COURIC: Sarah Palin kept up her busy schedule today, meeting with several world leaders who are here in New York for the UN session. But she took time out for an exclusive interview, in which we discussed the state of the economy at length. We began, though, by addressing reports that the lobbying firm of Senator McCain's campaign manager received payments from Freddie Mac until last month. I asked for her reaction to that.
PALIN: My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I was--I would hope that's not the case.
COURIC: But he still has a stake in the company so isn't that a conflict of interest.
PALIN: Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there. And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've been on a more local level been on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made.
The far-right GOPers - the Pences and Bunnings who have been among the biggest bailout critics in GOP circules - have an alternate proposal...
This proposal is to eliminate entirely the capital gains tax.
Apparently, no one told them YOU DON'T PAY CAPITAL GAINS UNLESS YOU HAVE.... you know CAPITAL GAINS - meaning it this does nothing to address the toxic shitpile of credit default swap based securities that are driving this collapse.
I agree with Jerome that R2000's turnout model seems to be "unlikely."
While I can agree that they have gone out a limb with a more heavily D-weighted, latino-vote (and minority general) tilted turnout model, I'm not so sure I'd call that model "unlikely".
First of all, the "white share" of the vote declined by 4% from 2000 to 2004 and I see no reason why that percentage wouldn't continue to fall in 2008. Latino's made up 8% of the vote in 2004 - R2K pegs that at 13% this year... Growth in the Latino share of the vote has NOT increased linearly. 13% looks a little high - but no more than a point or 2.
Second of all, contrary to what has been erroneously commented several times -- AAs lag behind whites both in percent of registered among voting age AND among voters as a percent of population.... In fact, we have not seen "turbo-charged" AA turnout... the gap has closes from cycle to cycle, but not at a prodigious pace, and certainly not to the extent that the AA community "turns out" better than white America.
Finally, if you don't like the R2K weightings, it's a pretty simple to re-weight to a +5 D (or whatever) result... if you fiddle with the demographic percentage, you would get some MOE float, but in general -- this would just mean R2K more or less agrees with Gallup.... meaning, their results aren't an outlier - their topline just looks different because of the way they weight.
But the problem was that he over-extrapolated and cherry-picked his sample.
Nate's response correctly points out that if one looks at the entire breadth of states on the map, you can also find areas where Obama might be expected to win the undecideds handily, based on where he out-performed polling.
I haven't gotten through Sean's response back to Nate because frankly, it was short substance and long on the immature flaming GOPers are famous for.
Not that I trust ARG at all, but if the WV numbers are anything close to being in the ballpark (where the ballpark is +/- 6-8 pts), then we might well be seeing an undercurrent of traditional Dems coming home from the culture wars because they just can't afford them anymore.