A McCain Democrat's Journal (through September 7)

American Sentinel (current)

I plan to have archives of both sites available on this Web site in the future.

USE THE INTERACTIVE ELECTORAL MAP TO TEST YOUR OWN PROJECTIONS

Colorado: 9 Electoral Votes. Polling results for Colorado are mixed; the three polls included in the Real Clear Politics average have Obama ahead by only four-tenths of a point, although McCain has a small lead in two of the polls. The “undecideds” in Colorado are about 9%, only slightly below national average. A five-point swing is enough to put Colorado in McCain’s electoral college column.

Florida: 27 Electoral Votes. The three most recent of the five polls included in the Real Clear Politics average favor McCain by margins of +3, +4, and +6. Undecided voters are comparatively lower in Florida (about 7%-8%), although still above expectations based on past elections. In an “if the election were held tomorrow” scenario, a swing of only two points puts McCain above the polling margin of error.

Indiana: 11 Electoral Votes. As of August 14, polling data on Indiana is scarce; RCP lists no Indiana polls taken since June.  The average of the older polls is Obama by half a point.  On the weak available data, I assume that a five-point swing would keep Indiana in the Red States.

Iowa: 7 Electoral Votes. While polling data is sparse in Iowa, the most recent Rasmussen survey showed a strong gain for McCain, from -10 to -5, with an "undecided" figure (before leaners are allocated) of 13 points.  The RCP average is Obama +5.7 as of August 15, but this counts a poll from April and a good case could be made that the better gauge us the average of more recent polls at Obama +4.5.  Due to lack of sufficient current polls, I have to leave Iowa in Obama's total for the time being, but if the trend continues, Iowa will be in play for John McCain.

Michigan: 17 Electoral Votes. The four Michigan polls reported by RCP all show an Obama lead, with an average of +3.2 points.  Using the un-”leaned” Rasmussen numbers, the polls report an average “undecided” factor of about 13%, which is slightly above the current national average.  Michigan is one of the places where I would expect to see a Bradley-Wilder Effect if the vote were taken tomorrow. A five-point swing is a realistic possibility and would be enough to put Michigan in McCain’s electoral college totals.

Minnesota: 10 Electoral Votes. Whoa!  Minnesota, the bluest of the Blue States, has changed from an Obama stronghold in June to a closely-contested battleground state in August.  The Real Clear Politics average as of August 15 is Obama +3.2, within the polling margin of error.  Using the un-"leaned" Rasmussen figures indicates an "undecided" figure of about 12-13 per cent, somewhat above the current national average and high by historic standards.  While I do not expect to see a large Bradley-Wilder Effect here, there is more than enough room for a 5-point swing, which would put Minnesota in McCain's total.

Missouri: 11 Electoral Votes. The four polls on today’s RCP Missouri list put McCain in the lead by an average of 2.3 points.  The average “undecided” factor is about 9 points, slightly below the national average.  McCain needs only a three-point swing to put Missouri outside the polling margin of error and into his electoral college count.

Nevada: 5 Electoral Votes. RCP does not publish an average for Nevada, as most of the polling data comes from a series of Rasmussen polls.  If they are averaged, the polls show a small McCain lead.  The un-”leaned” Rasmussen results and the Mason-Dixon poll consistently indicate an “undecided” factor of about 13 per cent.  A swing of 5 points would put McCain safely above the polling margin of error.

New Hampshire: 4 Electoral Votes. Ironically, New Hampshire, famous for making or breaking Presidential primary candidates, could be the difference in the 2008 electoral college.  Polling data is sparse; currently the RCP average has Obama +1.4, with a significant “undecided” factor of about 12%.  There is plenty of room for a 5-point swing, which would put New Hampshire in the McCain total.

New Mexico: 5 Electoral Votes. RCP does not publish an average for New Mexico, as most of the polling data comes from a series of Rasmussen polls.  If they are averaged, the polls show an Obama lead of almost 6 points.  The un-”leaned” Rasmussen results consistently indicate an “undecided” factor of about 13 per cent.  A swing of 5 points would leave Obama with a slim lead in New Mexico.

