The Washington Post included a question in their latest federal polling asking Virginians if they prefered a Democrat or Republican governor in 2009:

Of registered voters, 48 percent prefer a Democratic governor vs. 31 percent who want a Republican.

According to the survey, a generic Democratic gubernatorial nominee starts the year with the same coalition of support that led to the election as governor of Mark R. Warner (D) in 2001 and Timothy M. Kaine (D) in 2005.

The survey, which shows voters in Northern Virginia favoring Democrats by 57 percent to 25 percent, sets the stage for another hard-fought political contest in the Old Dominion next year.

There are a lot of reasons to not worry about this poll.  Starters, it’d be interesting to see the split of D/R ID in the poll.  Second is that turnout for statewide compared to federal is nowhere near even.  In a routinely horrible year for Republicans on a federal level you will certainly see a more favorable outlook toward a Democratic governor than Republican, but when it comes to the actual race that trend will mellow out.

Interesting that the WaPo snuck this question in there, though.

I attended Regent University’s Clash of the Titans debate, and despite the great debate with Rick Santorum (who is a Virginian), Mike Huckabee, Steve Forbes, and lefties Alan Colmes and Donna Brazile, it was Geraldine Ferraro I got a kick out of, not because of anything she said, but of my youthful memories of this interview (at about 1:24 of the video)

For those not keeping up on their viral video, a couple of new ones have been making the rounds in the last couple days. But hey, it’s just more liberal, communist, hollywood types endorsing Obama, right?

The unbiased purveyors of their own speech don’t seem to have the same rules for other people’s speech.

The Virginian-Pilot turned down an ad proposal by the National Rifle Association, because (this is hysterically funny) the newspaper doesn’t want to look like biased. Isn’t that a scream?

The NRA wants to advertise on bags that wrap the home-delivered newspaper. Of course, inside the wrapper, the newspaper is filled with attacks on Sarah Palin, endorsements of Democrats, and kudos for the savior of the universe and master of all that is good and liberal, Barack Obama.

But suddenly, accepting an NRA ad on the wrapper would make people think the Virginian-Pilot is secretly a subsidiary of FoxNews?

Only to people who don’t read it, I guess, which will probably be a growing number.

Politico has an interesting article up in which it notes the findings of recent Pew study showing the media coverage of McCain over the last six weeks or so was mostly negative. Obama’s coverage on the other hand was slightly positive in total. They also analyze the coverage of the VP candidates, noting Biden’s coverage was almost as poor as McCain’s.

While they do tie much of the coverage of McCain to his own actions, the study makes an interesting connection between the results of the many opinion polls and the media coverage, noticing a corresponding relationship. The question is though, did the polls influence the coverage, or did the coverage influence the polls?

For those of you still under a rock…perhaps “30 Rock”…here’s the opening:

Blacks are voting for Obama because of his positions on the issues, right? Yea, right.

After hearing this clip, you’ll know why majority-minority precincts vote Democrat 90-10. How sad.

 

 Sal from the Howard Stern Show in Harlem: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1625)

Courtesy of bpmdeejays.com

A wide ranging collection of individuals has put together a petition to Senators McCain and Obama requesting a change to the format of the final debate. The group is calling itself the Open Debate Coalition. Their requests including allowing for more moderator discretion in followups and full footage release. Also, interestingly enough, is a request to come up with a better alternative to the current Commission on Presidential Debates to handle future debates. The membership is pretty diverse, as a couple of the individuals below demonstrate.

Lawrence Lessig; Professor, Stanford Law School, Founder, Center for Internet and Society

Eli Pariser; Executive Director, MoveOn.org Political Action

Mike Krempasky; Founder, RedState.com

Markos Moulitsas; Founder, DailyKos.com

Roger L. Simon, CEO, Pajamas Media

Excerpts from an AP article on Sarah Palin:

“Palin, recharged after last week’s debate, is animating the party’s conservative wing with harsh attacks against Obama.”

“She’s still the carefully handled national politics greenhorn.”

“She brushes off some of her criticism as if it were lint on her jacket.”

So much for reporting facts and not opinion.

I was contemplating titling this post “Why you don’t need a Ph.D. in order to be a pundit”, but I’ll just let the excerpts below do the commentary for me.

Here’s Dr. Larry Sabato’s post-debate analysis from CNN:

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, also said [Palin] helped herself Thursday night.

“Expectations were very low for Palin, and she exceeded them,” Sabato said. “She didn’t win, but she didn’t lose. People tuned in to see a car crash, and there wasn’t one — on either side.”
….
“This debate will be forgotten by next week,” Sabato said. “As usual, the VP candidates won’t matter much in the final result. The status quo (that favors Obama since he’s ahead) has been preserved.”

