John Sidney McCain III: Out of Money

To paraphrase a certain former Secretary of Defense: "You go through the last two weeks of the election with the ad buys you have, not the ones you might want."

Who would have thought the Republican nominee for President would be flat broke going into the homestretch of the Presidential campaign? But, according to the Associated Press, John Sidney McCain III is just that.

The AP is reporting that according to his campaign's pre-general election report (which runs until October 15th) that after his outstanding debts McCain only has around $24 million left in the bank. Furthermore, through their rather conservative projections they estimate that as of this writing that number is now closer to $12 million (no word on Obama's current cash on hand take yet, but it's expected to be exponentially higher). No wonder he's trimming and even drastically cutting ad buys across the board in states he must win. The decision to take public financing, even his former aides such as Bob Shrum admit, ruined John Kerry's chances in 2004 (their decision to take public financing made them unable to counter the Swift Boat attacks); and they seem to have put a real damper of John Sidney McCain's chances as well.

Keep in mind that McCain is still relying heavily on RNC ad money to keep him visible on the air, but he still is in a tough situation financially speaking, as those ads are not subject to the same discounts from TV stations as candidate ads are. Also, look for the RNC to divert money to key Senate and House races in the coming days.

No wonder McCain's top aides are already quite literally updating their resumes.

Make sure Barack Obama and Senate Democrats have the funds they need to make it through election day.

AP to Neutrality and Logic: Drop Dead

The Associated Press has been a disgrace to journalism lately under the direction of their DC bureau chief Ron Fournier, who just last year was in serious talks with John McCain’s campaign as a paid advisor; and they are at it again.

Yesterday, the AP released another on a long line of many hit pieces on Senator Obama. This one proclaims that despite for all of Obama’s talk about expanding the electoral map, he is quickly adopting the “Win Ohio” strategy that John Kerry’s ill-fated campaign adopted in 2004. Their “evidence” for this is that Obama in his post-convention tour visited such traditional battlegrounds such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Quite obviously, this is proof that he has given up on all other states his campaign has targeted.

Let’s look at (and refute) some of the more dubious claims on the piece:

"Despite early optimism, Obama's strategists are mapping out an electoral plan similar to Democrat John Kerry's from 2004…. But don't look for the Democratic presidential nominee in, say, undeniably GOP Idaho.”

This is probably true…I do not expect to see Obama make a play in Idaho, however no one serious ever claimed he would. This is a state that George Bush (only Wyoming and Utah were more favorable to the GOP in 2004) won by nearly forty points. In other news, John Sidney McCain III isn't making a play in Vermont. Gasp!

"Obama has long looked for a way to win the White House without the 20 electoral votes of Ohio, the prototypical swing state. His top aides, including his campaign manager, once said they could lose the state and still win the election by picking off states that typically support Republicans. No more."

Really now? While Obama is still, as he always has, focusing a great deal of attention on Ohio, it is hardly his “be all and end all” of his electoral strategy. Let’s just consider this for a moment:

Michigan and New Hampshire are the only two Kerry states that McCain is even in striking distance, and in both states Obama is polling narrowly, but consistently, ahead of McCain. The Kerry states puts him at 252 electoral votes, and he now has a double digit lead in Iowa and a high single digit lead in New Mexico which would bring him to 264 electoral votes. Now Obama is not guaranteed to win the aforementioned four states, but he is clearly favored. 538’s regression model (not to mention essentially every poll) has him winning Michigan and New Hampshire by 3-4%; as well as Iowa and New Mexico by 7-9%. If these numbers hold, Obama is already at 264 electoral votes.

So where does that leave John Sidney McCain III? He would have to win states where he has a slight, though unclear polling advantages such as Missouri, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Montana, and North Dakota; all of which except the last two possess enough electoral votes to put Obama over 270, should he win.

Of course, there are also states like Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado where the race is essentially a deadheat (though 538’s regression gives Obama a very slight advantage in all three); that Obama can rely on to win. Even Nevada which, again, is a basic dead heat (though 538’s regression gives a very slight advantage for McCain as of this writing) would bring it in a 269-269 tie (Even if Obama loses all of the other states that I mentioned), which would probably result in his victory. While this area is murky and without a lot of precedent, most analysis confirms that Obama would likely prevail in a 269-269 tie, due to the Democratic advantage in Congress (See all of 538's regressions based on historical data and polling models here).

Needless to say, Senator Obama has plenty of electoral scenarios that don’t go through the Buckeye State. Maybe they should write a story on how Michigan is essentially a must-win for McCain (unless he wants to roll the dice and hope he runs the table among the other swing states).

Maybe the AP will consider being thoughtful and fair for once. But I'm not holding my breath.

The State of the Race and Dispelling Media Myths

With the Democratic National Convention set to kick off in Denver, polls are being released galore to provide a baseline before the most condensed and eventful two weeks in recent political history commences. One poll that caught my attention today was the Washington Post/ABC News poll that was conducted late last week, it provides many details on a host of questions and shows that much of the media narrative is non-sense.