North Carolina: 15 Electoral Votes. Obama has never led in a North Carolina poll. The RCP average of McCain +3.5 is based on four polls taken from mid-July to August 11. Analysis of those polls indicates an “undecided” factor of 10%, about the same as the national average. As in Virginia, if the election were held tomorrow, the majority of those voters would likely move to McCain; a five-point “swing” in North Carolina is a realistic scenario, and a “swing” of only two points puts McCain above the polling margin of error.

Ohio: 20 Electoral Votes. The four Ohio polls reported by RCP have a wide range of results, with an average Obama lead of one-half point.  Using the un-”leaned” Rasmussen numbers, the polls report an average “undecided” factor of more than 10%.  A five-point swing is a realistic scenario and would be enough to put Ohio in McCain’s electoral college totals.

Pennsylvania: 21 Electoral Votes. The four polls in today’s RCP average all show Obama ahead and indicate a +6.8-point lead, which is above the margin for error. Analysis of the polls indicates an “undecided” factor of 11%, in line with national trends. A five-point swing would leave Pennsylvania in Obama’s column. The Bradley-Wilder Effect makes a larger swing a possibility, but for now, Pennsylvania remains pro-Obama.

Virginia: 13 Electoral Votes. As of August 14, the three polls reported on Real Clear Politics for the month of August had the candidates tied in one poll and McCain ahead by one in the other two. This is a turnaround from June, when three polls taken after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination all showed Obama ahead by 1 or 2 points. When the un-”leaned” Rasmussen figures are used, the average of “undecided” voters in the three August polls is 10 per cent. If the election were held tomorrow, the majority of those voters would likely move to McCain; a five-point “swing” in Virginia is a realistic scenario.

The overall electoral vote results in these “battleground” states, assuming a net 5-point swing in McCain’s favor, is 143 for McCain and 33 for Obama. As of this writing, the Real Clear Politics electoral map has McCain with 163 electoral votes; adding 143 electoral votes results in a total of 306 for McCain, 36 more than are needed to win.

Note:  The links to the Real Clear Politics site should update as more polls are added.  You can check back later and then send me comments about what a genius and/or chucklehead I am.

Note also:  I have not considered at this point the possible impact of third-party candidates.  Many poll respondents use third-party candidates as a means of casting a “protest” vote in summer polls; these comparisons will be more meaningful in the Fall, when a lot may have changed anyway.  The current average of RCP Four-Way Race polls has Obama +3.8 (lower than the head-to-head matchups) with neither Nader nor Barr having a strong showing.  The only state matchup I found which included a third-party candidate was Georgia, Bob Barr’s home state, where McCain retains a substantial lead and Barr runs a very distant third.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why McCain Wins If The Election Is Tomorrow

Polljunkie, August 6: New Polls Confirm Obama Has Problems

Polls: McCain, Obama In Close Race; Trends Are Against Obama

JOIN US! Visit American Sentinel

Sign the petitions:

American Solutions: . . . . . . . . . . The Lexington Project (loads slow):

Just when we thought that the memory of the North Carolina Republican Party video attacking Michelle Obama was fading, the Washington State GOP made the same mistake and released a similar attack vid.  What part of "stupid mistake" do these folks misunderstand?

The new ad was condemned by both Barack Obama and John McCain, and rightly so.  This is NOT something that goes over well in middle-America, Main Street America, and politically moderate America - - which is where I live, where I work, and how I think, so I'm not guessing here.

Okay, listen up.  Here is what such ads accomplish:

1.  They give credence to the accusations that there is a Republican Attack Machine.

2.  They permit the opposing side  to spread charges of "Swiftboating" when any negative information is thereafter disseminated.

3.  They burn up money which could be put to better use.

4.  They appear to many moderates, independents, and other potentially allies to be rude and pointless.

Now, here is what such ads DON'T accomplish:

1.  They DON'T change the minds of persons who support Barack Obama.

2.  They DON'T win votes from the political center.

3.  They DON'T get positive press coverage.

So here's the math:  no new votes, but maybe you lose a few.  STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!

