Fox News just called NY-23 for Owens, meaning that a solid Republican congressional district has fallen into Democratic hands thanks to two candidates who serve as examples of what the GOP should not do. First there was Dede, a Democrat by any other name, who was not only socially liberal, but fiscally liberal as well. As readers know, I’m a pragmatist’s pragmatist, but even I could find very little difference between Dede and a run-of-the-mill Democrat. And not only was Dede a moderate-liberal, but she was a product of the establishment, supporting the bailouts that Americans now view as a giveaway to the robber barons. And the nomination of Dede by the GOP, of course, led to the Hoffman third-party challenge, which resulted in the only right-of-center candidate in the race being focused on the abstract, the theoretical, and the ideological instead of the actual problems facing the actual people of, you know, New York’s 23rd Congressional District.

What this shows is that neither running as Democrats-lite nor as talk-radio-style anarcho-conservatives will win the future for the GOP. What will yield a Republican comeback in 2010 and beyond is the McDonnell/Christie model, where Republican candidates ideologically appropriate for their states and districts run as pragmatic conservatives who are solutions-oriented and who are running to apply their conservatism to public problems. This is the type of Republicanism that can win, and it did win in purple Virginia and blue New Jersey. It did so by contrasting a GOP that was optimistic and problem-solving yet distinctly conservative with a corrupt, interest-group-friendly, tax-and-spend leftist establishment. This is the model that Republicans should emulate, not the Rockefeller-esque model of Dede nor the Palin/Beck model of Hoffman.

Tonight was a victory for many things. It was a victory for the Republican Party, a sorely needed win by a party that was left for dead just one year ago in the wake of a supposed national Democratic realignment. It was a victory for those who believe in divided government, who recognize the extremism and corruption inherent in one-party rule, and for good-government types who have enough of a sense of history to recall that the best government seems to emanate from bipartisan combinations like Reagan/Tip O’Neill, not Reagan/Bush, and from Clinton/Gingrich, not Clinton/Gore. But first and foremost, tonight was a victory for the anti-establishmentarian sentitment that is currently permeating the American political psyche — a sentiment which was present in full force just one year ago and that was misinterpreted then, and probably will be misinterpreted now, as an ideological mandate instead of what it really is: discontent with the decimation of the American Dream and a belief that the elites and the political establishment, regardless of party, have the blood of the Republic on their hands.

Earlier tonight on Fox News, Frank Luntz asked his focus group of Virginia voters, comprised of an equal number of McCain and Obama voters from 2008, how many were angry. Almost every hand in the room shot up. What were they angry at? The economy. Jobs. Spending. The fear that taxes will go up. The fact that health care needed reform but that Democrats were attempting to reform it in a way that would make things worse than they already are. There was a high correlation between Angry Voters and McDonnell Voters. The GOP sweep of Virginia was not an ideological message. It was not delivered by voters concerned with abstract, philosophical ideas about what the Constitution says the federal government should and should not do. It did not constitute the rise of a new band of Culture Warriors nor was it the re-emergence of NeoConservatism. This election was not about the big ideas that are discussed over pizza in a college dorm room, or in a graduate-level philosophy class. This election was about real people and their real problems in the real world. This election was about the realization that the Democratic Party, with which the nation was entrusted just one year ago, is still the same paleo-leftist party that it’s been for the past thirty years, and that it simply does not have the solutions required to move the country forward.

There is a growing sense, I think, that America is on the decline, and that our country is being led by the worst political class in memory. In the wake of the Bush/DeLay/Frist Republican Party came the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Democratic Party, and tonight was essentially a repudiation of a repudiation. Americans seem perfectly content with throwing out one party after another until someone gets things right, and deep down inside, Americans are wondering whether anyone is capable of getting things right, or if there’s any “right” left to get in a society with unsustainable entitlements, rising health care costs, a sputtering economy, and one which exists as part of a global society with lots of competitors who seem to be surpassing us by the day. Americans are beginning to wonder whether the nation’s best days are behind it.

The romanticism of the days of Reagan/O’Neill and the sleek technocracy of Clinton/Gingrich have made way for the current establishment, the one of Bush/Obama. This is an establishment that has genuflected to the robber barons by bailing out the powerful and the connected and asking Middle America to pay for it. This is the establishment that drops countless dollars on endless war in the middle of a barren desert that has destroyed many an empire and that hasn’t changed since the 10th Century and has no intention of doing so now. This is the establishment that fiddles while America burns, refusing to do the hard things, like modernizing entitlements, health care, and immigration policies, because doing any of those things would offend too many interest groups, too many trial lawyers, too many monied interests, and too many lobbyists. This is the establishment that calls itself the heirs to Reagan on the right and to JFK on the left and then refuses to do what’s necessary to restore America’s greatness simply because it’s too hard.

Tonight, the Obama Establishment got what it deserved, just like the Bush Establishment got what it deserved a year ago. And Americans will continue to give the political class in this country what it has coming to it until our leaders garner the courage to stand up and do what it takes to unleash America’s greatness once again.

Celebrate! Congratulations Governors-elect Christie and McDonnell!

Has Scozzafava’s endorsement thrown NY-23 to Owens? RINO, indeed.

Also, Bloomberg is winning by a shockingly small margin. How embarrassing!

Those folks who wanted Jim Bunning out of the Senate may want to reconsider. The latest Survey USA poll for the Kentucky Republican Senate primary stacks up like this:

35% Paul
32% Grayson
3% Thoney  
2% Johnson
1% Oerther
10% Other
18% Undecided

Dr. Rand Paul leads GOP annointed candidate and Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson. Of course, the race is within the margin of error (4.1%), but six months out from the primary, this is not good news for the Kentucky GOP establishment, as their frontrunner’s “lead” has evaporated.

Is it good news for conservatives? Paul looks solid on the issues and it’s not like he’s running for U.S. Senator in New York. Right now, it seems like its the party establishment who is in the real trouble right now.

I know only about 17% of the vote is in but some places the vote is in 100%. So I looked at those areas and McDonnell / GOP is going great.

For example, District 1 >>> KING & QUEEN COUNTY: (100% in)

McDonnell won by +19 which went 52-48 Obama.

UPDATE: FoxNews has called Virgina for Bob McDonnell.

You can see the actual VA Election Returns here.

As of 11am EST, the Intrade market for the New Jersey Governor’s race sits at Christie 55, Corzine 47.

Consider this our election day open thread.

Update: As of 6:30pm EST, Intrade’s action indicates a very tight race — Christie 53, Corzine 52.

