Hillary Clinton and the Obama campaign have transformed what for decades has been a bipartisan policy - American support for Israel - into a political football.

On Monday, a public rally is set for Dag Hammerskjold Plaza, across from the UN, to protest Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's upcoming speech to the General Assembly and unite in opposition to his nuke program and his vow to wipe the US and Israel "off the map."

Major Jewish and pro-Israel groups have sponsored such mass rallies for decades. And they've always featured political figures from both major parties - often, even rival candidates for the same office.

The point, and it's an important one, is that support for Israel - and opposition to its warmongering enemies - generally transcends partisan politics in America.

This time, however, Sen. Clinton - who early on accepted an invitation to speak - reportedly hit the roof when she learned that she would share the platform with GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

According to news accounts, the Obama campaign and Jewish Democratic groups likewise loudly protested what they perceived as a Republican tilt to the rally - on the dubious grounds that Palin "outranks" Clinton. Or maybe Hillary was just piqued that she was no longer the star attraction.

At any rate, Camp Clinton announced that the senator would just as soon stay home.

Rally organizers, trying to salvage the situation, then invited Palin's counterpart on the Democratic ticket, Sen. Joe Biden. But his campaign turned thumbs down, reportedly citing a "longstanding commitment" to speak at a National Guard convention in Maryland.

At which point the organizers, in a not-especially-gracious move, disinvited Palin - along with every other political official who'd been asked to speak, saying that would prevent their message from being "obscured" by the tumult.


Such tumult as there might have been traces directly to the Democrats' refusal to rise above partisan politics and share the public spotlight with a nationally prominent Republican.

As Sen. John McCain rightly noted in a statement, the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose, to Israel and to America, is too great for the issue to be used as a political football.

Hillary Clinton and the Obama campaign could have driven that point home by her appearance at Monday's rally.

But they chose instead to play politics.

What a disgrace.

The only thing I disagree with in this editorial is its characterization of the organization's actions as "not-especially-gracious".   That is inaccurate because it is far too mild. 

By their actions, The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations has told us all, friends and enemies alike, that its leaders are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS before they are JEWS.

Hillary Clinton's behavior was disgraceful.  But the action then taken by The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations was 100 times moreso.

Here's a bet for you.  AFTER the rally, several of the Presidents of these organizations, maybe the organization itself, will come up with some kind of apology to Governor Palin -- knowing that, for political reasons, she has no choice but to accept it.

That is how these whores think they can have their cake and eat it too.

Ms. Palin may have to swallow hard and pretend their apology means something.  But you and I do not.  I can assure you that the only thing it will represent to me is a confirmation of my conclusion that they are whores.


Ken Berwitz

The "Troopergate" investigation of Sarah Palin continues.

As you probably know, Governor Sarah Palin claims to have fired Walter Monegan, Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, for insubordination.  The accusation which spawned "Troopergate" is that her real motivation was that Monegan refused to fire a trooper, Michael Wooten, who was involved in an acrimonious divorce with Palin's sister.

Let's start with the obvious:  No one can possibly know Ms. Palin's true motivation(s) for this firing.  Sarah Palin is the world's single greatest authority on what she is thinking.  All the rest of us can only guess. 

Since no one seems to dispute that Monegan was behaving in an insubordinate manner (i.e. holding meetings without advising her, intentionally keeping her out of the loop and generally backstabbing her) there certainly was reason to believe Ms. Palin's side of the story.  That, by itself, should have ended this investigation.  

But Palin, in the course of quickly, effectively cleaning up much of the Republican corruption (that's right, her own party) in Alaska, made a lot of enemies.  And since the investigation is being run by a Democrat, also a political enemy, "Troopergate" is guaranteed a) to press onward and b) to materialize "findings" geared to embarrassing Ms. Palin before the election.  The chief investigator, Democrat Hollis French, has literally said as much.

With this in mind, I thought you might be interested in seeing an excellent piece by Amanda Carpenter, writing for, which describes the two men Sarah Palin is accused of going after:

Palin Fired a Wife Beater in 'Troopergate'

Posted by: Amanda Carpenter

Democrats pushing "Troopergate" are getting closer and closer to defending the records of two abusive men who have threatened family members and on occasion taken violent action towards them.