Here’s my analysis from BEFORE the debate:

There is only one reason we’re all watching tonight, right? It’s for the train wreck.

We’re either hopeful Joe Biden pulls a “Joe Biden” that even Joe Biden would be proud of. In other words — we’re looking for the gaffe of the century.

Or, we’re wondering whether Sarah Palin’s mastery of Stare Decisis equates to other policy measures.

Or, we’re contemplating if Gwen Ifill, in the middle of the debate, responds to a Biden rebuttal with an emphatic “Yes we can!”

Somehow, despite my fingers being crossed, I suspect we will see none of the above.

Ergo, tonight won’t matter. As it hasn’t for any vice presidential debate in more than forty years.

I’ll be over at Shad Plank tonight participating in a live blog using “Cover-It Live” during the VP debate. So, between there and here, there should be some interesting thoughts about this absolutely meaningless meeting of the minds in Missouri.

Glenn Reynolds posts an e-mail he received from inside a media newsroom:

Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working.

Feel free to share your thoughts and examples in the comments.

 Loading ...

Darke Blog (one of my favorite Ohio Blogs) has a very interesting post in which he demonstrates how ABC is deleting conservative comments.

After I posted this comment, I noticed another commenter included the same link as me. I went back to look at the reactions to both comments - and one at a time - they were both pulled from the comments. My original comment was time-stamped 7:42:49 PM - and as you can see below there is no remaining comment for that time. It was removed.

You MUST read this post.

A quick look around the web at poll results for who won last night’s Presidential Debate:

Chicago Tribune
John McCain: 17.1% (4,193)
Barack Obama: 82.9% (20,266)

Drudge Report
John McCain: 68% (209,141)
Barack Obama: 30% (92,124)

Michigan
John McCain: 27% (11217)
Barack Obama: 72% (30326)

MSNBC
John McCain: 15.5% (14,494)
Barack Obama: 79.6% (74,532)

Rocky Mountain News
John McCain: 10% (917)
Barack Obama: 88% (7,779)

Total Results From The Five:
John McCain: 51.6% (239,962)
Barack Obama: 48.4% (225,027)

All results as of 11:45am EST

 Loading ...

UPDATE: I’m sorry I didn’t include the poll from the classy folks over at DailyKos:

Even with their numbers included John McCain still wins the aggregate.

Wall Street Journal’s numbers:
John McCain: 40.3% (28,757)
Barack Obama: 55.8% (39,839)

And there are plenty more out there.  Ultimately, we’re seeing a pretty even split (though one can argue the numbers are falsely skewed toward Obama due to Netroots vs. Rightroots organization) but most polls online and off are saying the debate was a draw.

That doesn’t bode well for John McCain.  Foreign policy is supposed to be his strong suit and he was supposed to come out on top.  But if public preception is that Obama held his own, then that’s a win for Barack Obama.

UPDATE 2: Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic notes that no polls are giving McCain the edge after the debate except one in Washington State and Drudge’s poll.

Well, at least they inaccurately characterize the conservative perception.

The headline of Charles Babbington’s report on the state of negotiations of the bailout plan reads:

“A bad day for the GOP on politics, bailout plan”

How so?

He tries, in the article, to explain that it’s House Republicans, and, to a certain extent, John McCain who are standing in the way of a final agreement.

House Republicans have proposed an alternative.

Instead of the government buying the distressed securities, the new plan would have banks, financial firms and other investors that hold such loans pay the Treasury to insure them. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., a chief sponsor, said it was clear that Bush’s plan “was not going to pass the House.”

But Democrats said the same was true of the conservatives’ plan. It calls for tax cuts and insurance provisions the majority party will not accept, they said.

According to one observer, McCain, during negotiations at the White House yesterday said: ‘I support the principles that House Republicans are fighting for.’

So, explain to me how this is “bad” for McCain and the GOP?

That they are fighting for a smart solution to the issue? That they are not looking to government to handout billions upon billions of dollars to irresponsible lenders? That they are not trying to pump a huge giveaway into a broken system that Democrats caused in the first place?

This is not “bad” for Republicans. In fact, Republicans are finally doing what we conservatives have been waiting for: fighting for us.

They have stood up for American interests since this summer and now the party is revitalized.

They challenged Pelosi on energy, and now we will finally have offshore drilling.

They unequivocally stated that our national defense is our first priority, and we have a national defense authorization.

And now they are proposing an alternative financial plan, grounded in solid, foundational economic principles in order to protect taxpayers and revitalize the economy.

That’s not “bad”. In fact, it’s very, very good.