Naturally there are times when criticism of Michelle Obama is warranted.  If she goes back out on the campaign trail and says something inflammatory or negative, then of course a response is warranted.  The response should be polite and to the point.  What is NOT WARRANTED is re-doing the "proud" remark over and over and over.  It simply makes the organization which sponsors the ad look petty and mean-spirited.  Michelle Obama is not running for President, so subjecting her to such treatment is a bad tactic.  And I don't want to hear the nonsense about how she's "running for first lady" and so on.  That doesn't matter.

The only article I have posted previously that mentions Michelle Obama, Obama's Campaign of Smoke and Mirrors, did not attack Michelle Obama but instead focused on the reactions of Barack Obama and his campaign to the first round of "proud" criticism.   In my humble opinion, that was as much as needed to be said, and I assert that analyzing matters that way is more effective than trying to 'demonize' Mrs. Obama.

* * *

If you like this article, please vote for it at RealClearPolitics.com!

JOIN US! Visit American Sentinel

Sign the petitions:

American Solutions: . . . . . . . . . . The Lexington Project (loads slow):

As the price of energy climbs, the concerns of many American families have progressed from “Can we afford to go on vacation this summer?” to “Can we afford to heat our house this coming winter?”  For too many, the answer to both questions is likely to be “no.”

What do you heat with . . . electricity?  Natural gas?  Heating oil?  In any case, be prepared for a financial shock.  Home heating oil in particular will be costly; it is the same petroleum product as diesel fuel, which already is far ahead on the price surge.  In the winter of 2002-2003, the price of home heating oil in my area was $1.05 per gallon; this winter we will be lucky if it holds at the predicted price of $5.25 per gallon.  This is a five-fold increase.  A family with a modest house, using 700 gallons of heating oil per winter, will see its fuel bill soar to almost $4,000.00.  If the price rockets to $7.00 or better, as some predict, the cost will approach $5,000.00.  At that level you can expect working-class families, and a few middle-class families as well, to max out a credit card to keep warm.  Or be cold.

The economic collapse from unreliable, costly energy supplies may be slow, but it already has begun.  We can expect to see travel and tourism-related business laying off employees by mid-July.  Price-cutting to keep customers has begun already - - Biltmore House in Asheville, N.C., is offering price breaks; I am getting offer after offer, by snail mail and e-mail, from Orlando and San Antonio and similar travel destinations.  Here are more signs of things to come:

- - In Virginia, the Governor and the General Assembly are engaged in a running battle about how to increase road funding.  The need to maintain existing roads is a problem because of the increased cost of asphalt.  In current state and local budgets, there is enough money to perform about half of the roadway maintenance deemed essential.  In the Virginia Backcountry where I live, there is talk of letting some roads go from asphalt to gravel.

- - American Electric Power has applied to the Virginia regulatory authorities for a rate increase of about 23 per cent.  The call has gone out hither and yon to oppose the rate hike, but without increased revenue, AEP may not be able to buy enough fuel to generate at full capacity, so in all likelihood, there will be a substantial increase.

- - In the county where I live, the school board is confounded by the need to re-budget in order to buy fuel for its school buses.  The budget developed over the past term was based on $4.00-per-gallon diesel; the price is well above that already.  The current budget was also based on re-worked routes and on the elimination of much extra-curricular travel, such as transporting the school bands to “away” football games.  There’s virtually nothing left to cut.

- - In the North Carolina Piedmont, the famous communities of potters in the Seagrove and Sanford areas are looking on hard times.  These artisans are largely dependent on customers who travel by car; that traffic was down last year with $3.00 gas and this year it is likely to be worse.  There are more than 90 studios in the Seagrove area alone, most of them family operations.  Many of these potters fire their wares with propane.  They are traveling to more shows, but customers may not be plentiful there, either.

I could come up with many more examples, but these few demonstrate the depth and breadth of the problem.

