Smith follow-up

By Jennifer J. Foster

As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about GOP State Sen. Harri Anne Smith’s endorsement of Democratic congressional candidate Bobby Bright in the CD-2 race, Danny has a good wrap-up of the latest over at Doc’s.

Bottom line: Bright insistently denies that money had nothing to do with him getting Smith’s support.

Let’s all hope he’s telling the truth.

Again, I will say that if these allegations are false, Bright should do what I have said other politicians should do when they are faced with henious charges that they vehemently deny: He should sue for slander the people who made those charges.

If neither Bright nor his campaign ever engaged in any activity of this kind (“I never as mayor offered anybody any money for anybody’s endorsement and I have never given anybody authority to act on my behalf,” Bright said), then the promulgation of the allegations is reckless disregard of the truth, and Bright should exercise his right to protect his reputation in the courts.

If not ... well, you have to ask yourself why.

Zogby zaniness

By Jennifer J. Foster

Uberpollster John Zogby is out today with a startling analysis of his latest daily tracking poll numbers, which show Barack Obama 9.6 percentage points ahead of John McCain.

These numbers, if they hold, are blowout numbers. They fit the 1980 model with Reagan’s victory over Carter—but they are happening 12 days before Reagan blasted ahead. If Obama wins like this we can be talking not only victory but realignment.

Matt Drudge promoted the new numbers under the headline, “Landslide like Reagan.“

Zogby’s three-day rolling average is based off of interviews with 1,208 likely voters at a clip of 400 per day. But remember—this is a national voter preference poll. It’s good for gauging the mood of the country, but not much else. Because of our Electoral College system, the election will be won or lost in the battleground states.

What does Zogby mean about realignment? According to Zogby, Obama leads:

By 27 points among Independents;

By 27 points among those who have already voted;

By 16 points among newly registered voters;

By 31 points among Hispanics;

93 percent to 2 percent among African-Americans;

By 2 points among men;

By 16 points among women;

By 27 points among likely voters between the ages of 18 and 29;

By 5 points among likely voters between the ages of 30 and 49;

By 8 points among likely voters between the ages of 50 and 64 and by 4 points among likely voters over 65—two demographics long considered McCain’s strongest;

By 25 points among self-described moderates; and

By 12 points among Catholics (which, Zogby points out, portends a better margin than Bill Clinton’s 10-point victory among Catholics in 1996).

All of that out of 400 interviews per day.

One question: How can all these big numbers add up to an overall lead of only 9.6 points?

The only demographics in which Obama trails, according to Zogby, are among whites (down six points), Armed Forces households (down two) and investors (down three).

Wait—McCain only leads Obama by two in Armed Forces households? If John McCain, the former POW, can’t win among military voters, his chances only exist in theory. Could Zogby’s numbers be wrong? A Military Times newspaper group survey reported that among the 4,300 respondents to its survey, McCain held a 68-23 advantage—although a huge racial divide exists in the results (nearly eight in 10 black servicemembers chose Obama, while McCain was the choice of 76 percent of white voters and 63 percent of Hispanic voters).

The Military Times publishes the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times. Together, the newspapers boast 80,000 active-duty and retired servicemen and women as subscribers.

One more curious thing about the Zogby poll: Back in February, I lamented the political phenomenon I labeled “microparsing.“ In this most recent poll, Zogby microparses his results to include an assessment of how Obama is doing among one group in particular:

John Zogby says Obama is tied with McCain among NASCAR fans.

Tied.

Now, I’m no pollster, but I know NASCAR. And if that’s true, I’ll eat my hat.

‘It’s the economy, stupid’

By Jennifer J. Foster

If you had any doubt about why the economy is “Issue No. 1,“ as CNN’s annoying Ali Velshi puts it, here’s all the evidence you need:

Private sector and government jobs fell in 41 states and the District of Columbia last month, the Labor Department said. By comparison, only 18 states reported monthly job losses in August.

Fully 80 percent of the states reported job losses, and September was the ninth straight month that the U.S. economy has shed jobs.

Michigan continued its stunning economic slide, leading the way in job losses with 28,300 jobs last month alone. The Wolverine State has lost 77,900 jobs in the past year, CNNMoney.com reported.

A bit of a surprise to me was the second state on the job-loss list: Georgia, which shed 22,300 in September and is down 61,100 over the past year.

Is it 1992 all over again?

Or is it worse?

Speaking of endorsements ...

By Jennifer J. Foster

All the hubbub this weekend was about Colin Powell’s unexpected-but-not-really endorsement of Barack Obama.

You might remember back in August when we explored here the possibility that Obama might tap Powell as his VP pick. As I said then, Powell’s endorsement of Obama is huge. It serves to at least throw a rug over the yawning void that Obama has in his résumé in foreign policy and military experience.

In announcing his support, Powell lauded Obama as a “transformational figure” who is better suited to handle the nation’s economic problems as well as help improve its standing in the world, CBS reported.

That line got all the attention. Hardly anyone noticed what Powell didn’t say—anything about Obama vis-à-vis military and foreign policy.

Following Powell’s announcement Sunday, Obama said he would bring on Powell as “one of my advisers” in his administration:

He has already served in that function even before he endorsed me.  Whether he wants to take a formal role, whether there’s something that’s a good fit for him, I think is something that he and I would have to discuss.

Yes, Obama would listen to Colin Powell’s advice on military and foreign policy issues ... like he did with the Iraq War, when Powell urged Congress to authorize military action, and Obama voted against it.

So either Powell’s advice isn’t what it’s cracked up to be, or Obama doesn’t put all that much stock into it—at least, when it comes to war.

Anyway, as to the effect of the endorsement, it is probably one of the few endorsements this cycle that will actually mean something. It will likely give independent voters hesitant to trust Obama with this country’s national security the push they need to go ahead and vote for the junior senator from Illinois.

But in addition to the positive impact on Obama’s campaign, Powell’s endorsement is notable for the damage it does to John McCain. In endorsing Obama, Powell articulated an oblique but broad repudiation of the policies of the Republican Party and its standard bearer. In an election that is running within the margin of error in some of the key battleground states, that could make the difference.

Regarding endorsements in general, they are a mixed bag, as budding political pundit Craig Ferguson said Monday. For example, Obama wants you to know all about Powell’s endorsement, but he’s not likely to brag about the one he got from Hamas earlier this year, or about the one he gave to Bill Ayers’ book about Juvenile Court being a “kind and just parent” 11 years ago, or anything having to do with Jeremiah Wright.

Similarly, McCain has distanced himself from the endorsements of right-wing pastors including the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Rev. John Hagee and the Rev. Rod Parsley.

Endorsements. Sometimes it’s best to just stand on your own.