Archive for June, 2008

Midnight Blogging

Monday, June 30th, 2008

Out of the blue as this may sound, at 2:48 P.M. today my fiance had our baby, which fucking rocks. But it also means I’m sleeping on a makeshift bed in the hospital for the next couple of nights and that I’ll be awake at all hours for the foreseeable future. So if you see seemingly random posts being made at 3 in the morning…that’s just me passing the time.

Wesley Clark

Monday, June 30th, 2008

I really wanted to stay out of this overblown flap over what Gen. Wesley Clark said on Face the Nation yesterday, but I feel the need to jump into a response to this from Andrew.

Strictly speaking, it is irrelevant for the presidency if someone was shot down and tortured. It doesn’t make anyone a better potential president. But there are plenty of ways to put this and to frame this without descending to a default position that seems to devalue McCain’s service. Clark is a dreadful politician and his off-the-cuff response, while technically true, is terrible politics and about the last debate Democrats need or should want to have.

Whatever you think of the tact, or lack thereof, of Clark’s statement, this sentiment strikes me as being entirely wrong. Maybe Obama should stay away from such arguments, but Democrats in general, especially those with their own distinguished service records should not. Now granted, I could be somewhat biased for my general disdain with the irrepressible conflating of military service, at any level, “and foreign policy experience,” (which I fully intend to write about at length sometime this cycle), but I think that Democrats should tackle the idea that McCain’s military history is a dispositive bit of relative experience to the Presidency early and often. If for nothing else, ground should not be ceded to a McCain camp with few legs to stand on. There’s no way to tell what the dominant issue will be 2-3 weeks out of the election, so ceding fundamental ground on an issue that could very likely loom large like foreign policy is simply a bad idea. That’s not to say that Democrats should go the way of the Swift Boaters and fundamentally disparage the nature of McCain’s service in a disparaging manner, but in the context of whether or not being in combat gives one a particular experience that is overwhelmingly beneficial to later being President, Democrats should run military men out at any necessary turn to spar with McCain. I suppose if for no other reason than it’s fundamentally true, and on some level I guess I’d like for some truth to be spoken as opposed to ceding ground to outright inaccurate memes. As many people have pointed out, through the entirety of McCain’s military career, he was never responsible for crafting policy, never responsible to the large focus of the military apparatus as a whole (which probably explains his otherwise inexplicable willingness to delegate the role of Commande-in-chief and the broad US interest on the hole to the “commanders” who have the narrow focus of Iraq), to say nothing of being responsible for anything approaching the domestic role of the Presidency. The same goes for his Senate tenure.

And if nothing else, it’s never bad to expose the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP. After all, after embracing the Swift Boat attacks, how are they really going complain and be taken seriously?

Insulting the Heartland

Monday, June 30th, 2008

Isaac Chotiner kind of stumbles upon a real problem with American political dialect, from an entry on the Washington Post story about Findlay, Ohio and the Obama viral smears, Chotiner winds his way to this (Chotiner is speaking in broad terms, not directly, so this shouldn’t be taken as being directed at him):

What exactly is one to conclude from this article? When asking a question like this about a story straight out of the heartland, a few answers are immediately off-limits. Liberals–and particularly liberal journalists–are not allowed to hint that many of the people in Findlay do not appear to be particularly intelligent. In fact, even an allusion to intelligence just exposes the liberal reader as a typical big-city elitist.

And why the hell not? Maybe it’s because I’m from Ohio and know a lot of people from friendly that I don’t have a problem speaking harshly about it, but I don’t see why that should matter. If you can go from fretting about Obama’s “racist pastor” to wondering if he’s a Muslim seemlessly, you’re an idiot who probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote. I mean really, if you don’t possess the cognitive ability to figure out that both of those things cannot possibly be true at the same time, then I really don’t know what to say. Calling you stupid is probably giving you too much credit. And if you doubt the information from informed sources like the local newspaper because your neighbor Jim got a chain mail that said otherwise, again, you deserve to have your “intelligence” insulted.

The media shouldn’t play games with that or be mau-maued by political operatives looking to stoke public ignorance for their own electoral ends. Media being afraid to call ignorance and stupidity what it is only lends credit to the idiocy, and is arguably more condescending than calling a spade a spade anyway.

Fun With Quotes

Monday, June 30th, 2008

This just takes the cake. And to think Byron York was arguably the top panelist on This Week just yesterday.

