49/49 Polls, polls and more polls

A last minute look at the polls released today-

CNN/ORC International poll shows a dead heat in the race for the White House, but also on almost every major indicator of President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney that was tested in the poll. That's HUGE. Not that a 49/49  result is what anyone wants...

A new Michigan poll shows Romney eeking ahead 46.86% to President Obama's 46.24%. That would swing Michigan (which in the map I posted yesterday had MI in blue) pink, with its 16 EVs. 

A new Rasmussen poll released Sunday also shows the 49/49 split. The Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections now show the president with 237 Electoral Votes and Romney 206. Eight states with 95 Electoral College votes remain Toss-ups: Colorado,   Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio,Virginia and Wisconsin. Note that they did not pull MI out of the O column. I'm going to take MI out of Obama's number and stick it in toss-up, giving us Obama 221, Romney 206, with 111 toss-ups. 

And now there's 49 percent support for Obama among likely voters, 48 percent for Romney in the latest ABC News/Washington Post daily tracking poll.

And last but not least, USA Today is also showing a 48/48. Unreal.

Using the latest RCP polls, I filled out the CNN do it yourself map. I kept with the RCP numbers except on Michigan, where I used the latest polls that only came out a few hours ago. 

That gives us 274 Obama, 264 Romney. 

You know what I think? I think it is impossible to call. Except I think Team Orca just might make the difference in the too close to call states. 

What's Team Orca? We'll discuss that on Tuesday. 

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

I read the news so you don't have to

Have you checked out the "Match-O-Matic" from ABC and Yahoo News yet? This fun little interactive game has you answer a series of questions to see which candidate (6 major GOP + Obama) you best match up with. Even knowing the candidate's platforms as well as I do, and trying to skew the results to get a certain one, I was very surprised at my result. I got the candidate I wanted (Mitt Romney) for my first choice, but the second place was Huntsman, and the third place was Obama. Obama?? I took it a second time, again skewing my answers to try and get Bachmann, and it gave me Rick Perry. Go figure. It is a fun game, I'm just not sure that it is accurate.
CNN has an interesting piece about how top Iowa faith leaders have backed Rick Santorum, but wish they didn't have to choose between so many pro-life candidates. I find this particularly odd that they would back the losing candidate, while saying they wish they didn't have to choose. Kudos for saying they wish some of the candidates would drop out. I agree. But it is Santorum who is taking away support from bigger candidates! One-issue candidates annoy me. Good for them for bringing attention to their one issue. But they need to think about the party, or overall conservative movement, as a whole, when it comes down to voting time. Otherwise, they are doing more harm than good, pulling support away from a stronger, bigger, candidate with similar views.
Meanwhile MSNBC is running a big whiny piece about Newt Gingrich. The Newt isn't so happy that his competition is running negative ads about him. He's complaining it is causing his drop in the polls. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe you just had an unexpected rise in the polls on name recognition only, then you opened your mouth, people heard what you had to say, and went running? You can't blame your competition for reminding people about who you are!
As for why his campaign is struggling to get his name on the ballot in Virginia (see, I'm not the only one saying that!), and is unorganized in Iowa, he says, “We are still putting our campaign together. It is wild. It is amazing. Some candidates have been running for five or six years and raised millions and millions of dollars. They're better organized than I am.”
You would think a man who has been in politics for as many years as he has would have a lot of connections with campaign managers. Oh wait, he did. And they all quit working for him over the summer!
Last, but not least, the AP is running a story that some folks in Iowa are worried that the voting results might be hacked.

"It's very clear the data consolidation and data gathering from the caucuses, which determines the headlines the next morning, who might withdraw or resign from the process, all of that is fragile," said Douglas Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa who has consulted for both political parties.

"If I were one of these `hacktivists' who had no scruples, I would be really strongly tempted to see if I could get into the computer and see if I could make `SpongeBob SquarePants' win."

While I wouldn't put it past some rabid supporters to do that (coughpaulitescough), all I can really say is anyone who believes that must not have access to C-SPAN, where you can sit and watch the different caucuses "vote" live on TV. It is one of the most boring spectacles you can watch live, but there is no question who they caucus for. Hacking the computers would be pointless when we can watch it all live.

I read the Iowa debate coverage news so you don't have to

Newt Romney at the Iowa Debate. Linked to Source at NY Daily News.

Having read nearly all of the Iowa debate coverage news (and having not seen the debate yet myself), I hereby give you the summary without any hidden bias-

Rick Perry attacked Mitt Romney by saying, "I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of the reprint of the book. But, you know, I'm just sayin', you were for individual mandates, my friend." In return, Romney denied such a thing, and went so far as to bet him $10,000 Perry was wrong. Romney haters (also known as Southern Baptists, Texans, and Democrats) are saying a wager of so much money makes him out of touch with real people. Romney supporters love him all the more for it.

The facts? In the first version of Romney's book, a line referring to a universal health care mandate reads: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." In the later paperback version, the line was edited to read, "And it was done without the government taking over health care."