Alaska's former Public Safety Commisioner Walt Monegan and state trooper Mike Wooten both have a disturbing history of abuse. Monegan, of course, is the man who Democrats believe GOP vice presidential contender Sarah Palin improperly fired as Alaskan Governor and who is at the center of their  controversial "Troopergate" inquiry. Wooten is Palin's former brother-in-law who Democrats think  Palin unethically pressured Monegan to terminate.

Via the
San Francisco Chronicle Monegan admitted dislocating his wife's shoulder "by accident" by "wrestling and tickling" her. His estranged wife, Georgene Moldovan, tells another story.

Moldovan sought a restraining order against him in 1994 after he threatened to kill her, waved a gun at her and knocked her shoulder out  of socket, according to court papers. The court papers say: "he pulled out his gun and waved it at me outside my home and yelled he would kill me if I stopped him."

Moldovan told the SF Chronicle that Monegan "would show up unannounced and break into my apartment and do threatening things. I was forced to get a restraining order because I was really fearful he was going to harm me." She said he also
threatened to throw her body into a cold, Alaskan river.

Monegan, for his part, said his ex-wife was telling "either half-truths or pure fabrications."

Governor Palin fired Monegan earlier this year for insubordination. Democrats have accused Palin of "abusing her power" in firing Monegan, who was a political appointee. The Alaskan legislature is now leading an ethics investigation to determine if Palin improperly fired Monegan.

Palin's foes say Palin really fired Monegan over his refusal to terminate trooper Wooten, not for his insubordination.  Wooten recently ended a bitter marriage with Palin's sister, Molly.

Like Monegan, Wooten has a violent history with family members. He's admitted to tasering his stepson and has been accused of threatening to kill his former father-in-law, Palin's dad.

Remember the "nuts and sluts" defense Bill Clinton used every time a former (or, in Lewinsky's case, pretty current) mistress turned up?  Remember how it was never him, always them?  And remember how much of the media lapped that up and dutifully presented Clinton's side of things?

Well the two men involved in Sarah Palin's "Troopergate" situation are a lot worse than "nuts and sluts".  And, unlike the Clinton "defense", facts, not an interested party's claims, show this to be the case.  But how often have you read about either man's history - professional or marital - in mainstream media, or seen a feature or two about them on the network news?

Not very often, I'm betting..

The moral of this story is that if there is an "R" instead of a "D" after a politician's name, media declare open season. 

Please keep this in mind when the Democrat investigator, who said there is likely to be politically damaging information from "Troopergate" before he even conducted the investigation, issues that information in October -- and the media quickly report every word.



Ken Berwitz

It must be Bush, right?  He's responsible for everything bad that has happened - maybe even since the beginning of time.

But if you want to deal in reality, the answer is the exact opposite.  George Bush was the guy who tried to prevent this - 5 years ago.

Do you doubt me?  If so, you owe it to yourself to read the following Investors Business Daily editorial, which spells the facts out perfectly.  Please pay special attention to the section I've put in bold print:

Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame

| Posted Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Congress says it likely will adjourn this month having done nothing on the most important issue in America right now: the financial meltdown from the subprime lending crisis.

Can Congress just walk away from a problem it helped create? Maybe, maybe not.

There's now some talk of a grand deal between the Treasury, the Fed and Congress for a "permanent" solution: creating a government agency to buy up all the bad subprime debt, just like the Resolution Trust Corp. did with bad real estate in the 1980s and 1990s.

Already, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the subprime crisis from crashing the world economy. The collapse of twin mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the failures of Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns and insurer AIG, expose taxpayers to more than $1 trillion in liabilities.

Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, "no one knows what to do" right now.

Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked "no" at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action.

Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.

"The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.

Only one problem: It's untrue.

Yes, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn't have.

But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here's the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

"These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

It's pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate.

As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush's plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we're now in.

"If Congress does not act," McCain said in 2005, "American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sounds like McCain was spot on.