Okay, I dropped what I was doing and called the Mark Twain Papers & Project at the University of California, Berkeley. Turns out Twain’s “The Czar’s Soliloquy” (1905) includes the line that ” ‘…the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.’ ”

When I searched Nexis for Obama’s version of the quote, that patriotism “is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it,” the citations I got seemed to stem from an anti-Iraq war documentary made by the left-wing filmmaker Robert Greenwald, in which a former CIA officer says, “Mark Twain’s definition of patriotism is — patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.”

I had to read that 3 times to even find the difference.

If you don’t read The Corner at NRO, you really should, it’s fun.

Jonesing for Wars

Monday, June 30th, 2008

All things considered, comments abot states like North Korea from people like John Bolton and the rah-rahing (however predictable) from Andy Mccarthy and, I assume, a lot of other Cornerites just borders on unsettling:

The only good news is that there is little opportunity for the Bush administration to make any further concessions in its waning days in office. But for many erstwhile administration supporters, this is a moment of genuine political poignancy. Nothing can erase the ineffable sadness of an American presidency, like this one, in total intellectual collapse.

The bottom line is pretty simple; they blew the cooling tower up. That means the nuclear plant doesn’t work. Bolton’s, and the Corner collective’s, problem seem to be that, first of all, they got something out of the deal and, secondly, we didn’t do the blowing up. Now I suppose that the first has some merit if you’re the kind of person who plays sports video games with that option to force trades turned on so you can pick up Kobe and Lebron for a couple of schmucks, but for those of us who understand how the world works, the idea that you have to give something to get something isn’t really that shocking. Especially considering that, in all likelihood, North Korea already has a nuclear weapon, which really limits your options, all things considered. But the cooling tower is no more, which means any hysterical outbursts about North Korea welching on a deal are just that, hysterical outbursts.

And, of course, the second part of that (wanting to be the ones to blow it up) is just totally insane. But I think we already knew that John Bolton was totally insane.

Veepstakes: Romney Edition

Monday, June 30th, 2008

Politico’s Mike Allen is reporting that Mitt Romney is the “top” choice for John McCain’s VP. This seems like one of the most likely picks to me (I’d still put my money on Pawlenty if I were so inclined), but it’s easily the worst pick McCain could make.

For starters, as Allen reports the main consideration is money, or more to the point Romney’s ability to raise lots of it. But in this respect I agree with Noam, Romney’s fundraising prowess doesn’t really make much of a difference with McCain in the public financing system. Now he could of course opt out of the system, but that creates a host of other problems. It could be spun, to be sure, but it would at least take one of a very limited number of angles of attack out of McCain’s arsenal, and time would have to be devoted to said spin. And of course there’s the nagging little detail that, despite any financial advantage, Romney lost the primary to the financial anemic John McCain, losing pretty much every contest of importance (New Hampshire, Florida, and California) where the 2 squared off directly in short order.

But more problematic than that would be the electoral implications. The simple fact of the matter is that evangelical voters hate Mitt Romney. Whether it was skepticism about his social conservative bona fides or no more complicated than anti-Mormon bigotry, either way the group that, arguably, makes up the most important aspect of the GOP’s electoral base (white evangelicals were 23% of the electorate in 2004 and went 80:20 for Bush) doesn’t like the guy, which is even more problematic when you consider they’re already, shall we say, unenthused about John McCain. Even if McCain doesn’t want to pander with a pick like Mike Huckabee or Mark Sanford, he probably shouldn’t go for someone that’s going to be downright antagonistic towards the religious right, especially with a good Southern boy with a Christianist track record like Bob Barr looming as an alternative for bible thumping voters.

Scalia’s Originalism

Monday, June 30th, 2008

I’ve never really understood anyone not firmly encased in the ideological right who could profess anything like admiration for Antonin Scalia. The man barely hides the fact that his aim is policy making and tilting the nation’s law to the extreme right in service of his own ideology, even if he tries to couch it in absurd on the face claims of history, text, and intent.

Without delving into the general absurdities of the whole notion of originalism and intentionalism, I’d like to quickly bring up this great article on Scalia over at TAP highlighting the sheer, blatant, and hardly hidden ease with which Scalia shifts his “judicial philosophy” in achieving the “right” vote.