Note:  KWN, feel free to move this below the open election day thread if need be

It seems that some ghosts of Mississippi keep rearing their ugly head.  From the Associated Press:

Ole Miss Tries To Stop ‘Dixie’ Chant

 

OXFORD, Miss. — University of Mississippi football fans who refuse to stop chanting “the South will rise again” are on the verge of losing one of their favorite fight songs, the school’s chancellor said Monday. Ole Miss Chancellor Dan Jones said “From Dixie With Love” will no longer be played at games if fans continue the racially offensive chant.

 Last month, Jones asked the band to abruptly end the tune to discourage the chant, but he says that didn’t solve the problem.

 Jones said fan reaction during Saturday’s game against Northern Arizona would decide the fate of the song, which blends the Confederate Army’s fight song, “Dixie,” with the Union Army’s “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” It’s been played for the university’s band for about two decades.

 ”The University of Mississippi is a warm and welcoming place. So many have worked hard to make sure our image moves forward, and we don’t want anything to hurt that,” Jones said during a luncheon sponsored by the John C. Stennis Institute of Government and the Capitol Press Corps.

 ”If the chant continues, we will discontinue the music that’s associated with it,” he said.

 All of the university’s head coaches, including football coach Houston Nutt, have endorsed the effort to end the chant, said athletics director Pete Boone.

 ”The chant ‘the South will rise again’ reflects negatively not only on the university but also on the progress we have made in athletics over the past two decades,” Boone said in a recent statement. “We join the super majority of the Ole Miss family in calling for discontinuing the chant.”

 Jones said the words in the phrase are “harmful” because they’ve been used by integration opponents in the past. For years, the university has worked to rid itself of an Old South image that included the 1962 violent standoff over James Meredith’s admission as the university’s first black student.

 ”I think the vast majority of our students don’t understand the significance of this. I think most of the students who are participating in saying those words, don’t know how painful they are,” Jones said.

 The move to abolish the chant began in October when the Ole Miss student government association passed a resolution to change the phrase to “to hell with LSU.” The Faculty Senate later took a vote in support of the association and Jones.

 Ole Miss has worked to improve its image as a racially diverse environment for decades after the 1962 admission of James Meredith as the school’s first black student led to a deadly standoff.

 Geoffrey Yoste, 45, a former Ole Miss instructor and retired Army National Guard major, said he agreed the chant is divisive and should stop, but he believes the university has mishandled the situation.

 Yoste said Ole Miss officials should have held a convocation for freshmen to discuss what’s acceptable on campus, rather “trying to tell a bunch of 21-year-olds what they can’t do.”

 ”I would hate for the Ole Miss band to stop playing ‘From Dixie with Love.’ That would be a terrible tragedy. Even opposing teams that visit, they just think it’s something new and special,” Yoste said.

 

Having spent my entire life in the deep south, barely a day goes by when I don’t see a rebel flag bumper sticker, hear Charlie Daniels’ “The South’s Gonna Do It Again” on the radio, or walk into a gas station and find shot glasses for sale with Confederate flags on them- stating that “These Colors Don’t Run.”  On many occasions when I’ve come to a stop light, I look over to see who is driving the car with the bumper sticker on it, and more often than not, it is either a high school kid, or a stereotypical frat boy.  Having gone to high school in the south and then being initiated into the Sigma Chi fraternity during my collegiate days, I have known many people from this region who succumb to this stereotype- and two words spring to my mind: “identity crisis.” 

When I was in high school, we all thought it was cool to have a rebel flag license plate, as though we thought of ourselves as Bert Reynolds, evading the cops in his infamous black Trans Am (though I could do without rescuing Sally Field).  When I got to college in the mid-nineties, I began to grow up and in that maturation process, I came to the realization that it wasn’t exactly cool to run around waving symbols of the old Confederacy.  I didn’t need a symbol so offensive to so many people to feel better about myself.  It might very well be heritage, and in fact, I am not embarrassed by my forefathers, most of whom fought for the Confederacy.  I have, on occasion, even defended their right to do so.  The Union army were no saints, and one of my 5x great grandfathers was murdered in cold blood by Union soldiers, which led to his son enlisting in the Confederacy.

That is a part of my heritage, but so are my two living grandfathers who are both well into their nineties.  Both of these men mean a lot more to who I am than just a faded picture in a box in a basement.  They have had so much more impact on my everyday life  than a historical footnote.  They also fought for their country, the United States of America, and I don’t need run around with an American Flag license plate on my car or bumper stickers with cute slogans on them…  because I don’t need it to find any sort of identity, or feel better about myself.   I’m southern, but above all, I’m an American, not a Confederate.    

High schools and frat houses aren’t the only places you’ll see  this “heritage” on display at a regular basis.  Many a southern town has their have’s and have nots.  Most of them also have their old money- the uppity class who sip their iced tea under their umbrellas, while sitting around on the patio at the golf club with their chums, talking in their half fake, psuedo old south accents.  I’m not talking about the genuine southern accent of a Fred Thompson, which is similar to the one I speak with.That is not the accent of a lifetime of wealth, nor the accent of birthright priviledge.  Hell, it’s quite difficult to understand if you’re not from the region.  I’m talking about accent where the long A is prounounced Ahhh-  and is used most prominently by elderly females in oversized pink hats or younger ones in visors and tennis skirts. 

While I don’t necessarily support adminstrative decisions banning anything, I hope that these students will one day realise that to a lot of people, it is a symbol of the murder of innocent people.  If the University of Mississippi wants to be the multiculture, multi-ethnic institution that it has indeed become, then the stereotypical symbolism must cease.  It is not the symbol of progress, but of Bull Conner, Byron De La Beckwith, and David Duke.  It is the symbol of blacks picking cotton and hanging from trees.   It’s heritage to them as well.  It’s a daily reminder that once upon a time and not that long ago, they would be refered to as “boy” rather than sir or ma’am, or that they would be directed towards the Colored sign if they needed to use the restroom.

Were kids of German descent stating “heritage not hatred” while proudly displaying the swastika on their license plates, many a person of Jewish faith would be rightly offended.  Why shouldn’t African-Americans feel the same way, and why shouldn’t we respect their feelings as well?   Chants of “the south will rise again” at football games is so ridiculously stupid that it should be common sense.  These Ole Miss students need to get over it.  It is heritage, but it’s also a symbol of hatred.

Who says the GOP hasn’t offered alternative solutions? While I wish the story would have come out on a slower news day, the AP has released specifics on the health care bill House Republicans may introduce as early as this week:

A 230-page draft was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. A spokeswoman for Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said changes were still being made before the bill would be finalized in time to offer as an alternative when Democrats begin floor debate on their bill, possibly at the end of this week.

The bill leaves out a number of the key features of the Democrats’ 1,990-page legislation, such as new requirements for employers to insure their employees and for nearly all Americans to purchase insurance. It also doesn’t block insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions, as Democrats would do.