Apparently Twitter loved this moment, and Romney stole the Twitter show. Analysts report that out of 43,000 messages about the debate on Twitter, Romney was most popular with 30 percent. The rest: Gingrich at 22 percent, Bachmann at 19 percent, Paul at 13 percent, Santorum at 10 percent, and Perry at 5 percent.

Michele Bachmann's big zinger (and she does love her zingers) of the night was aimed at Newt Gingrich's lobbying past (ahem, present), saying that his office was located on "the Rodeo Drive of Washington, D.C., K Street." (A great way to make sure the deeper pockets of DC don't donate to your campaign. Also, K Street? Not that impressive to us local girls. We prefer to do our shopping on M Street.)

The Washington Post's political blogger, "the Fix," proclaimed his winners of the debate to be Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry. And solely put Mitt Romney as the only candidate in the loser column. The Fix feels that Gingrich had a few good moments, wasn't condescending, and was approachable. He commended Bachmann for her ever so popular soundbites and zingers, particularly, "Newt Romney." And for pandering to the former Herman Cain fans. And he lauded Rick Perry for his now popular line, "If you cheat on your wife, you will cheat on your business partner." Oh, and for Perry's attack on Romney about the health care mandates, which we've now learned are incorrect. So strike 1 for The Fix. Interesting to note that the winners and losers (Romney was considered a loser for his wagering), had nothing to do with policy and accuracy.

So how did Gingrich respond to Perry's (and others) attacks on his three marriages? (Let's not forget both Perry and Romney have ads out right now touting their fidelity. And Perry's is an unforgiving pandering to the religious right.) “I think people have to render judgment,” Mr. Gingrich said. “In my case, I said up front openly, I’ve made mistakes at times. I’ve had to go to God for forgiveness. I’ve had to seek reconciliation.” How can all those evangelicals turn their back on a penitent sinner? Well played, Mr. Speaker, well played. Of course, I'd like you more if you hadn't cheated on your wife and married the mistress, but that's not the point now, is it?

Gingrich, who has promised to take the high road and not resort to mean or personal attacks, lobbed one at Romney anyway, "The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is that you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994." Oh and Romney started it by calling Gingrich a career politician. (Well, duh.)

Not to be left out of the Gingrich attacks, Ron Paul reminded us that Gingrich received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. (Gingrich was paid up to $1.8 million in consulting fees.) “By the way, Newt, you probably got some of our taxpayer money.” He added, “You were a spokesman for them and you received money from them.” Gingrich again denied being a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, (he claims he was an historian), “I offered strategic advice — I was in the private sector.” To which Romney replied, “K Street is not the private sector!” Wow, K Street was popular last night.

In no-brainer news, all of the candidates attacked President Obama and the economy. And yet, they are split down the middle on who supports extending the Social Security payroll tax cuts (Romney, Gingrich, and Paul), and who are against it (Bachmann, Perry, and Rick Santorum.) (Jon Huntsman was not present.)

CNN didn't really have anything different to say from the other news outlets, but was the only site to explain that Huntsman opted out on his own accord. They also mentioned that Huntsman immediately sent out press release announcing he'd purchased the website 10kBet.com, after the Romney-Perry wager. 



With all of the news sources titling their articles with "Newt Attacked!" I was surprised at how few of them actually listed what those attacks were. Here is what I could find amidst the wreckage-

Romney to Gingrich: "We could start with this idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon," referring to a Gingrich proposal to mine for precious minerals on the moon.

Paul on Gingrich, "has taken some positions that are not conservative."

Bachmann's big zinger, "if you look at Newt-Romney, they were for Obamacare principles. If you look at Newt-Romney, they were for cap and trade." Apparently she was going for a 2 for 1 attack.

No quotes on barbs from Santorum. In fact, the only quote I can find from Santorum in any article is where he defended Gingrich's marital woes. Marital character is important, but added, "I would not say it's a disqualifier." Wait, wasn't Santorum running on the pro-family first ticket? Has he dropped his one and only platform idea to run for Gingrich VP?

CNN also brought back their debate analyst, Todd Graham. Graham is a professor of debate at a small, no-name university in Illinois. I bring this up, because I don't get why they keep going back to this guy. He doesn't even have a professional head shot next to his byline which bugs me for some reason. After every debate, Graham has written lengthy diatribes about how he doesn't like Romney's style. Not that he doesn't like Romney's policies (although, I suspect he doesn't), he doesn't like Romney's stage presence. Seriously, that's what he wastes 1,000 words to tell us. This week was no different, so I'm not feeling compelled to repeat him. But let it be known, CNN ran a piece saying Romney lost the debate.

Also, I felt like sharing this little cutout from the front page of CNN. Apparently their editors slept in on Sunday morning.

How many spelling errors is that?

Want to see the whole debate for yourself? ABC News already has it up and running on their site.


Sources:
ABC News: Iowa Debate: Republican Candidates Clash Amidst Newt Gingrich Surge, Mitt Romney Attacks
Washington Times: Gingrich assailed by rivals, fires back
ABC News: Bet On It: Twitter Loves Romney's Wager
NY Times: In GOP Iowa Debate, Rivals Target Newt Gingrich