Consider first the two opinions’ methodology. In the Guantánamo case, Scalia accuses his colleagues of having “blatantly misdescribe[d]” a key precedent and of having misread history. Yet in Heller, Justice Scalia simply discarded the key 1939 precedent of United States v. Miller, which rejected the individual rights theory of the Second Amendment in Heller. Worse, reminded by Justice Stevens of the literally “hundreds of judges” who had relied on Miller‘s holding, Scalia offered only a footnote mocking their “erroneous reliance.” Judicial precedent, in short, bites only when he wants it to.

The methodological heart of Heller, however, is Justice Scalia’s much vaunted theory of originalism: the idea that the Court reads the Constitution to mean precisely what its original audience, the ratifying citizens, would have understood it to mean. This has been a cornerstone of Justice Scalia’s tenure on the Court, and since the Meese era at the Justice Department, the rallying cry for conservatives seeking to rein in what they call judicial activism.

Yet Heller shows just how flawed (and activist) “originalism” in fact is. Having announced his originalist credentials, Justice Scalia then passes quickly over the ratification period in order to spend about a quarter of his opinion (15 of 67 pages) discussing the post-1800 understandings of the Second Amendment. As an “originalist” matter this is at best putting the constitutional cart before the ratifying horse since it’s hardly clear what people in the 1890s thought tells us anything about understandings at the time of the Founding. But then, as historian Jack Rakove has pointed out, the ratification history that an originalist would look to is not as favorable as the post-1800 texts Justice Scalia relies upon.

This is one of those glaring problems with originalist, or strict constructionist if you prefer, ideas. If you think “judicial activism” is courts being too reliant to make policy by ignoring the legislative works, you would think you might at least blush at the quickness to toss that aside if and when the “activism” favors your preconceived opinions. But then, that would require shame, and that’s a trait Justice “Get over it” was certainly not cursed with.

But even beyond that, the particulars of Scalia’s dueling opinions don’t even match up. Consider:

If there is a constitutional right to carry a gun, laws criminalizing weapons possession of various kinds, such as the federal law barring those convicted of a domestic violence from possessing a firearm, will be challenged. Perhaps criminal defendants will also rely on Heller‘s celebration of the “natural” right of self-defense to argue that states must give that a more ample right of self-defense than presently available. And while Justice Scalia’s opinion, in a brief aside, tried to wave back new challenges, his reasoning was scanty and unconvincing — and, more importantly, not binding as a matter of precedent.

But the greatest practical effect of Heller will be to disable crime-ridden urban centers from dealing with the plague of guns. Already, Chicago’s gun law has been challenged; San Francisco’s is next.

I’m not a big believer in the idea that strict gun control laws will have an enormous impact on crime, but I certainly suspect there must be a marginal effect, and when you consider Scalia’s shamefully partisan and crazed dissent in Boumediene, then the issue isn’t so much effects of policy, but intellectual consistency. Of course, there’s none to be seen, because what matters is that Scalia casts the vote that will effect the right-wing policy on a particular issue, how one gets there is secondary.

I’ve probably already wasted too much effort trying to ascribe a reasoned breakdown to a man who is simply a partisan sock puppet, so with that I’ll just leave it at this; Antonin Scalia is an embarrassment not just to the Supreme Court but to the country. And in a less partisan world, any judge who responded to extremely relevant decision on the magnitude of Bush vs. Gore with a flippant, “get over it,” would be tossed from the bench and disbarred.

Typical Politician

Sunday, June 29th, 2008

(Point of reference; this is not to be taken as objective analysis, this is personal opinion from the standpoint of an Obama supporter)

Much has been made of Obama’s recent political positionting. From the Supreme Court rulings on gun control and capital punishment, telecom immunity and FISA, and, of course, public financing. Some of it fair, some it not so fair, but it seems as though it’s dawning on a few people that Obama is, shock of shocks, a politician.