Instead, the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines.

“As Leader Boehner has made clear, our proposal will focus on the No. 1 concern of the American people—reducing health care costs, and we do it at a price tag our nation can afford,” said spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier, though Republicans have not said how much their bill would cost.

“Our proposal will help struggling middle-class families and small businesses by increasing access to affordable, high-quality health care,” Ferrier said.

…The Republican bill includes a permanent ban on any federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother, stronger language than the Democratic bill.

Predictably, as the article proceeds to explain, Democrats have already assailed the bill for not expanding coverage enough or providing sufficient “security and stability”, in the words of Steny Hoyer (read: not promoting a government takeover). Regardless, I like what I see from this bill, with the obvious exception of not eliminating the outdated tax incentives for employer-provided health care. Hopefully, more of the mainstream media will pick up on the GOP bill, as it, along with other pieces of legislation, shows that Republicans have, contrary to the meme perpetuated by Dems and the MSM, proposed alternative solutions.

So which party is it that is supposed to be in the midst of a civil war?

MoveOn.org is sending out emails today seeking more contributions for its campaign to defeat any Democratic senator who does not fully support Obamacare. Yesterday the left-wing activist group asked members to contribute “to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform.” Today, MoveOn reports that it has received $2 million in pledges in less than 24 hours. “It’s a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform,” MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben writes in the new email.

“The larger the war chest we can offer a potential challenger, the stronger the signal we’ll send to conservative Democrats,” Ruben continues. “So we’re setting a huge new goal: $3 million in total pledges by the end of the week. That’s plenty to launch a serious primary challenge.”

MoveOn is already planning radio ads targeting Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln over the health care issue.

The bottom line is that in spite of the over-heated rhetoric, these sorts of dust-ups are all part and parcel of “Politics as Usual”. It is impossible to get hundreds of thousands of adults to agree on everything. There are going to be disagreements. When you consider the stakes involved, it should surprise no one when things get ugly upon occasion.

Left leaning pollster PPP is predicting a very good night for the Republicans. They cite two reasons, superior unity and Independents fleeing the Democrats.

We think tonight will be very good for Republicans.

Two of the main reasons for that are superior party unity and pretty overwhelming support from independents.

As evidence they cite:
->Hoffman is winning 71% GOP vote versus 67% Democrat vote to Owens. Independents split 52/30.
->Christie is getting 82% GOP vote versus 72% Democrat vote to Corzine. Independents split 52/29.
->McDonnell is grabbing 94% GOP vote versus 87% Democrat vote to Deeds. Independents split 63/33.

They mention several other races that show the Republicans are far more likely to be loyal to their party member than the Democrats, and the Independents are going to the Republican 2-1 in many cases.

Think of this the next time you read how the GOP is in disarray or out and out civil war.

Edit: I couldn’t help but improve the alliteration in the title.
Edit: Last tweak on the title, I promise.

Rasmussen Survey on Barack Obama

How would you rate the job Barack Obama as been doing as President….excellent, good, fair or poor?

• Excellent 21%
• Good 21%
• Fair 20%
• Poor 37%

If Barack Obama was up for re-election right now, how likely would you be to vote for him?

• Very likely 34%
• Somewhat likely 11%
• Not very likely 9%
• Not at all likely 40%

Has the election of Barack Obama as President had a positive influence on race relations, a negative influence on race relations or has it had no impact?

• Positive 37%
• Negative 30%
• No impact 26%

Since Barack Obama was elected President, are you doing better or worse economically?

• Better 16%
• Worse 48%
• About the same 32%

Survey of 1,000 adults was conducted October 27-28. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Women are more supportive of Obama than men. Adults 18 to 29 are more likely to vote for the president than those who are older. Ninety percent (90%) of African-Americans say they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for Obama, compared to 36% of whites.

Among adults not affiliated with either major political party, those not at all likely to vote for the president’s reelection outnumber by two-to-one those who would be very likely to support him.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of men say they are doing worse economically, but just 41% of women say the same. Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans and 53% of unaffiliateds say they’re doing worse, while a plurality (45%) of Democrats say things are about the same.

Most blacks (52%) say Obama’s election has been good for race relations. Whites are more narrowly divided on the question.

CNN/Opinion Research Political Survey on Barack Obama

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 54% {55%} <58%> (53%) [56%]
• Disapprove 45% {43%} <40%> (45%) [40%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 46% <54%> (49%)
• Disapprove 54% <45%> (51%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the federal budget deficit?

• Approve 39% <46%> (36%)
• Disapprove 60% <51%> (63%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling taxes?

• Approve 49% <52%> (45%)
• Disapprove 50% <43%> (52%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care policy?

• Approve 42% <51%> (44%)
• Disapprove 57% <47%> (53%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign affairs?

• Approve 51% <58%> (54%)
• Disapprove 47% <38%> (42%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?

• Approve 42% (49%)
• Disapprove 56% (46%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Iraq?

• Approve 44%
• Disapprove 53%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling environmental policy?

• Approve 62%
• Disapprove 33%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling helping the middle class?

• Approve 50%
• Disapprove 49%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling Medicare?

• Approve 47% (46%)
• Disapprove 48% (48%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling helping senior citizens?

• Approve 50%
• Disapprove 46%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the federal government’s response to swine flu?

• Approve 57%
• Disapprove 40%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling illegal immigration?

• Approve 36%
• Disapprove 58%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling unemployment?

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 52%

All in all, do you think Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, or do you think Bush was a better president than Obama has been?

• Obama better 57%
• Bush better 34%
• No difference/both the same (vol.) 6%

And do you think Joe Biden has been a better vice president than Dick Cheney, or do you think Cheney was a better vice president than Biden has been?

• Biden better 54%
• Cheney better 38%
• No difference/both the same (vol.) 6%

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn’t apply to Barack Obama.

Will unite the country and not divide it

• Applies 51%
• Does not apply 48%

Has a clear plan for solving this country’s problems

• Applies 45%
• Does not apply 54%

(more…)

Atlanta remains a city too busy to hate, which fact caused the Rooster oracle to realize he wasn’t too busy to end his Sabbatical for an Election Day prognostication.

This I-85 South Carolina native has loved the Capital of Dixie since childhood. His brother was even born at Crawford-Long Hospital when the family moved to Bolton Drive during a Southern Railway shutdown of its Hayne (train repair) Shop in Spartanburg.

Our first love was the Braves (Mike DeVine Law Gamecock even loves the Braves more than his beloved USC Fighting Gamecocks for God’s sake), followed closely by the Falcons, Hawks and even, the now defunct, Nick Papadakis-led soccer team, the Chiefs. We loved Coca-Cola, the Varsity, Tech and the world’s busiest airport.

