FLOHPA!!! Bitches!!!

Yesterday the PPP Poll looked at Ohio and put Obama up significantly. Today, McClatchy reports Quinnipiac University has OH! Bama up in Ohio too, but not by as much, but he's also leading in Florida which all the punditry says he'll have trouble winning, and up by 12 points in Pennsylvania, where they're "clinging" to the hope that Yes! They! Can! believe in change.

You can't stop the Obamafication of the nation (or all the dumb things we're going to do to his name over the better part of the next decade). My advice to all you conservative dead-enders out there -- just pretend it's consensual sex and relax, enjoy it.

OH!!! Bama

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

A new Public Policy Polling survey(pdf) finds Sen. Barack Obama begins the general election in Ohio with a double digit lead over John McCain, 50% to 39%.

Fully half -- not a mere plurality -- and double digits!

This is a huge change from more recent polls that showed the narrowest of margins in Obama's favor.

Yesterday much was made over the offhand comments the despicable Ape Pee highlighted (and of course are available elsewhere from more responsible and less rapacious news outlets) that Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe told doners, "the Illinois senator can still become America’s first black president even if he loses the two key battleground states of Florida and Ohio."

While the Lizard Brains take this to mean Obama is conceding the states Bush stole in the last two elections, if reported fairly and read correctly, the campaign is saying that these big swing states "will not be considered must wins by themselves, but only part of a conprehensive plan to compete in more states."

It's called the 50 State Strategy -- you might have heard of it.

Meanwhile, from the watch what they do, not what they say Department: "Obama Beefing up Florida Efforts, Padding Out Staff." They're also doing some serious community organizer training here in Ohio, where unlike Florida where he didn't campaign, he has an organization in place.

Roper, meet dopes.


[Caveat on the PPP Poll. Inside the numbers, the poll skews heavily towards Democratic Party identification, 55%, 30% GOP. Even then however, Obama gets 10% of self-described Republicans. Worrisome is McCain capturing 17% of self-described Democrats. The good news is that Obama wins those who don't consider themselves part of either major party 45% to 32%. Any way you cut it, this is a major improvement from the last time PPP polled Ohio in March which indicated McCain winning Ohio by 8 points.]

I Got Yer Dream Ticket Right Here

Survey USA:

HT: Steve Soto

Timing? Peaking Perfectly? Edwards Polls 1st In Iowa!

Can ya gimme a WØØT!

At considerable risk of unjustified derision and rolling of eyeballs, my uncanny powers of political observation verge on the psychic -- cuz this is what I've been saying right along. The second choice matters a lot in the quirky Iowa caucus, especially where the "second tier" candidates are so strong, yet not quite viable. Edwards always was going to get the lion's share of them.

His structural advantage of having a loyal following who caucused for him last time upon which to build, while everyone else had to create an Iowa base was (IMO) underrated as well. Mind you, by that logic if Bill hadn't skipped Iowa back in the 90's, Hillary could have tapped that base and be absolutely untouchable. Bill's the reason she even has a shot, and the reason she's struggling -- again and again. Irony's a bitter pill.

The race among the three top Democrats is extremely close, with the potential for any of them to finish first – or third.

Edwards leads with 30 percent in a poll of Democratic voters who said they intend to participate in the Jan. 3 presidential caucuses, followed by Clinton with 26 percent and Obama with 24 percent. When the sample was narrowed to the most likely caucus-goers, based on several questions, Obama leads Edwards by less than a percentage point with 27 percent, with Clinton in third place at 24 percent.

Edwards holds a significant advantage, however, among a group who could be key to the first contest of the presidential year: those who say their first choice is someone other than the top three. Under Iowa Democratic Party rules, candidates who poll less than 15 percent in the first vote at each caucus around the state are eliminated, and their supporters get a second chance to vote for another candidate.

Under both screens, Edwards leads as the second choice of these voters, with Clinton trailing Obama.

“If Edwards is the second choice at this stage of those who intend to vote for other Democrats, then it would not be surprising if he produced a bit of a shock in Iowa,” said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery.

Towery said the firm employed the same methodology with regard to asking the second choice of those who were voting for candidates other than those in the top tier, and obtained an accurate picture of John Kerry’s lead.