Let’s first get down to the pure brass tacks of the poll, which I consider one of the more reputable ones out there, mainly because they’re more transparent about their methodology and release detailed information broken down by demographic.

Obama leads McCain 48-42% in a four way contest (With Nader and Barr) among likely voters, which is basically where the race has been, sans some minor ebbs in both directions, for months. Despite the much talked about negative (and allegedly, effective) attacks by John Sidney McCain III, Obama still sports a 62-34% favorable rating (McCain’s is a robust 59-37% as well). In comparison, at this point in 2004, John Kerry’s favorable rating was only in the +10% range and never did exceed a 55% favorable rating…while Obama, after a much more bruising primary, is flirting with 2:1 territory and one that is extraordinary stable.

Let’s talk about some other myths that this poll puts to rest:

Obama isn’t connecting on the economy

He leads McCain on the economy by a 50-39% margin.

McCain is killing Obama on the drilling issue!

Obama leads 49-42% on Energy issues.

Additionally, Obama is keeping McCain’s advantage among terrorism to a mere 52-38% margin, is tied with him with Iraq and taxes; and sports a double digit lead in social issues.

Here’s another myth:

Obama is underperforming the usual Democratic strength among whites, women, and Hispanics.

While John Kerry lost whites by a 41-58% margin (From 1992-2004, the Democratic nominee ranged from 39-42% of the white vote), Obama only trails McCain 49-43% among whites; and that’s with a decent amount of undecideds and at least a fraction of those will break for Obama. Obama leads among women 55-37% over performing John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton’s margin among females, sometimes by significant margins.

Of course, married women are a real weakness for Obama, right? All those angry Hillary supporters will harm his candidacy fatally, no? He leads 48-44, a group that voted for Bush by 11 points four years ago.

Well then, naturally whites making less than 50K are a weakness for Obama? Well he leads by a 49-40% margin, where Kerry lost this group by 7 points.
As for Hispanics, he overperforms Kerry by a significant margin as well, leading 61-27% among the group that Kerry only got 57% with. A particular strong showing against a Southwestern Senator from a border state, who is a moderate on immigration.

Obama has even made significant strides among traditionally Republican voters. While George Bush won White Evangelicals by a 78-21% margin, Obama has cut the GOP advantage to a 65-27% margin; a near twenty point swing. He is also polling double what John Kerry did among self-described Republicans. While he still faces insurmountable deficits among those groups, in a close election those are significant number of votes gained.

While I know the storyline of working class white Americans and other groups that Obama underperformed with in the primary not supporting a black candidate is intriguing, it just isn’t based in the data.

While, it is still a tight race, it is a static one and one that still favors Senator Obama. This race has potential to be fluid soon though, with two conventions in the next ten days. But for now, the media coverage is fundamentally not honest. No wonder, since the media is in the tank for John Sidney McCain III. And why wouldn’t they be? He cooks BBQ for them at his retirement estate in Sedona, AZ.

But let’s be honest about the state of the race.

Media Bias: It's not what you think

The next time someone tells you the media favor Barack Obama, you have my permission to threaten them with the ol' backhand.  

The popular myth that the media outlets favor Democrats just isn't true.  A recent study conducted by The Center for Media and Public Affairs found that coverage for Obama was significantly more negative (72%) than for McCain (57%).  So, it's been Obama, not McCain, who's been getting smacked around by the press.

Equally as eye catching is that Obama is getting far more coverage than McCain, albeit more negative.  McCain has been the invisible Republican nominee, but when he is in the news, the coverage is far more positive for him than for Obama.

There's also been a noticeable and surprising double standard this year.  Take for instance a story that popped up a few weeks ago regarding Cindy McCain and her unpaid property taxes.  To be fair to Mrs. McCain, the delinquent bill doesn't appear to be her fault.  But what if Barack Obama had been late on his taxes?  Or for that matter, what if Jeremiah Wright owed $6,000 in back taxes?  If you answered, "The press would have ridiculed Obama and associated him with criminals who refuse to pay taxes," you would win the prize.

Or what if Obama...

...repeatedly mentioned a country that hasn't existed in nearly 20 years?

...claimed Iran was training Al Qaidea in Iraq?

... described Social Security as an "absolute disgrace?"

...told a so-called joke about a woman being raped by a gorilla? 

...said he didn't know how to use a computer?

Obama would be hung on a cross and be subjected to relentless ridicule.  We can expect such bias from the state-run media (aka Fox News), but why are real news organizations presenting such slanted coverage of Senator Obama? 

Why?  The obvious answer is not a pretty one.  It's all about the money.  If they can portray this campaign as a real horse race, the media get much more air time for their egotistical talking heads, and of course they'll make big bucks at the same time on the advertising.  There, I said it. It's all about money and ego.  Real shocker, right?