But mostly, we loved the home of Martin Luther King, Jr. that made great racial progress while also electing white and black mayors that fostered the growth of one of the great American cities.

This conservative Republican has been impressed with the governance of Atlanta for the last eight years by a non-racial, competent mayor named Shirley Franklin.

But we are most impressed now with the current campaign to succeed the term-limited City leader, for the non-racial conduct by all the candidates. Has their been some petty partisan party bickering even in this, officially, ”non-partisan” race? Yes, after all, these are politicians, not candidates for sainthood.

But none of the campaigns have focused, at all, on the race of their opposing candidates, despite some puny attempts by two local college professors, and other outliers, to try and get blacks to gang up on the white poll leader.

Atlanta is a mature city focused on who can get the job done, and it appears to be moving towards that color-blind, judge by the content of one’s character goal of Martin Luther King.

Cockstradamus (pictued above) believes that this majority black Democrat city is about to elect a white woman for the first time, partially due to the resentment of many for the Georgia Democratic Party (and admitted Democrat candidates) attacks against Mary Norwood, that claim she is a closet republican.

Cockstradamus thinks that many black and white Democratic and independent voters resent the implication made by the GA Dem Party that they are mindless lemmings waiting for direction from on high.

We also note a possible affirmation of our apathy is good theory, given the likelihood of a low turnout. Atlanta has been hit hard by the Great Recession in terms of jobs lost, budget problems and crime. Yet, they seem to believe that all four of the major candidates are up to the job, and so are too busy to vote, so busy are they trying to make a living.

One thing is for sure: They are too busy to hate any candidate because of their race.

Atlanta, you make me proud. Gamecock would lean to voting for Kasim Reed if he weren’t viewing the Big City election from Clarkston and the Stone Mountain of Georgia, but we will flock to Manuel’s to celebrate the election, no matter the winner, because the real winner is….

Atlanta, the greatest city in America.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Now that Dede Scozzafava has withdrawn from NY-23, leaving the GOP without a nominee, the question is what does this portend for 2010.  Is this a sign of eliminating the slightest deviation from Conservative orthodoxy (whatever that means; the definition of Conservatism is certainly in question if Pres Bush can be considered a conservative), or is it a grassroots movement, with the silent majority standing once again to bring the GOP back to the 1994 Revolution?

As of yet, no one has shown me that Dede Scozzafava has a moderate voting record.  She has some decidedly liberal endorsers.  To be fair, she and Spkr Gingrich came out and said “Trust her, she’ll vote conservative on X, Y, and Z.”  If her positions on those issues was actually what they said, I’d say she’d undoubtedly be a moderate, and she should have been backed by conservatives.  These stances, however, are in direct contradiction with the organizations that had endorsed her, which creates a situation of “Do you believe me, or your lying eyes?”  In short, the only reason people call her a moderate is because she has an “R” after her name.  If it were a “D”, most people would call her a liberal.

Now, I fully believe there is a place for moderate politicians within the GOP.  One does not need to agree with every stance of the platform in order to join, and a certain amount of debate within the party is healthy.  A party that locks its thinking into place is one that will stagnate and die off.  Those points aren’t in question.  What IS in question is whether ANY sort of standard should be put in place, or whether the GOP should run Karl Marx if he would win a seat for them.  Essentially, should the GOP become m0re like the Democrats?  Should the GOP complete the process, and essentially make politics gang warfare, where the only real difference between them is who gets the payout in the end?

In short, the voters of NY-23 have made their voices heard.  They aren’t opposed to moderates, but they do want SOME standards when it comes to voting records.  The purpose of NY-23 isn’t to say “Thou shalt vote conservative down the line,” but to say “The GOP isn’t the Democrats.”  The quest isn’t purity, but to show the GOP does have standards beyond just electability.

While we all thought Obama was just hanging about waiting for fate to lift any requirement for a decision on the war in Afganistan from his shoulders, it seems that his administration has been secretly crawling to the Taliban, trying to negotiate peace terms that would leave the Taliban in power in parts of Afghanistan – and being turned down.

From Islam In Action:

“US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast,” a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net requesting anonymity for not being authorized to talk about the sensitive issue with the media.

He said the talks, brokered by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, continued for weeks at different locations including the Afghan capital Kabul. …

A Taliban spokesman admitted indirect talks with the US. …

Afghan and Taliban sources said Mutawakkil and Mullah Mohammad Zaeef, a former envoy to Pakistan who had taken part in previous talks, represented the Taliban side in the recent talks.

The US Embassy in Kabul denied any such talks.

“No, we are not holding any talks with Taliban,” embassy spokeswoman Cathaline Haydan told IOL from Kabul.

Asked whether the US has offered any power-sharing formula to Taliban, she said she was not aware of any such offer.

“I don’t know about any specific talks and the case you are reporting is not true.”

Sources say that for the first time the American negotiators did not insist on the “minus-Mullah Omer” formula, which had been the main hurdle in previous talks between the two sides.

The Americans reportedly offered Taliban a form of power-sharing in return for accepting the presence of foreign troops.

“America wants 8 army and air force bases in different parts of Afghanistan in order to tackle the possible regrouping of Al-Qaeda network,” the senior [Afghan] official said.

He named the possible hosts of the bases as Mazar-e-Sharif and Badakshan in north, Kandahar in south [? - see below], Kabul, Herat in west, Jalalabad in northeast and Ghazni and Faryab in central Afghanistan.

In exchange, the US offered Taliban the governorship of the southern provinces of Kandahar [? -see above] , Zabul, Hilmand and Orazgan as well as the northeastern provinces of Nooristan and Kunar.

These provinces are the epicenter of resistance against the US-led foreign forces and are considered the strongholds of Taliban.

Orazgan and Hilmand are the home provinces of Taliban Supreme Commander Mullah Omer and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

“But Taliban did not agree on that,” said the senior official.

“Their demand was that America must give a deadline for its pull out if it wants negotiations to go on.”

Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative

With under 24 hours to go until the candidates raise their hands in victory, here’s a recap of where the polls and futures markets stand in regards to the state of the races:

RCP Averages:

• Virginia Governor: McDonnell 54.6%, Deeds 41.3%
• New Jersey Governor: Christie 42.6%, Corzine 41.6%, Daggett 10.4%
• NY-23: No RCP average.
• NYC Mayor: Bloomberg 52%, Thompson 39.3%

Intrade:

• Virginia Governor: McDonnell 99.1, Deeds 1.0
• New Jersey Governor: Christie 56.0, Corzine 46.0, Daggett 1.1
• NY-23: Hoffman 75, Owens 28, Scozzafava 0.8
• NYC Mayor: Bloomberg 95

Rasmussen will reportedly release its final New Jersey Governor poll tomorrow morning. So please post your prediction as to their findings in the comments.  Actually, why don’t we just make this post an election day prediction open thread?