The poll of 977 Democrats who said they will go to the caucuses, conducted Sunday and Monday has a error margin of plus-or-minus 3 percent. The tighter screen of 633 voters has an error margin of plus-or-minus 4 percent.

Hat Tip Political Wire.

By my math, there's between 22% and 30% of Iowa caucusers either undecided or backing someone who most likely won't get above the 15% viability threshold. That's a huge built-in margin of error the horse race Villagers never seem to understand.

Huck looks good on the other side, and even if he comes in a close second, the breathlessness of the Village Press about the popular "insurgency" of Huck and a "surprise upset victory" by Edwards will be more powerful than a $50 million ad buy.

Speaking of which, besides buying a blimp, just what is Ron Paul doing with all that cash he raised? I've only see one poll where Paul is doing well, and that poll's methodology is, shall we say, suspect? But so is buying a frickin' blimp.

Actually, I don't know which is more absurd, polling at 120% or the blimp thingy. You probably need 120% to win an election by and for the vote stealing Republican Party.

---

UPDATE: Todd Beeton points me inside the numbers.

Interestingly enough, being a political science major, I let others do the math. Make that between 22% and 20%, not 30% as I previously said.

Doh!

What's weirder when you look inside, is that as they screened out the likely caucusers from the highly likely caucusers, there were more folks who were undecided than in the broader sample.

	Highly Likely Voters	Likely Voters
Obama	26.6	24.3
Edwards	26.0	29.8
Clinton	23.8	26.4
Other	14	12.1
Undecided	9.5	7.4

I just don't see anyone actually trudging out in the cold who hasn't got a horse in the race. I know Iowans are a peculiar people who take this stuff very seriously and I guess there are a certain number who feel duty bound to show up even if they have no f-ing clue who they'll cast their lot with. I know it's statistically insignificant, but a weird trend.

But if you absolutely know you'll be going to the local meeting hall in a couple of weeks, don't you think you'd be paying a bit more attention and picked sides?

The Surge's Political Goal Poll (Moving)

Thursday Update: 1 US Sailor, 1 British Soldier, 46 Iraqis Killed; 47 Iraqis Wounded

Our blood and our treasure was never about them.

A year after approval of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq dipped to an all-time low, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds discontent toward the war easing slightly, with Republicans and independents significantly more positive about the situation than they were 12 months ago.

Baseline judgments about the war are unchanged -- six in 10 in the poll said the war is not worth fighting -- but the public is somewhat more upbeat about progress in Iraq. Optimism about the year ahead is also higher than it was a year ago.

Although a majority say the United States is not making significant gains toward restoring civil order in Iraq, the public's views are more positive than at this time last year. About four in 10 say the United States is making progress, an increase of 10 percentage points over last year.

Looking ahead to the new year, the public is somewhat more hopeful about the situation in Iraq. Forty-six percent said they are optimistic about the situation in Iraq in 2008, six points higher than in December 2006.

Okay, maybe I'm just too damn negative about all this killing in the name of peace, but I'm not alone.

Democrats remain overwhelmingly negative about the situation on the ground now and in the year ahead.

Democrats are still largely disapproving of the decision to go to war, with 85 percent saying that, given the costs and benefits to the United States, the war is not worth fighting. More than six in 10 independents agree, whereas three-quarters of Republicans call the war worth the effort.

A sampling of the comments to this, "news" is telling. (Remember, when the Versailles Villagers on the Potomac are bored, and up against their editor's deadline to fill space, they do a poll to reinforce their preconceived notions.)

SouthStar wrote:

Is not optimism. It is RESIGNATION. ...

robertsgt401 wrote:

I got 1/3 thru the article. And gagged. I think I have a new understanding of being "poled"

weRnotFree wrote:

sounds like a drug addict or alcholic in denial...gee, this weekend i drank and didn't throw up!

Mair1 wrote:

I guess that, if you're not the one being shot at, it's easier to say yhat the war is 'worth the effort'.