But his warnings, too, were ignored by Congress.

To hear today's Democrats, you'd think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms' books to make sure they were in compliance.

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called "CRA rating" that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.

It was economic hardball.

"We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible," Clinton's comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993.

And they meant it.

In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

That's how the contagion began.

With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.

As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in "community development," giving money to local housing rights groups and "empowering" the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.

Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.

Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who's who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.

They got the bonuses. You get the bill.

THAT is reality.  THAT is the documented truth.

Now try and find it in today's New York Times -- yes, the same New York Times quoted in this editorial.  And when you can't, try and find it in other mainstream media venues.

Remember that children's game, "pin the tail on the donkey"?  Well the donkey IS who this should be pinned on.  But most of our wonderful "neutral" media see only elephants. 

How pathetic they are and how desperately they are trying to misinform you.  Don't let them do it.


Ken Berwitz

If you believe the Gallup Poll, Barack Obama has jumped out to a 6% lead over John McCain.  He's starting to pull away.

But what do you believe when you find out that the internal data in no way support those numbers?

DJ Drummond, writing for, took a long, hard look at Gallup and has come up with a very credible reason that this seemingly impossible movement took place.  The article is very long, so I'm just posting the key excerpts.  But they tell the story beautifully:

How Liberal Trolls Are Working To Get McCain Elected President

Let's start with the latest poll numbers. Yep, Obama back on top, is the headline for many of them, though it's a bit tight. I guess we should worry on the Right? Hmmmm, well maybe not so much, just as those on the Left did not have that much to worry about when McCain got the 'Palin Bounce' earlier this month. I said when the first bumps came out that I did not think Palin's effect would really be that immediate, and I have always said that the reader should go well past the headline to find out what a poll says. So, taking my own advice, let's see what Gallup has to say.

The Gallup Organization is as clean and straight-arrow a polling group as I have ever found. Their methodology is consistent and transparent, their questions are the same and they have a longer history than anyone else in the business. But even Gallup has a few odd quirks, and when you see them it might change how you look at their poll releases. For this article, I am looking at the Gallup 'Daily Tracking Poll' for the Presidential election. For the five most recent weekly reports, here's where Gallup says the candidates stood:

Aug 21: Obama 45, McCain 44
Aug 28: Obama 48, McCain 41
Sep 04: Obama 49, McCain 42
Sep 11: McCain 48, Obama 44
Sep 18: Obama 48, McCain 44

From that, it appears that a tight race opened up first for Obama, then McCain, then Obama again, with each candidate sitting anywhere from 41 to 49 percent support (not counting margin of error) during that time. Fair enough, but let's look at their support by party identification, first by Obama:

Liberal Democrat support for Obama - 88% Aug 21, 91% Aug 28, 93% Sep 4 through Sep 18.

Moderate Democrat support for Obama - 78% Aug 21 and 28, 81% Sep 4 through Sep 18.

Conservative Democrat support for Obama - 68% Aug 21, 63% Aug 28, 77% Sep 4, 70% Sep 11, 66% Sep 18

Hmmm. Obama's support goes up and down, but the Liberal and Moderate Democrat support for Obama has been steady all of September. Odd, isn't it? And support for Obama among Conservative Democrats went down four points in the last week, even though his overall support is supposed to have gone up four points. How to figure that?

Perhaps it's in the Independents. After all, if Obama started winning them over, he'd not only be making gains overall but gaining support where he wants it the most.

Independent support for Obama - 24% Aug 21, 29% Aug 28, 23% Sep 4, 29% Sep 11, and 27% Sep 18

Hmmm, again. Obama gained support among Independents in the last month, but he actually lost two points among Independents in the last week. So that 4 point gain overall is still a mystery.

Nothing to do, then, but look at the Republicans. It would really be something if he's improving support from GOP voters:

Liberal/Moderate Republican support for Obama - 16% Aug 21, 13% Aug 28, 14% Sep 4, 16% Sep 11, 10% Sep 18

Ouch. Obama lost six points among Liberal and Moderate Republicans in the past week.