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Historica-Dominion/Innovative Research Canadian Survey on the Obama Presidency and the United States

Do you have a very favourable, somewhat favourable, somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable impression of the current President of the United States, Barack Obama?

• Very favourable 46%
• Somewhat favourable 40%
• Somewhat unfavourable 5%
• Very unfavourable 2%

Note: Canadians views of the current President have improved markedly: 46% have a very favourable impression of President Obama compared with only 5% for President Bush in 2005.

Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: Barack Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

• Strongly agree 15%
• Somewhat agree 27%
• Somewhat disagree 27%
• Strongly disagree 19%

Note: While Canadians like President Obama, they are unsure if the President deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, with 42% agreeing he did and 47% disagreeing. However, a majority of Quebeckers agreed he deserved the prize (57%).

Do you have a very favourable, somewhat favourable, somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable impression of Americans as individual people?

• Very favourable 21%
• Somewhat favourable 50%
• Somewhat unfavourable 14%
• Very unfavourable 4%

Note: Compared to 2005, Canadians have only a marginally improved view of Americans as individual people (71% favourable in 2009 vs. 68% in November 2005).

Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: I feel at home whenever I visit the United States.

• Strongly agree 16%
• Somewhat agree 32%
• Somewhat disagree 25%
• Strongly disagree 15%

Note: Just under half of Canadians say they feel at home whenever they visit the US (48% vs. 44% in 2005), a very modest increase from 2005. Quebeckers do not share that sentiment (only 33% say they feel at home).

Do you think that American and Canadian values are becoming more similar, more different or are they staying the same?

• More similar 27%
• Staying the same 52%
• More different 17%

Note: Canadians are also no more likely to think that American and Canadians values are becoming more similar (27% in 2005 and 2009). However, they are less likely to say they are diverging (17% this year vs. 24% in 2005).

Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: The US is a force for good in the world.

• Strongly agree 11%
• Somewhat agree 33%
• Somewhat disagree 31%
• Strongly disagree 15%

Note: Canadians are split on this question with 45% agreeing that the US is a force for good in the world and 46% disagreeing. Quebeckers are most sceptical, with only 32% agreeing.

If you had a serious illness do you think you would receive better medical treatment in the United States or Canada?

• Canada 77%
• United States 14%

Survey of 1,018 adults was conducted in Canada October 22-26. The sample is proportionally weighted by region (BC, Alberta, the Prairies, Ontario, Québec and Atlantic), age and gender according to the 2006 Canadian Census data. The margin of error for the national sample is approximately ±3.1 points.

H/T: Sarah Palin

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Jeffrey Miron, of the Cato Institute, has done a nice hatchet job on the role the so-called stimulus played in the economy’s positive third quarter GDP growth.  The short piece is absolutely worth your time, but here are the highlights:

For starters, monetary policy has been highly expansionary over the past year, with short-term interest rates near zero, so the Fed may have played the major role in turning the economy around.

Research finds more evidence for the efficacy of monetary as opposed to fiscal policy in ending recessions. And the studies on fiscal stimulus have shown more impact from tax cuts than from spending increases.

…In fact, the U.S. economy recovered from significant recessions before 1914, when monetary and fiscal policy had not even been invented. Economies can and do recover on their own, and intervention might make things worse by generating uncertainty and distorting the economy’s allocation of resources.

A further caveat is that two elements of the fiscal stimulus — cash-for-clunkers and the $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers — probably shifted significant activity from the fourth quarter and beyond to the third quarter because consumers knew these provisions would expire soon. Thus the stimulus plausibly shifted the timing of economic activity without necessarily improving the long-term path.

To add insult to injury, as our own Kavon Nikrad has wisely observed, Pres. Obama and the other Dems have only damaged themselves politically in the long run with the technical end to the Great Recession. After all, when quarterly GDP growth ceases (which will almost inevitably occur without passage of more short-sighted “stimulus” packages, something the public opposes) a new recession – the Obama Recession – will rear its ugly head.

And we haven’t even discussed the negative implications of the aforementioned monetary expansion by the Fed. In addition to delaying the reunion of supply with demand in the economy (by encouraging capital projects and malinvestment that would not have occurred without the Fed manipulating interest rates and revving up the dollar printing press) and consequently making the eventual return to reality more painful, the central bank now faces the insurmountable task of balancing inflation with the political pressure to prevent GDP growth from reverting back into negative territory. Bernanke and his associates will likely err on the side of GDP growth, creating the very real possibility of massive inflation – a dangerous additional political risk for the Dems – in the near future. These people will reap what they sow, but unfortunately, the American people will end up with the shortest end of the stick.

Rasmussen War on Terror/National Security Survey

Who is winning the War on Terrorism…the United States and its allies or the terrorists?

• United States and its allies 34% (43%) {42%} [48%]
• Terrorists 29% (25%) {25%} [21%]
• Neither 31% (24%) {25%} [21%]

Over the next six months will the situation in Afghanistan get better or worse?

• Better 13% (18%) [22%]
• Worse 57% (55%) [41%]
• Stay the same 20% (27%) [24%]

Over the next six months, will the situation in Iraq get better or worse?

• Better 24% (31%) [34%]
• Worse 37% (34%) [29%]
• Stay the same 30% (27%) [25%]

Which country is a bigger threat to the National Security of the United States…..Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, China or Russia?

• Iran 28% (32%) [20%]
• North Korea 18% (19%) [31%]
• China 17% (14%) [16%]
• Afghanistan 11% (7%) [4%]
• Pakistan 7% (8%) [9%]
• Iraq 4% (5%) [4%]
• Russia 4% (3%) [3%]

Is the United States today safer than it was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

• Yes 45% (44%) [47%]
• No 36% (37%) [33%]

A year from now will America’s relationship with the Muslim world be better than it is today, worse than it is today or about the same?

• Better 16% <28%>
• Worse 33% <21%>
• About the same 44% <45%>

Will the United States still be the most powerful nation in the world at the end of the 21st Century?

• Yes 29% <37%>
• No 39% <34%>

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted October 28-29. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 30 – October 1 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 29-30 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 1-2 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 1-2 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted January 2-3 are in angle brackets.

Rasmussen Survey on Hillary Clinton

Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Hillary Clinton?

• Very favorable 24% (30%)
• Somewhat favorable 30% (23%)
• Somewhat unfavorable 20% (19%)
• Very unfavorable 23% (24%)

How would you rate the job Hillary Clinton has been doing as secretary of State?