Now for starters, we’re going to cast aside the SCOTUS rulings (there’s no way to characterize the Heller response as anything but sloppy, and it turns out some support for extending the death penalty, right or wrong, isn’t new), leaving us with FISA and public financing. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about public financing, if for no other reason than I’m not a big backer of public financing. It’s a noble idea in theory that doesn’t really work in practice, at best. The bottom line is that it costs a lot of money to run for President, and trying to get people to agree to caps on spending isn’t going to change that, or be particularly persuassive in getting people into the system. Think of it this way; if you thought a working class family was spending too much of its income on cost of living items how would you respond? By trying to get them to agree to spend less money on food, gas, insurance, etc., or by trying to make these cost of living items cheaper? Obviously you’d go for the latter, because the former is infeasible. You have to eat, and if the cost of food goes up you have to devote more money to buying food, which means you have to get more money to keep your standard of living. The same thing goes for political campaigns. Ad time costs money, as do staffers, volunteer organizers, pollsters, and everything else you need to run a successful campaign. Trying to reduce the amount of money spent without addressing, or acknowledging, that necessary aspects of the political industry cost a lot of money is patently naive and inefficient. It’s also true that Obama’s fundraising machine is clearly within the spirit of the concept, especially considering McCain tried to game the system and is presently breaking his own law, but that’s rather immaterial to me. If you come up with something that lowers the need for money, we’ll talk. Until then, there’s about as much relevance to the question as asking me what I would do if the sun came up in the West next Tuesday.

Which brings me to what I’m really interested in at the moment; FISA. Now I should say that I understand the left’s response to the FISA bill. They wanted telecom immunity quashed, much talk was put into the issue, and then Democrats welched. It leaves a mark I know, but at the end of the day, liberals, would you really be willing to sacrifice the White House over immunity from civil lawsuits to telecom companies? And that, apparently, is a pretty important point, as the law does not exempt the telecoms from criminal investigation or prosecution, nor would it, presumably, exempt any Bush administration officials from such charges. Leaving the overall bill in limbo does, however provide an opening for the inevitable attack from Republicans that Democrats, especially the brown guy with the Middle Eastern sounding name that includes “Hussein” and rhymes with “Osama”, are soft on terrorists and simply won’t protect you from the hypotehtical terrorists who are out there somewhere ready to kill you while you eat a hot dog at a baseball game.

I guess what it boils down to is this; I’m voting for Barack Obama over John McCain, so I already implictly trust Obama to excercise the most responsible use of executive power. Considering that criminal prosecution is still open, and that, presumably, an Obama run Justice Department could investigate the past acts of any previous administration whenever it wanted to (they do keep records you know), when asked to weigh the risk-reward value of holding up a bill that, fundamentally, everyone agrees is a necessary defense measure to exclude a civil immunity measure just isn’t worth the potential political liability that it comes with. If he feels the left needs to be placated, Obama should make a hard pledge to vigorously investigate every order, directive, and action of the Bush administration, and to pursue legal action against members of the administration where appropriate. But, electorally, the simple fact of the matter is that the only way John McCain, or any Republican, can beat Barack Obama right now is to make him a scary figure to the American public at large, or to cement an idea that he won’t protect you and your kids from existential terroist threats. Obama doesn’t need to help them achieve that, so his stand on FISA, as it is, is probably the wisest one. Truth be told, I don’t want a President who reflexively goes to personal biases and ideological positions, without respect to the cost of that choice. If that’s the kind of President you want, one who makes his mind up before the facts are in, who doesn’t consider the consequences of a decision and what sort of adverse effects it can have, and who stubbornly holds onto that, just cut to the chase and write in George W. Bush in November.

And the left should take notice; if the right were to succeed in demonizing Obama as soft on security to the point that it took hold in the American psyche and John McCain won the election, there’d be a hell of a lot more, bigger, worries on the table than telecom immunity.

Jumping the Shark

Sunday, June 29th, 2008

So I’m watching This Week, and I catch the roundtable for about 45 seconds, and the lineup literally makes me want to vomit. Arianna Huffingtin, Katrina Vandenhueval, Byron York, and Hugh fucking Hewitt. Are you serious? That’s the best ABC can come up with? Arianna Huffington (why anyone takes her seriously…) and the most shameless right wing hack in talk radio? Byron York and Katrina Vandenhueval are the front line in that.

By the way, I don’t dislike Katrina that much, I just wish she could detach herself from her opinions in these roles and be more of an analyst. If I want to hear a bunch of people yelling over each other with ideological points I’ll turn on cab;e. I want to see people like Robert Reich, George Will, and Donna Brazille analyzing things when I watch “serious” news.

Thank You Captain Obvious

Sunday, June 29th, 2008

Matt:

Apparently Dick Cheney tried to scuttle the North Korea nuke deal because, it seems, he’s a crazy person.