Make no mistake about it: the problem is supply and demand.  Foreign producers couldn’t hold us up for price hikes if the supply were sufficient.  Terror attacks in Nigeria wouldn’t send prices jumping higher if we had an adequate domestic supply.  Oil companies wouldn’t be making nearly as much profit if they were competing to sell a good supply of products.  Speculators would not be betting on higher prices in the face of adequate supplies.  All of these things which we find convenient to blame are secondary aspects of the real problem: not enough supply to satisfy the demand.

While I certainly support and encourage conservation and alternate forms of energy, neither of these efforts will be enough if we do not have supplies of electricity and petroleum products which are reliable, stable, secure, and tolerably if not reasonably priced.  Research and development for alternate fuels and renewable energy technologies will suffer if our economy goes into free-fall; electric cars will be useless if we haven’t enough electricity to power them.

The Obamacrat plan to reduce dependency on foreign oil by half in the next 22 years is the prelude to two related disasters.  One is the national security disaster that results from buying too much petroleum from foreign countries; the other is the economic disaster that will result from an insufficient energy supply, regardless of source.

There are things we can begin to do now to avoid both of these disasters:

- - Drill for oil in this country - - there is a lot here, and Congress is standing squarely in the way of drilling.

- - Expedite the issuance of permits for coal-fired power plants using best-available clean coal technologies. 

- - Starting now, plan to build nuclear-fueled power plants on an expedited basis.

The Democrats have a litany of objections to these measures.  As noted already, they squawk that the oil companies should be forced to drill on barren leases.  Speak of coal-fired power plants and the answer is “polar bears!”  The mention of nuclear power induces responses that border on outright superstition and the demand that such plants be built only with a total guarantee that no single particle of radioactive material will escape into the environment, ever.

Such objections are ridiculous.  Will the polar bears be better off in a world where we can’t compete economically but dirty power plants can be built in India, China, Russia, and elsewhere?  France has a large nuclear power industry; are the French all dying of radiation exposure?  In both cases, I think not. 

As to the imbecilic claims that drilling now and starting now to build more, better power plants won’t get us out of the energy mess for a few years - - well, first, that looks pretty good compared to a plan which will get us halfway there in 22 years.  More importantly, a commitment to developing domestic sources of petroleum and building modern power plants will restore confidence in the future of our economy.  As it stands now, both the foreign oil producers - - especially those with hostile, nut-case leaders like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - - and the speculators as well, are counting on a Democratic win.  They’re betting on it, hoping for it, hungering for it, because it will put them in a commanding position.  They know that alternate fuels and renewable energy cannot fill the gap.

One of my friends recently commented, “you’re beginning to sound like an alarmist.”  I replied, “Thank you!  You’re starting to catch on!”  This situation should be alarming to every American citizen.  We are on the brink of an energy crisis which threatens our national security and promises economic collapse.  Meanwhile, our Democratic leaders in Congress and their probable candidate for President are low on gas, speeding, and asleep at the wheel.

Related posts:

Obama's Energy Plan: Changeless, Hopeless, Clueless

In Obamamerica, There Won't Be A Middle Class

The Price of Gas: Pelosi Fixes The Blame

Recommended posts:

Obama, The Corn Fake and ADM

Obama World: The Government, Not American Ingenuity, Will Solve The Gas Crisis

McCain's Energy Independence

Yes We Can - - Drill Our Way Out

JOIN US!  Visit American Sentinel 

Sign the petitions:

American Solutions:                       The Lexington Project (loads slow):

There are two sources of soldiers which have been over-represented in the American military for many years: those identifying as minorities (black, Hispanic, and native American)  and those from rural areas. The tradition of military service is particularly strong in the South, Midwest, and Great Plains states - - an area with a large block of "Red States," and also the area with a tradition of Scotch-Irish settlement. 

So the "Baby Alex" video, like the ad slandering Gen. Petraeus, offers an insight into the attitudes of the Moveon.org-style left.  These folks are irrationally anti-military, often opposing the location of military recruitment offices in or near their communities and complaining constantly about American "warmongering."  Of course, when there's an emergency that affects them, they'll expect the National Guard to be on the spot - - not that any of their children will be wearing the uniform, mind you.