• Strongly approve 30% (31%)
• Somewhat approve 29% (28%)
• Somewhat disapprove 23% (20%)
• Strongly disapprove 14% (15%)

Suppose Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic Presidential nomination. Would she be doing a better job as President than Barack Obama, a worse job as President, or about the same?

• Better 27%
• Worse 14%
• About the same 49%

In political terms, is Hillary Clinton liberal, moderate, or conservative?

• Liberal 49%
• Moderate 38%
• Conservative 4%

Would Hillary Clinton have had more influence if she remained in the U.S. Senate instead of becoming secretary of State?

• Yes 35%
• No 36%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted October 30-31. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 30-31 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Democrats who think things would be different with Clinton are evenly divided between whether they’d be better or worse. Republicans and unaffiliated voters who think things would be different tend to believe Clinton would have done a better job as President.

While 76% of GOP voters and 52% of unaffiliateds see Clinton as a political liberal, 61% of Democrats categorize her as a moderate. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of liberals think Clinton’s a moderate, too.

SurveyUSA/WABC-TV New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 45% <43%> {41%} [40%] (43%)
• Jon Corzine 42% <43%> {39%} [39%] (40%)
• Chris Daggett 10% <11%> {19%} [18%] (14%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 55% <51%> {49%} [48%] (44%)
• Jon Corzine 25% <30%> {24%} [26%] (32%)
• Chris Daggett 16% <17%> {24%} [23%] (19%)

Among Men

• Chris Christie 48% <47%> {46%} [44%] (48%)
• Jon Corzine 38% <42%> {32%} [34%] (35%)
• Chris Daggett 10% <10%> {21%} [19%] (16%)

Among Women

• Jon Corzine 45% <44%> {45%} [43%] (46%)
• Chris Christie 41% <39%> {37%} [35%] (37%)
• Chris Daggett 10% <12%> {17%} [18%] (13%)

Among those with no reservations about their vote

• Chris Christie 51% <50%> {49%} [48%] (47%)
• Jon Corzine 41% <43%> {38%} [40%] (43%)
• Chris Daggett 8% <7%> {12%} [13%] (9%)

Survey of 582 likely voters was conducted October 30 – November 1. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 44% <44%> {41%} [42%] (42%) Democrat; 33% <34%> {37%} [33%] (38%) Republican; 22% <20%> {20%} [23%] (18%) Independent. Political views: 46% <42%> {45%} [49%] (46%) Moderate; 29% <31%> {28%} [28%] (31%) Conservative; 20% <22%> {22%} [18%] (18%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 26-28 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 19-21 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 12-14 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 5-7 are in parentheses.

Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Jon Corzine 43% {42%} (39%) [40%] {39%} (36%) [37%]
• Chris Christie 41% {43%} (39%) [43%] {47%} (50%) [45%]
• Chris Daggett 8% {8%} (14%) [8%] {5%} (4%) [4%]

Among Democrats

• Jon Corzine 77% {77%} (76%) [71%] {77%} (73%) [67%]
• Chris Christie 8% {11%} (8%) [12%] {8%} (14%) [17%]
• Chris Daggett 7% {9%} (11%) [7%] {7%} (2%) [4%]

Among Republicans

• Chris Christie 82% {86%} (81%) [81%] {82%} (81%) [78%]
• Jon Corzine 10% {6%} (6%) [11%] {8%} (9%) [10%]
• Chris Daggett 4% {5%} (8%) [4%] {4%} (4%) [4%]

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 43% {51%} (45%) [49%] {53%} (56%) [47%]
• Jon Corzine 33% {29%} (21%) [28%] {30%} (24%) [26%]
• Chris Daggett 12% {10%} (22%) [13%] {6%} (11%) [8%]

Among Men

• Chris Christie 46% {49%} (40%)
• Jon Corzine 39% {36%} (34%)
• Chris Daggett 8% {9%} (18%)

Among Women

• Jon Corzine 46% {49%} (43%)
• Chris Christie 36% {38%} (39%)
• Chris Daggett 8% {7%} (11%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Christie: 40% {44%} (40%) [41%] {48%} (49%) / 38% {36%} (41%) [39%] {30%} (33%) {+2%}
• Chris Daggett 21% {22%} (28%) [17%] {11%} (11%) / 21% {22%} (15%) [8%] {6%} (9%) {0%}
• Jon Corzine: 40% {39%} (37%) [40%] {37%} (37%) / 44% {49%} (51%) [49%] {53%} (53%) {-4%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Jon Corzine is doing as governor?

• Approve 36% {33%} (41%) {34%} (35%) [40%]
• Disapprove 54% {55%} (55%) {58%} (58%) [53%]

Among Independents

• Approve 28% {21%}
• Disapprove 63% {69%}

Among Daggett Supporters

• Approve 14% {9%}
• Disapprove 71% {82%}

Among Undecided Voters

• Approve 24% {26%}
• Disapprove 40% {47%}

Survey of 722 likely voters was conducted October 31 – November 1. The margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 28-30 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 15-18 conducted are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 24-29 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 8-10 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 29 – August 2 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 9-14 are in square brackets. Party ID breakdown: {40%} (40%) [37%] {35%} (33%) Democrat; {34%} (34%) [37%] {36%} (42%) Independent; {26%} (26%) [26%] {29%} (25%) Republican.

[This column was inspired by regular R412 commenter, SJ Reidhead aka SJR The Pink Flamingo, who objected to my harsh criticism of Lindsey Graham's co-authorship of a NYT editorial suggesting a left-right compromise on a Cap and Trade Bill before the international community meeting on the issue this month in Copenhagen, Denmark. A portion of this column will appear in an upcoming column I am working on for this week that cites some DeVine conservative agreements with the ObamaDems on particular matters.]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Post-2000 conservative epiphany, I have come to realize that many of the leaders of my former Democratic Party must not really care for the poor given their denial of the poor boats lifted by Reaganite supply side economic policies and given their continuing advocacy of proven failed liberal policies since the 1960s.

Even while an activist Democratic Party official, I mostly refused to acquiesce in the liberal line that Republicans didn’t care about the poor or that they would take away the checks form the poor, old and disabled.

But I can’t help but think that many Democrats care much more power gains through victim dependency given their history since JFK was assassinated and especially given their support for a Cap and Trade energy tax that would directly and drastically lower the standing of living of the poor and middle class by making it impossible for them to afford many of the necessities of life.

We saw last summer what $4/gallon gasoline did to lower income families, by forcing choices between driving to one’s job or having enough money to feed the children.

Make no mistake, even if I thought that man’s use of and breathing out of carbon could cause the shoreline to receded, I would not favor a draconian assault on the modern world and return to a green Dickensian world or horse manure-filled streets and buck stove smoke-filled air in London.