Conservative Republican support for Obama - 6% Aug 21, 5% Aug 28, 4% Sep 4, 3% Sep 11 and 18

No change there in the past week.

Taken altogether, there is no group of political identification where Obama's support has increased in the past week. Mathematically, therefore, there is only one way in which Gallup could show an increase in Obama's overall support, when none of the party identification groups showed improvement for him. I will come back to that in a moment, but the reader should think about it, because it's very important, that only possible way this could happen.

Before I explain that possibility, I want to look at John McCain's support by specific party identification groups. The man, according to Gallup, lost four points of overall support in the past week,

Conservative Republican support for McCain - 89% Aug 21, 91% Aug 28, 94% Sep 4 and 11, 95% Sept 18

Interesting. McCain's support among Conservative Republicans went up a point in the last week. Well, let's move on:

Liberal/Moderate Republican support for McCain - 75% Aug 21, 77% Aug 28, 78% Sep 4 and 11, 85% Sep 18

Wow, McCain's support from Liberal and Moderate Republicans climbed by seven points in the past week, and yet we are told his overall support fell by four points? That is very odd, wouldn't you say? It must have been the Independents, perhaps?

Independent support for McCain - 34% Aug 21, 31% Aug 28, 29% Sep 4, 28% Sep 11, and 32% Sep 18

Stranger and stranger, McCain's support among Independents went up by four points in the past week, just as his support from Republicans increased, yet we are told his overall support went down by four. Very hard to explain that using the math most of us learned in school, isn't it? Well, there's just one place left to look. Maybe somehow McCain used to have significant support among Democrats, but lost it? Let's find out:

Conservative Democrat support for McCain - 23% Aug 21, 26% Aug 28, 15% Sep 4, 21% Sep 11, 24% Sep 18

Hmpf. Once again, a group where support for McCain went up, but the overall says he went down.

Moderate Democrat support for McCain - 14% Aug 21, 13% August 28, 11% Sep 4, 12% Sep 11 and 18.

Steady there, so that one does not explain it.

Liberal Democrat support for McCain - 6% Aug 21, 6% Aug 28, 4% Sep 4 and 11, 5% Sep 18.

It's only a point, but again we see McCain's numbers in this group went up.

So, put it all together, and in the past week Obama has stayed steady or lost support in every party identification group, yet Gallup says his overall support went up four points. And McCain stayed steady or went up in every party identification group, yet we are supposed to accept the claim that his overall support went down by four points? Anyone have an answer for how that is even possible?

Well, actually I do. There is one, and only one, possible way that such a thing can happen mathematically. And that way, is that Gallup made major changes to the political affiliation weighting from the last week to now. Gallup has significantly increased the proportional weight of Democrat response and reduced the weight of Republican response.

Anyway, going back to my earlier piece on party weighting, if we go back and look at the historical track record for the last ten years in terms of self-identified party affiliation from actual exit polls, we see a clear standard of weights; 38.4% Democrat, 35.8% Republican, 26.0% Independent. If we then work them out to fill the liberal/moderate/conservative slots used by Gallup, the following weights have historical validity and may be used as a constant for poll responses:

Liberal Democrat 9%
Moderate Democrat 16%
Conservative Democrat 13%
Independent 26%
Liberal/Moderate Republican 23%
Conservative Republican 13%

If we apply those weights to the poll response, here is what happens to the Gallup polling responses:

August 21: Obama 39.94%, McCain 43.43%, Undecided 16.63%
August 28: Obama 40.04%, McCain 43.60%, Undecided 16.36%
September 4: Obama 41.06%, McCain 41.77%, Undecided 17.17%
September 11: Obama 42.04%, McCain 42.45%, Undecided 15.51%
September 18: Obama 39.62%, McCain 45.71%, Undecided 14.67%

 The article (which I've provided a link to above) is far longer and more explanatory.  I recommend that you read it.  But this analysis can go a long way toward explaining why Gallup's daily tracking poll a) is running in direct opposition to its own internals and b) seems to be increasingly far afield of most other major polls.

Let's you and me keep a close eye on this.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!