Thank goodness, there are enough African Americans, Native Americans, Redneck Americans and Hispanic Americans willing to volunteer - - it is a volunteer military, nitwit AlexMom - -  so that we can field a military force to protect us all, including the privileged affluent who can't be relied on to do anything but complain.

Barack Obama has announced that his energy policy will cut our imports of foreign oil in half by 2030.  Truly, the man is clueless.  Twenty-two years??? We don't have that kind of time.

Obama espouses the changeless energy policy which the Democratic Party has followed for the past 30 years:  alternate fuels, conservation, and bashing big oil.  I have my own list of criticisms of the petroleum industry, but let's be realistic about this: these are business corporations; they exist for the purpose of making a profit for their stockholders.  Attacking the oil companies for doing what they are designed to do is like cursing salmon because they swim upstream to spawn.  It permits Congresspersons an opportunity to posture and spew for the news media but accomplishes nothing.

In my family, we are all for conservation and we've done our part year after year.  We have energy-star stuff wherever I look.  I have always owned fuel-efficient vehicles.  We have recycled a small mountain of newspapers, bottles, cans, plastics, and aluminum (I started with newspaper drives in Cub Scouts 50 years ago). We have the energy-efficient light bulbs.  But there is only so much more we can do, and I suspect the same is true for most American families.

Alternate fuels aren't ready to take up the slack.  Corn ethanol has problems, not the least of which is disruption in the supply of corn.  Renewable energy sources are beginning to come on line, but they are nowhere near enough to fill the gap.  The Department of Energy projects that renewable energy will supply 12.6 per cent of electricity generation by 2030.  That is simply not enough.

 The only answer is to increase the domestic supply of petroleum and increase the use of coal and nuclear energy for generation of electricity.  The response of most Democrats has been to make disingenuous arguments, such as the squawks about compelling oil companies to drill on existing leases where the geologists have found no oil, and to blame George Bush for this problem, which he manifestly did not create.  It seems as if all sins are to be blamed on Bush - - if you point out to a Democrat that his shoelace is untied, he shouts, "Bush!"  I didn't vote for W. either time, folks, but I believe that criticisms must be fair and credit should be given where it is due. 

A short while ago, I directed the following series of questions to my Democratic Party friends:

- - What Democratic Party initiatives to support drilling of Rocky Mountain oil shale have the Republicans blocked?

- - What Democratic proposals to increase domestic refinery capacity have the Republicans thwarted?

- - Which Democratic-sponsored legislation to permit offshore drilling have the Republicans deep-sixed?

- - What Democratic Party movement to support drilling in ANWR has been suppressed by the Republican Party?

- - Which Democratic proposals to build clean-coal power plants have the Republicans resisted?

- -  What Democratic program to encourage and enable the construction of nuclear power plants has been killed by the Republican Party?

To date, the only answers I get are: none, none, none, none, none, and none. 

The Obama energy plan offers no change and no hope.  What we need is a plan which will restore confidence in our energy supply, too much of which is now in the hands of crazy people who hate us.  We don't necessarily need a plan which will cut the price, although that would be nice; we need stability and reliability.  Newt Gingrich's "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" initiative will provide that.  We can live with $3.00 gas; we can live with $4.00 gas; we can't live with the uncertainty of a foreign energy supply, and we can't live with $10.00 gas in the near term. 

Related posts: 

The Price of Gas: Pelosi Fixes The Blame

In Obamamerica, There Won't Be A Middle Class

Hiding The Truth, Internet Style - - And A Conservative Response

 Barack Obama Is The Dr. No of Energy Security

JOIN US!  Visit American Sentinel 

Sign the petitions:

American Solutions:                       The Lexington Project (loads slow):

The United States Supreme Court today released its landmark opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case - - the full text of the slip opinion is available here.  This case is important for two reasons:  First, it establishes for the first time that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of individual citizens to own firearms; and Second, the close 5-4 vote re-emphasizes the importance of the 2008 Presidential election to the future of this and other cases involving Constitutional rights.