But the whole man-made global warming (MMGW), now conveniently known as “climate change” (as if) since the earth has cooled since 1998 (thus calling into question whether there is an non-man made global warming taking place), is a crock. My client, The Sun, in the inter-galactic case styled as The Sun v. Al Gore et al, warms the earth; not cow flatulence and Chevrolets. In fact, half of the Eastern Seaboard was under the Atlantic for 10,000 years, tens of thousands of years before the first Corvette rilled off a Dearborn, Michigan assembly line.

Hence, my initial disgust with South Carolina Republican (btw, the first DC GOP office-seeker I ever voted for) Sen. Lindsey Graham’s agreement with Sen. John “I served in Vietnam” Kerry (D-MA) on the “reality” of “climate change” (Well, we all have to agree there is climate change every day, hell every minute…but they mean global warming and say so in the column).

The Pink Flamingo objected to my harsh judgment of Lindsey, despite his history of sticking McCain-like pointy sticks in fellow Republicans eyes so as to secure co-starring roles on TV network Sunday Shows. We do recall that Graham spoke to La Raza during the illegal immigration amnesty debate and called all the opponents of the bill “racists”? I remember. I also know that when LG gets something right, like the war, he can be the best advocate on your side, but I digress. Here is the very specific (I like that) retort from SJR (link above):

The following paragraph from the NYTimes is being constantly ignored. You might want to pay a little attention to it. To come from John Kerry it is extremely revealing:

“…Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing…”

There are at least two trains of thought on the danger of a President Barack Obama extra-constitutional Czar-like overreach in making law via new regulatory interpretations of existing statutes related to the EPA, CWA, ESA with respect to energy and environment restrictions on carbon as a pollutant and FDA with respect to tobacco.

Firstly though, whether or not a Cap and Trade bill would absolutely prevent unitary executive action would depend upon whether any new statute directly repeals existing vague language with respect to environmental protections, clean water and endangered species laws already in effect.

I doubt any new statute would deter Obama’s impatient regulators. After all, these folks have been waiting their whole lives to “fundamentally change” America (to use Obama’s campaign rhetoric – yes, he only used that specific phrase once before Axelrod schooled the Boy Prince…) and were frustrated when Bill Clinton triangulated with Newt and when Gore used to be the next President of the United States.

But, I should mention that many scholars think that the regulatory threat is a Red Herring since any attempts to increase carbon regulations via executive action would get tied up in the courts for many years.

In any event, that argument by the senior senator from the Palmetto State strikes me as more make weight, since Graham religiously asserts his faith in the fundamental premise of MMGW and in his support for a Cap and Trade tax on the energy that created the modern world and which tax is a sinfully regressive tax on the poor in the purchase of food and transportation to their jobs. It would eliminate any “luxury” like a weekly trip to any Grandmother living more than 30 miles away.

But, challenged to re-read the Kerry-Graham news deemed fit to print, I did find that I was pleased with a number of fundamental truths that Graham got a far left liberal to agree to, in writing no less. Yes, the truths are vaguely stated and offered as measures for merely tempering the effect of the NEW TAX on the American standard of living, but welcome, nonetheless, and quite useful for future debates.

The “good news” admissions by Kerry (link above) for the Left are that new on- and offshore oil and natural gas drilling and nuclear power can be part of the answer to our energy needs. They actually mention our need to end dependence on foreign oil; energy efficiency and pollution control.

Sign me up for all that. One wonders if they noticed how we cleaned up America’s air and water from 1970-2009 while greatly increasing the emission of carbon. The fact is that their Cap and Trade bill hinders all of those goals.

I especially liked these paragraphs from the Old Gray Lady aka The Times:

Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.

Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology.

In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.

Implicit in the suggested go slow approach so as not to threaten jobs and the burden on the poor, discussed elsewhere in the column, is that this is not a real crisis.

Thanks for that admission most of all! We now have a major liberal Democratic Party leader on record. Let’s use it to kill Cap and Trade; enact supply side tax and regulation cuts; open up expanded oil and natural gas exploration; and build nuclear power plants and oil refineries.

Kerry is all for it. Thanks Lindsey.

See also Dr. Roy Spencer’s An Expensive Urban Legend.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Siena New York 23rd Congressional District Poll

• Doug Hoffman 41%
• Bill Owens 36%
• Dede Scozzafava 6%

This SRI 23rd C.D. survey was conducted November 1, 2009 by telephone calls to 606 likely voters. It has a margin of error of + 4.0 percentage points.

Quinnipiac New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 42% [38%] (41%) {43%} [47%] (46%)
• Jon Corzine 40% [43%] (40%) {39%} [37%] (40%)
• Chris Daggett 12% [13%] (14%) {12%} [9%] (7%)

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 47% [45%] (41%) {45%} [46%] (55%)
• Jon Corzine 32% [30%] (32%) {32%} [30%] (25%)
• Chris Daggett 17% [20%] (20%) {16%} [16%] (13%)

Among Men

• Chris Christie 47% [46%] (43%) {50%} [51%] (53%)
• Jon Corzine 36% [34%] (36%) {34%} [36%] (34%)
• Chris Daggett 12% [15%] (17%) {12%} [9%] (7%)

Among Women

• Jon Corzine 44% [51%] (44%) {43%} [39%] (46%)
• Chris Christie 37% [31%] (39%) {37%} [43%] (40%)
• Chris Daggett 11% [12%] (11%) {13%} [10%] (8%)

Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the election?

Among Christie Supporters

• Mind made up 90% [88%] (80%)
• Might change 10% [12%] (20%)

Among Corzine Supporters

• Mind made up 86% [80%] (75%)
• Might change 13% [19%] (24%)

Among Daggett Supporters

• Mind made up 61% [60%] (39%)
• Might change 38% [38%] (59%)

Among ‘Certain’ Voters

• Chris Christie 37.8% [33.4%] (33%)
• Jon Corzine 34.4% [34.4%] (30%)
• Chris Daggett 7.3% [7.8%] (5%)

(Among Daggett supporters) Who is your second choice for governor?

• Jon Corzine 39% [27%] (33%)
• Chris Christie 29% [43%] (40%)
• No one/wouldn’t vote 17% [18%] (13%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 23% [21%] (19%) {11%} [8%] (4%) / 17% [16%] (7%) {3%} [4%] (3%) {+6%}
• Chris Christie 41% [37%] (38%) {38%} [41%] (42%) / 40% [42%] (40%) {38%} [30%] (20%) {+1%}
• Jon Corzine 39% [41%] (40%) {34%} [34%] (37%) / 53% [52%] (53%) {56%} [57%] (54%) {-14%}

Survey of 1,267 likely voters was conducted October 27 – November 1. The margin of error is +/- 2.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted October 20-26 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted October 7-12 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 23-28 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 25-30 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 5-9 are in parentheses.

