Federal Review Dot Com

THE COALITION OF THE WILD-EYED
The Bush campaign has a new ad on its website, entitled Pessimism, showing Al Gore, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, Michael Moore and John Kerry saying mean things about the President, including MoveOn.org video comparing Bush to Hitler. The video begins saying that these are the faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party, followed by the anti-Bush images and John Kerry's soaring rhetoric ("Today, George Bush will lay off your camel, tax your shovel, kick your ass and tell you 'there is no promised land'."). The ad ends: "This is not a time for pessimism and rage...It's time for optimism, steady leadership, and progress." I agree with the message and am glad to see someone on the right learned the cheap grainy video trick that Michael Moore uses to the delight of the Cannes glitterati. And I get it. Bush is optimistic, like Reagan. He's not shaking with rage like those raving maniacs in the ad (although Kerry actually comes off as the most stable of them all).

But I don't think that this ad will be effective in showing people how addled and desperate the hate Bush crowd is. It could backfire as the short attention span set only gets the messages that Bush is Hitler and a "miserable failure". And face it, it's the short attention span that makes swing voters what they are - unprincipled folks who vote on image and personality instead of policy and philosophy.

Fortunately, it appears, though, most of the wishy washy undecideds won't be seeing it. The campaign calls it a "web video", so you won't be seeing it during Scarborough Country or Last Comic Standing. I guess it's there for fundraising among the faithful.

BALLANTINE FOR GOVERNOR
Here's a good reason. Cobey and Vinroot are starting to snipe at each other, proving once again why a solidly conservative state like North Carolina has such a hard time electing a Republican governor.

IS A TREND DEVELOPING?
Bush 48.39% - 281| Kerry 46.92% - 257
June 22, 2004

In explaining this analysis, I've said a number of times that the numbers aren't intended to say specifically that if the election were held today, Bush would win Ohio by 0.07% of the vote. Sure, I hope the numbers approximate the actual results when I do my last analysis on the Monday before the election. But I think the real value of this work is to show trends. That's also a benefit of the other sites analyzing the electorate and trying to gauge the direction of poll movement.

At the bottom of the page is a comparison of the electoral vote margins predicted by a number of different sites. It seems apparent that during May, the trend was in Kerry's favor. And based on the news in May, that makes some sense. But in June, the focus shifted off of Iraq momentarily to Ronald Reagan and then back to Iraq which suddenly had a new President and Prime Minister, and the primary face of Iraqi opposition, Moqtada al Sadr, was shutting down much of the violence of his movement.
Falujah calmed down and the enemies of America in Iraq continued to show their barbarism and that they deserved to be treated as harshly as possible. As a result, the trend seems to be turning back in Bush's favor.

During the past week, Harris released a poll showing Bush ahead by 10 among likely voters, and that poll naturally effects this week's composite average. But it looked like the rare poll that must have fallen outside the margin of error. So, we'll see in next week's poll whether this apparent pro-Bush trend holds up. Early indications are that it might, as a FoxNews poll has been released (after the June 22nd date of this analysis), showing Bush leading by 7 among likely voters.

This week's results include the results of polls in 10 states, most notably Florida (Bush +7), New Jersey (Kerry +6) and North Carolina (Bush +5).

One more thing. I've received complaints that I shouldn't be showing two digits past the decimal, because this suggests that I'm representing these digits as significant figures. I don't think that at all. But I am calculating an electoral vote each week, allocating all 538 electoral votes in order to identify trends developing - no matter how small. Thus, if I only reported whole integers, I'd report some states as being tied, yet I'd be allocating their electoral votes per my analysis. So, I'll show that, in Ohio this week, it really is tied, but because my formulae give me a 0.07 margin in Bush's favor, I'm calling the state for Bush.
But you are reading it right when you say, "Not so fast, Ohio is tied." Just remember, I'm trying to show trends, that's why you'll find the graphs below.

This Week’s Polls
Harris (Bush 51 | Kerry 41)
Investor's Business Daily / CSM / TIPP (Bush 44 | Kerry 41)
ABC / Washington Post (Bush 44 | Kerry 48)
Pew Research (Bush 46 | Kerry 42)
Rasmussen Week Average (Bush 45.9 | Kerry 45.7)
Iowa Electronic Market (Bush 51.0 | Kerry 46.5)

Last Week’s Polls
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics (Bush 42 | Kerry 42)
Investor's Business Daily / CSM / TIPP (Bush 43 | Kerry 40)
AP/Ipsos (Bush 46 | Kerry 45)
LA Times (Bush 42 | Kerry 48)
Rasmussen Week Average (Bush 45.9 | Kerry 45.1)
Iowa Electronic Market (Bush 50.1 | Kerry 47.3)

Bush State Gains
New Mexico
Ohio

Kerry State Gains
None

Toss Ups (slight lead of less than 2%)
New Hampshire (Kerry)
New Mexico (Bush)
Ohio (Bush)
Oregon (Bush)
Pennsylvania (Kerry)
West Virginia (Kerry)
Wisconsin (Kerry) *NEW*

For the rest of the data, maps and graphs, see the Composite Poll page.