 The majority opinion was written by my favorite Supreme Court Justice, Antonin "Nino" Scalia.  Among other things, Scalia is one of the best writers ever to don the high court robes.  His prose is clear, concise, and precise, and you don't have to be a lawyer to read and understand him.  While the majority opinion in Heller is long, at 67 pages, it is so well written that I do not hesitate to recommend that everyone who is interested in this issue read it for himself or herself.  The dissenting opinion is 90 pages long and is not so easy to read.

In addition, Scalia demonstrates, as always, an excellent grasp of history and the historical context of the Constitution and its amendments.  This kind of understanding is essential to a proper understanding of Constitutional (and other) law.  You cannot really understand the American Constitution until you understand American history and the history of the Constitution and its amendments.

As encouraging as the Heller decision is, we must be mindful that it was a close decision.  Therein lies the importance of the 2008 Presidential election.  This is the very simple truth of the matter:

- - If John McCain is elected President, then he will nominate more justices like Antonin Scalia when the opportunity arises.

- - If Barack Obama is elected President, then he will nominate more justices like Stevens and Ginsburg.

The contrast could not be more clear; the choice could not be more important.  Remember, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life.  A bad choice may linger on the Court for decades after the President who made the choice is out of office.  When we have justices who ignore their obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, we get such unprincipled decisions as Roe v. Wade, and the social conflict which such decisions engender.

After every losing election in recent times (1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and esepcially 2004), the Democratic powers that be chant the same refrain:  "Those dirty Republicans attacked us!  Befuddled the issues! Swiftboat us!  They confused the voters and we didn't get our message out!"

This is actually not true, at least for the great majority of voters.  The problem was that Carter and Mondale and Dukakis and Gore and Kerry DID get the message out, and it was not a message that carried the day.  Most American voters are opposed to such things as abortion, gay marriage, weakening the military, and so on, and when it becomes clear to them where the candidates really stand on the issues, they vote for someone else.  Obama and company have been making hay by obscuring the Democratic Party message with slogans, soundbites, and "third-term-for-Bush" nonsense.

So here's what we do:  tie down the real Democratic Party message (no hyperbole, no exaggeration; the real thing which we can support with references and sources) and make sure it gets out.  James Dobson, the evangelical-movement leader who is not one of my favorite persons, evidently came to this realization, albeit tardily.  So what if we can't all get news guys in to video what we have to say?  Every little bit helps; do what you can do.

Here's one thing I do:  every chance I get, I hang around a place where I will be sure to run into friends and acquaintances, such as the post office during lunchtime, and engage them in a discussion about the Demoratic program.  Once it hit on something that resonates, such as energy policy (big issue out here in coal country), I bring up John McCain as the better alternative.  I'm getting about one convert per week, for the last seven weeks; and while that may not seem like a lot, there are quite a few weeks to go before the first Tuesday in November and if each of us makes 16 or 17 converts between now and then, we can win this thing with room to spare.

It doesn't matter where you do it or how, although person-to-person contact is always best; phones are maybe next best - - just do it.  Make sure your information is accurate, be prepared and sincere, and help the Democrats get their message out! 

As a middle-class American, I consider my support for John McCain to be survival-oriented on several levels.  First and foremost is national security; closest to home is the question of whether the "middle class" in America can survive in Obamamerica.  There is no question that it - - we, I should say, since that is where I am - - will survive under a President John McCain; I have substantial doubts that we will see the same result under Obama and the Democratic left.

What is the "middle class?"  The left wing of the Democratic Party seems to believe that salaried folks who pay taxes on $100K to $250k a year are the "middle class."  Sometimes the lower limit is $50k.  While many of these folks may be aligned with the "middle class," in the greater sense of the term, the American middle class is the merchants and professionals, shopkeepers, property owners, and entrepreneurs generally classed as "small business."  This "small business" is a big deal in the U.S.A. - - it is in fact the backbone of our economy, producing most of the jobs, generating innovations and inventions, finding ways to increase productivity, and now and then spawning a "big business," like Microsoft or Starbucks. 