PPP (D) Virginia Gubernatorial Survey

The candidates for Governor this fall are Democrat Creigh Deeds and Republican Bob McDonnell. If the election was today, who would you vote for?

• Bob McDonnell 56% <52%> {48%} [49%] (51%)
• Creigh Deeds 42% <40%> {43%} [42%] (37%)

Among Men

• Bob McDonnell 61% <54%> {56%} [60%] (53%)
• Creigh Deeds 38% <38%> {37%} [34%] (36%)

Among Women

• Bob McDonnell 51% <51%> {41%} [40%] (50%)
• Creigh Deeds 47% <42%> {49%} [49%] (38%)

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 63% <60%> {53%} [60%] (52%)
• Creigh Deeds 33% <31%> {37%} [29%] (33%)

The candidates for Lieutenant Governor are Republican Bill Bolling and Democrat Jody Wagner. If the election was today, who would you vote for?

• Bill Bolling 54%
• Jody Wagner 41%

The candidates for Attorney General are Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Steve Shannon. If the election was today, who would you vote for?

• Ken Cuccinelli 55%
• Steve Shannon 39%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Bob McDonnell 55% <56%> {47%} [53%] (55%) / 35% <35%> {42%} [31%] (26%) {+20%}
• Creigh Deeds 39% <41%> {43%} [47%] (43%) / 45% <48%> {42%} [35%] (32%) {-6%}

Among Independents

• Bob McDonnell 59% <60%> {49%} [62%] (52%) / 29% <32%> {39%} [25%] (26%) {+30%}
• Creigh Deeds 29% <36%> {38%} [38%] (44%) / 48% <52%> {44%} [40%] (31%) {-19%}

Who do you think will win the election for Governor?

• Bob McDonnell 64%
• Creigh Deeds 24%

Do you think Creigh Deeds has made a strong case for why people should vote for him?

• Yes 34%
• No 66%

Do you think Bob McDonnell has made a strong case for why people should vote for him?

• Yes 63%
• No 37%

Do you plan to vote Democratic or Republican for the House of Delegates this year?

• Republican 48% <46%>
• Democrat 39% <36%>

Among Independents

• Republican 45% <37%>
• Democrat 27% <24%>

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 41% <41%> {47%} (42%) [48%]
• Disapprove 52% <52%> {49%} (51%) [46%]

Who did you vote for President last year?

• John McCain 48%
• Barack Obama 47%

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Virginia, 53-47 percent.

How excited are you about casting your vote for Governor this fall?

Among Republicans

• Very excited 64% <55%>
• Somewhat excited 22% <24%>
• Not very excited 12% <16%>

Among Democrats

• Very excited 38% <37%>
• Somewhat excited 31% <31%>
• Not very excited 29% <30%>

Survey of 1,457 likely voters was conducted October 30 – November 1. The margin of error is +/- 2.6 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 35% <33%> {37%} [38%] (32%) Democrat; 35% <36%> {29%} [31%] (35%) Republican; 30% <31%> {34%} [31%] (33%) Independent. Political views breakdown: 43% <41%> {39%} [36%] (45%) Conservative; 40% <44%> {44%} [46%] (41%) Moderate; 16% <16%> {17%} [19%] (14%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19 are in angle brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 25-28 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 28-31 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 31 – August 3 are in parentheses.

PPP (D) New York 23rd Congressional District Survey

The candidates for Congress in your district are Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, Democrat Bill Owens, and Republican Dede Scozzafava. If the election was today, who would you vote for?

• Doug Hoffman 51%
• Bill Owens 34%
• Dede Scozzafava 13%

If the candidates were just Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman and Democrat Bill Owens, who would you vote for?

• Doug Hoffman 54%
• Bill Owens 38%

Among Independents

• Doug Hoffman 55%
• Bill Owens 33%

Among Moderates

• Bill Owens 59%
• Doug Hoffman 29%

Among Conservatives

• Doug Hoffman 87%
• Bill Owens 8%

If the candidates were just Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman and Republican Dede Scozzafava, who would you vote for?

• Doug Hoffman 53%
• Dede Scozzafava 36%

Among Independents

• Doug Hoffman 58%
• Dede Scozzafava 31%

Among Moderates

• Dede Scozzafava 59%
• Doug Hoffman 26%

Among Conservatives

• Doug Hoffman 86%
• Dede Scozzafava 9%

If the candidates were just Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava, who would you vote for?

• Bill Owens 37%
• Dede Scozzafava 34%

Among Republicans

• Dede Scozzafava 45%
• Bill Owens 18%

Among Independents

• Bill Owens 29%
• Dede Scozzafava 28%

Among Moderates

• Bill Owens 47%
• Dede Scozzafava 36%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Doug Hoffman 50% / 37% {+13%}
• Sarah Palin 43% / 44% {-1%}
• Bill Owens 35% / 45% {-10%}
• Dede Scozzafava 31% / 52% {-21%}
• Democrats in Congress 30% / 58% {-28%}
• Republicans in Congress 25% / 58% {-33%}

Do you think that Doug Hoffman is a liberal, a moderate, or a conservative?

• Liberal 9%
• Moderate 11%
• Conservative 79%

Do you think that Bill Owens is a liberal, a moderate, or a conservative?

• Liberal 55%
• Moderate 40%
• Conservative 5%

Do you think that Dede Scozzafava is a liberal, a moderate, or a conservative?

• Liberal 45%
• Moderate 43%
• Conservative 12%

Among Men

• Liberal 48%
• Moderate 42%
• Conservative 10%

Among Women

• Liberal 42%
• Moderate 45%
• Conservative 13%

Among Liberals

• Liberal 17%
• Moderate 61%
• Conservative 22%

Among Moderates

• Liberal 27%
• Moderate 58%
• Conservative 14%

Among Conservatives

• Liberal 69%
• Moderate 24%
• Conservative 6%

Among Fox News Viewers

• Liberal 62%
• Moderate 29%
• Conservative 8%

Among Non-Fox News Viewers

• Liberal 33%
• Moderate 55%
• Conservative 12%

Among Rush Limbaugh Listeners

• Liberal 69%
• Moderate 24%
• Conservative 7%

Among Non-Rush Limbaugh Listeners

• Liberal 37%
• Moderate 51%
• Conservative 12%

Among Republicans

• Liberal 59%
• Moderate 34%
• Conservative 7%

Among Democrats

• Liberal 25%
• Moderate 55%
• Conservative 20%

Among Independents

• Liberal 45%
• Moderate 45%
• Conservative 9%

(more…)

Marco is getting good buzz.