It’s Sunday, it made me chuckle. Go with it.

Tapper Watch

Saturday, June 28th, 2008

Jake Tapper is still misrepresenting his own organization’s polling numbers. In this otherwise hacktastic post all about a single standout Clinton dead-ender at yesterday’s Unity rally, he one ups himself by going here:

According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 24% of Clinton’s supporters are thinking of supporting McCain in November, with Obama only winning 62% of them as of now.

Ok? Am I supposed to see something in that? First of all, it’s not unusual for a linering effect after a bitter primary. Secondly, it’s not that large of a number. It’s roughly equivalent to the share of evangelical voters John Kerry received in 2004. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say George W. Bush had an evangelical problem in 2004. And not to go bringing the poll into this, this is the poll I wrote about here, which is chock full of good news for Obama. From gaining substantial shares of the female and Hispanic votes to a concern about McCain’s age (39%, or more than 24% for Tapper, would be concerned about a President entering office at over 72 years of age), to a core finding that there was no evidence Obama was having substantial trouble in Clinton’s core demographics, the poll, if anything, shows the shoring up of the Democratic coalition and the general weakness of Republicans this cycle. But ABC and Jake Tapper have continually misrepresented the numbers to paint the picture of a tighter race than it really is at the moment, and now Tapper is using a meaningless single number to justify an amazingly absurd post about one semi-attached to reality person at an otherwise typical political rally.

The man really has no shame.  

Sam’s Club Politics

Saturday, June 28th, 2008

There has been much buzz around David Brooks’ latest column in the blogosphere, probably because he’s praising bloggers. The thrust of the article is praise for the new book Grand New Party, by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, which is really just an extension of their article “The Party of Sam’s Club.”

I haven’t read the book yet, but from everything I’ve gathered around the internets, the premise seems sound enough, even if I’ve heard it for a few years now. Not to take anything away from Douthat and Salam, but the idea that the Republican Party needs to ditch the contemporary laissez faire of “supply-side economics” (which is to say, lots and lots of tax cuts for their rich donors) in favor of a blend of social conservatism and New Deal-like economic populism has been around for at least a decade now. In fact, it’s been tried before. It’s how Tim Pawlenty, who Brooks cites for his column, positioned himself in left-leaning Minnesota, Mike Huckabee of course ran on such a premise is his Presidential run, to less success, and even John McCain tries to affect the sentiment every now and again, even if the fact that he doesn’t care for much more than military policy and hardline rhetoric towards other countries eventually drowns it out.

There’s really no zero-sum game to electoral politics. At the end of the day, the game is about building a coalition; how you do it doesn’t really much matter. Just because one thing works doesn’t mean nothing else will. And as I said, the general premise of a “Sam’s Club” Republican Party is sound enough in theory, but this inexplicable turn from Brooks I just don’t understand:

There have been other outstanding books on how the G.O.P. can rediscover its soul (like “Comeback” by David Frum), but if I could put one book on the desk of every Republican officeholder, “Grand New Party” would be it. You can discount my praise because of my friendship with the authors, but this is the best single roadmap of where the party should and is likely to head?

Really? Supply-side economics has been the one constant, insufferable dogma running through the Republican Party since Reagan. The reason is obvious from the outside of course; the GOP politicians, donors, power brokers, and various participants in the right-wing echo chamber make lots of money, and they’re basically trying to cut their own taxes. But the sweetest part, for them, is that through the echo chamber they’ve actually convinced scores of rank and file types that their self-serving fiscal policy is really a sound macroeconomic theory. And it’s entrenched in GOP orthodoxy. If toleration can be made for wavering on stem cells, foreign policy specifics, global warming, and even abortion in some cases, no such exception can be made for supply side orthodoxy. Not just in the establishment, but amongst the unwashed masses who have fallen for the canard that if Bill Gates saves a billion dollars on his tax bill next year, that money will come out of his own bank account and somehow wind up putting a lavish dinner on your table. You’d think someone who is deemed astute enough to right for a, supposed, prestigious puplication like the New York Times would know that.

There is a good deal of soundness to what Douthat and Salam propose. It would certainly play well amongst the evangelical right that unquestionably constitutes the party’s electoral base. The problem though, is precisely that supply-side “economic theory” is so heavily pressed upon the DNA of the rest of the party, elite and plebian alike. So in that regard, the authors are almost certainly tilting at windmills, as the GOP would most likely ride Reaganomics to its grave.