Why will the middle class suffer under Obama's policies?  First of all, the thousand-dollar tax break bribe is keyed to salaried folks, not to small businesses.   Anyone who is a small business owner sees the real cost of taxation - - it is substantial, even if you exclude the time and expense of keeping up with the paperwork.  Those matching "contributions" for employee withholding for social security and Medicare don't come from a money tree; they come out of the profits of the business.  "Profit," of course, is a dirty word for the left, so we'll get no sympathy there.

Even worse than the taxes is the Draconian energy policy we are promised in Obamamerica.  When our customers or clients have less money, it is impossible to increase prices to make up for the hundreds of cost increases due to higher energy prices.  Our employees are squeezed the same way - - their cost of commuting to work is up, as is everything they buy for their families.  Walmart can afford, in the short run, to hold down prices on all the brummagem stuff it imports from China; Main Street shopkeepers can't.  

Every time a small business goes down, families go down with it.  Main Street shopkeepers pay better than places like Walmart - - even with both spouses working at Walmart/Starbucks/McDonalds and the like, the family's standard of living will nosedive.  

Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts have clearly decided that we all have to be forced away from fossil fuels and into alternatives and increased conservation.  But we have been working on conservation for thirty-plus years and there is only so much more conserving we can do in the near future.  In my houshold, we have energy-star appliances from top to bottom - refigerator, air conditioner, dishwasher, clothes washer, clothes drier, water heater, light bulbs.  What do we buy next - - an energy-efficient family dog?  Our place of business is likewise as energy-efficient as it can be - - insulated, heated and cooled with a modern EE HVAC, and so on.  Solar panels?  Not practical here and too expensive.

So we have to find some way to live with the price of everything going up due to higher oil prices.  But do we have to live at the mercy of speculators and foreign tyrants who control our oil supply?  The real key to surviving this problem is STABILITY in energy prices.  Under John McCain, we would see measures such as increased domestic production that at least stabilize the situation, probably bring the price down a bit, and permit us time to adjust and survive economically.  What Barack Obama promises is intolerable uncertainty, forced-march use of expensive corn-based ethanol (a major Obama lobbying commitment, by the way), unstable energy prices, and questionable supply - - look at the nut-case leaders of Venezuela and Iran if you want a peek at our future.

JOIN US!  Visit American Sentinel 

Sign the petitions:

American Solutions:                       The Lexington Project (loads slow):

Looking at the polls tracked on RealClearPolitics, I note the following: 

DATE          POLL                            OBAMA       MCCAIN     OBAMA LEAD

June 18    Reuters/Zogby            47                        42                    +5 

June 19    IPSOS                                50                        43                    +7

June 19    FOX News                        45                        41                    +4 

June 21   USA Today/Gallup      50                        44                     +6

June 21    Newsweek                        51                        36                    +15

June 22    Rasmussen Tracking    49                        42                    +7

June 22    Gallup Tracking              46                        44                    +2

 The Gallup Tracking results have been fairly stable for days, and the Gallup organization so reported on its Web site.  Rasmussen's chart similarly shows very little variation recently.  So, with six other polling organizations reporting an Obama lead in the range of +2 to +7, averaging +5, Newsweek comes out with a fifteen-point Obama lead.  This report has been dutifully "analyzed" by the pro-Obama press, including MSNBC, of course. 

On the one hand, I am not uncomfortable with John McCain's position in the race at this time.  He's the underdog and that is the position from which he runs his strongest race.  (Ask Mitt Romney!) On the other hand, I majored in political science, studied polling techniques, and took part in taking opinion-poll surveys, so I know something about this; and I am puzzled, to say the least, that the Newsweek numbers are so far out of the range of random error that something seems to be wrong.

If anyone has a better explanation, I'd be glad to hear it; but it looks to me like this is bad methodology or home cooking.