WORLD ECONOMY TO GO TO HELL IF KERRY ELECTED
That's basically what Joel Stern of Stern Stewart is telling the Australians. I think its a little ridiculous to make such broad statements, especially when he operates on some potentially faulty assumptions, to wit: (a) a President Kerry will be effective in passing laws consistent with his campaign pronouncements and (b) Kerry actually believes and intends to enact the policies he is advocating.

COMPOSITE POLL UPDATE
Is late. I'll try to get the June 22 numbers and graphics up tonight. Unless there's something good on TV or I decide to play Knights of the Old Republic.

In the meantime, I have updated the graphic at the top of this page with the June 22 numbers, to give you an idea of what's coming.

IRAQ AND AL QAEDA TIES
I'm still annoyed about the inability of reporters to be honest in their reporting and in the distillation of their reporting, the headline. Remember how the press headlined and teased the story that the 9/11 Commission said there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That was a lie. The report at issue said there was no "collaborative" relationship on 9/11, which is quite different from the BS headlines. Also, the Commission didn't say anything at all. It's staff wrote a report to the Commission members reviewing the staff's impression of things. Whatever, the left is all jazzed over this interview:

Transcript, CNBC’s “Capital Report,” June 17, 2004
Gloria Borger: “Well, let’s get to Mohammed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was quote, “pretty well confirmed.”

Vice President Cheney: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not.

Then in a fit of excitement and self-satisfaction, they add the following

Transcript, NBC’s “Meet the Press,” December 9, 2001.
Vice-President Cheney: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in the Czech Republic last April.”

That's a great way to avoid the issue, by finding a statement from 2 1/2 years before and yelling "LIAR". Its more difficult to argue that the existence of a relationship between Iraq - a nation state - and al Qaeda - an organization with no purpose other than terrorism - somehow makes Iraq an innocent in the grand jihad. Since al Qaeda has only one purpose, I suspect their relationship wasn't concerned with prescription drug benefits for the Nation of Al Qaeda.

Funny thing is, of all the silly left wing sites that use this exact argument, no one picks up the transcript earlier so that we can know what the antecedent to "it" is in Gloria's opening question. The antecedent may very well be "the Praque meeting between Atta and Iraqi officals in the Czech Republic". Or it may not have been. It's funny that Gloria would just be getting to Mohammed Atta if that was the antecedent to "it." But I don't find it evidence of being a liar that you don't remember during one interview exactly what you said in another one 2 1/2 years ago - and even deny it. Asked now, Cheney would probably say that at the time he thought it was pretty well confirmed. The Czech's still believe it, even if the 9/11 Commission's staffers don't.

CLINTON'S 96 ECONOMY REDUX
Polls show that most people are misinformed about the state of the economy, thinking it is in bad shape. Don't know who's to blame, but most people get their news from ABC than from any other source (and CBS and NBC). Kinda reminds me of that poll that said that Fox News viewers held incorrect views about the War on Terror™, and then blamed their misunderstanding on Fox News. Anyway, Senator Zell Miller (D-GA), drew a comparison between today's economy and to the economy that got Clinton reelected in 1996:

Back then, the average monthly number of new jobs in 1996 was 233,000. Today it is 238,000. Back then, six months out before the election, the unemployment rate in 1996 was 5.6 percent. Today it is the same, 5.6 percent. During the first six months of 1996, 60 percent of new jobs paid higher than the average. Today, again, 60 percent of new jobs pay higher than the national average.

Now there are other parallels, but there are also some figures today that are even better. In 1996, six months out before the election, 65.1% of Americans owned their own home. Today an historic 68.8% of Americans own their own home, including, by the way, for the first time ever a majority of minorities.

The one striking difference between these years, 1996 and 2004, are the challenges that this President has had to overcome. Most economists agree that in 1992, Bill Clinton inherited a growing economy. In 2001, President Bush took on an economy that was headed into recession, a high tech bubble that burst, and terrorist attacks that struck at the heart of our economy.

In the face of these challenges, the President's strong and steady leadership has helped our economy grow for ten straight quarters, and today our economy is growing at the fastest rate it's grown in 20 years.

Now we hear a lot of pessimism from John Kerry about the economy when he's out on the campaign trail. While he praises the Clinton economy, he also compares our current economy to the Great Depression. Folks, I lived during the Great Depression, and this ain't it. This kind of rhetoric from Senator Kerry is disconnected with the reality of where we are. It is disconnected on what we have been through, and it also does a great disservice to the American people.

Sure, Zell Miller appears more like a Republican than a Democrat these days, especially since he supports Bush for reelection, but, as Foghorn Leghorn used to say, "Figures don't lie."