PeterPrinciple wrote:

Jesus H. Christ, the Post will say ANYTHING to try to sell this turkey of a war -- and the Broderish delusion of a rebound for Commander Codpiece.

irratical wrote:

Iraq goes from being an unmitigated disaster to a slightly mitigated disaster, and this is the victory we were led to expect in 2003?

thecrisis wrote:

Why isn't this titled appropriately:
"fewer republicans hate bush than a few years ago" how does that sound?

Why are we still there again? What's the rationale this week? Wasn't it something about calming things down so the parties in interest could get some kind of political solution done? Lindsay Graham's deadline is fast approaching.

Graham first hinted at a 90-day clock in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee September 19. In his comments before that panel, he merely predicted the world would see progress by Baghdad in the next 90 days.

In his conversation with TIME, he held out a stick in the event that progress does not materialize. Said Graham: "We've won the day here politically, to give them the infrastructure they need to do this. It's been missing up until now. I am vocally saying it's up to [the Iraqis] to deliver. We've done our part."

Though he would not elaborate on what kind of plan he would push if the Iraqis fail to meet the deadline, Graham did say a change in strategy would be warranted. "If they can't do it by the end of the year," he said, "how do you justify a continued presence?"

So the Iraqis need to show some progress by ... Wednesday, if we hold Graham to his original statement, or New Years if we round up and give him the benefit of a Senator's sense of time.

So, how's that going Gomer?

By the way, is there any movement towards that referendum (pdf) they were supposed to have on who gets Kirkuk? Are they even going to have another "purple finger" day? Did the Carlyle group get it's Oil Law yet?

Probably not. At least not on the original timetable. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been any political movement whatsoever. At the risk of having my ACLU card canceled, here's a few pieces of optimistic news that the Villagers have said little or nothing about.

Over a week ago, the Sunnis ended their year-long boycott of the Iraqi government, a power-sharing move which promises to bring some political stability to the Northern areas of the country, and maybe that referendum will be late, but doable.

The U.N. plans to come back to Baghdad. That's a plus, but you'd never hear this as a positive development from a neocon.

Some refugees are returning, but a few thousand is a spit in the bucket and the U.N.H.C.R. is warning that the country isn't ready for a massive influx of of even a fraction of the country's 4.5 million ex-patriots.

Turkey cooled off it's threats to invade "Kurdistan" after signing a Counter-Terrorist Agreement with Iraq. Unfortunately this has as much to do with Turkey's desire to become a full-fledged member of the E.U. as any hope it might have that the Iraqi Government can live up to it's end of the bargain -- or that Turkey will put up with nonsense from the Peshmerga or the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) who don't give a hoot what anyone in Baghdad has to say.

In another sign at least the diplomatic corp of the Iraqi Government is awake, they're telling us (not the other way around) that our military commitment isn't open ended. Nice to see we're on the same page.

I have no idea why these stories are not being picked up by the Village's Town Criers, and they don't change my general attitude about the whole mess -- but they would move the opinion polls a great deal if they were more widely reported. It probably gives enough political cover to folks like Lindsay Graham to say we could afford to wait another Friedman Unit or two to see what happens. We can talk tough, keep the pressure on, but as long as nobody believes we will just up and leave, we really have little leverage on what they do or when the Iraqis can finally get their act together.

Hey, Why stop now? They keep pushing our withdrawal out long enough, no Democratic Congressman will have any credibility left whatsoever -- another "victory" for Bush.

Horribly Useless, Misleading Nevada Poll

MyDD :: New Nevada Poll:

The results, courtesy of KRNV in Reno:

	Total	Men	Women
Clinton	32	28	36
Obama	20	24	16
Edwards	11	9	13
Gore???	11	13	9
Richardson	2	3	1
Clark	2	3	1
Gravel	1	1	1
Kucinich	1	1	1
Dodd	1	1	1
Biden	1	1	1
Undecided	18	16	20

Where do you begin, Gore? The fact that they polled more Republicans than Democrats?
That there's no indication if any of the Democrats polled are likely to go to the caucuses?

How about the idea that since only about 5% of Democrats actually go to the Nevada Caucus, and only 40% of the 600 people sampled in the poll are actually Democrats, maybe, just maybe they got ahold of 12 people in the entire State of Nevada whose opinion really matters in this thing.

Ugh.

And yes, more women than men like John Edwards -- because he's a freaking stud! Not cuz he's "cute."