At least theyd save a buck.

Things You Can’t Make Up

Saturday, June 28th, 2008

The “Marriage Protection Act” (gay marriage ban) is back, and you’ll never guess who has decided to sign on as co-sponsors.

Larry Craig and David Vitter.

Proof that truth is stranger than fiction.

Weekly Polling Report

Friday, June 27th, 2008

We’re going to start a new institution here, in which I break down some of the numbers of the past week (it’ll probably happen every Friday or Saturday) and then put it all together for you in nice, easy to understand, macro-form.

Nationally this week, we’ve got 4 major polls to consider (I’m not going to waste my time with tracking polls); Franklin & Marshall, the LA Times-Bloomberg poll, Newsweek, and Time. Now the first thing to keep in mind is that, because of margin of error, there’s no point in paying attention to composite margins of “victory.” A 12% lead may seem like a lot bigger cushion than 4%, but if you account for a margin of error of, say, 3%, a 4% margin could be as high as 10% in reality. So because relatively small margins of error can still cause drastic changes in margins of victory, there’s absolutely no sense to looking at said margins. The important data is in the cross tabs, but on the meta-level, individual compositie scores can be used, so long as margins of error are factored and the data is aggregated with other sources of information.

For example, if we take these 4 polls each with margins of error of +/-3%, and compile both candidate’s composites accordingly, we can get a pretty good feel for where the race stands nationally this week. Obama scores, respectively, 51%, 42%, 49%, and 47%. McCain comes in at 36%, 36%, 37%, and 43%. So if we take a margin of error of 3% and factor that in, we’re left with this. For Obama:

Newsweek: 48-54%

F&M: 39%-45%

Times-Bloomberg: 46%-52%

Time: 44-50%

So if we aggregate that and look for overlaps, we see that 48%, 49%, and 50% would be withing our range in 3 of the 4 polls, meaning that we can pretty safely estimate Obama’s support at about 48-50% this week. Doing the same for McCain:

Newsweek: 33-39%

F&M: 33-39%

Times-Bloomberg: 34-40%

Time: 40-46%

So for McCain we’ve got slightly more agreement between polls, meaning we have a larger degree of overlap. We could reasonably expect McCain’s support to be anywhere from 34-39%, as all of them fall withing the overlap in at least 3 of the 4 polls.

So to sum it up, aggregating the relevant national data this week, we have:

Obama: 48-50%

McCain: 34-39%.

State Level

More important to campaigns though are state level polling data. This data is crucial to determining resource allocation and messaging as the effective battleground comes into focus, and by that account it was a damn good week for Obama. Quinipiac becomes one in a line of pollsters showing Obama with substantial leads in Minnesota and Wisconsin, putting the at the margins of any list of competitive states right now. This not only shrinks the playing field somewhat, letting Obama put more resources into states McCain will probably win but forcing McCain to spread out his defense, more importantly it takes states Kerry won off the table, meaning that a higher share of the year’s battlegrounds are states Bush won in 2004, where McCain has to play on his heels.

The Q poll, along with PPP, also give Obama somewhat cushioned leads in Michigan as well, which has to be comforting after rampant speculation that the Democratic primary’s Michigan issue, and Obama’s lack of campaigning there, would open the blue-tinted swing state to McCain.

SurveyUSA has 2 polls of consequence out this month, one in Ohio and the other in Missouri. For some reason Missouri is not really being polled. Believe it or not, this is the first poll of the state since the end of the Democratic primary. Nevertheless, McCain saw a slight jump since the last SUSA poll a month ago, re-enforcing the notion that, for whatevery reason, Missouri is trending away from Obama. In Ohio, SUSA essentially has a toss-up, with Obama holding a 2% edge. Again, it re-enforces pre-existing notions, that Ohio is a close toss-up state that can go any way right now.

SUSA also has a toss-up in Indiana, another state that’s not being polled.

And that’s your week in polling.

Gun Control

Friday, June 27th, 2008

It’s not really an issue I care about, mostly because I think it’s dominated mostly entirely by the two extreme angles of the debate and very few people are actually concerned with working solutions for crime policy and respecting rights, but Matt has a really good post on the matter that should be read and taken to heart.