E!!

Read about it here on Boston.com.

It should be acknowledged that The Pew Research and Rasmussen Reports polls had the presidential race right at 52 to 46 percent, a 6 point spread.

The polls at Gallup and Reuters/Zogby had the race at an 11 point spread which is outside the margin of error so problematic.  ABC/Washington Post and CBS had Obama up by 9 which is just at the +/- 3 point margin of error. 

NBC/WSJ and IBD had a spread of 8 which isn’t bad, and CNN and FOX had the spread at 7 points which is/was close enough for me.

Source:  Newsmax

Forgot to mention that Rove’s electoral map prediction was the closest of any I found in my internet and blogosphere travels.  He called it perfectly with the exception of giving Indiana to McCain (so had called it 338 – 200).  Impressive.

(If you know of a site, blog or map that had it 100% right, please let me know.)

I assume most have checked the state election results by now, so here are some random thoughts:

– With 28 seats in the Assembly, a majority in the Senate, and just a couple of Republican votes the Dems can override a veto by Governor Jim Gibbons.  He is now officially a lame duck.  Or, in light of the constant trouble and controversy surrounding him, maybe just plain lame.

– In light of the above, expect a tax hike in Nevada as legislators contemplate a budget shortfall of (at least) $250 million.

– My condolences to Senator Heck (R) who lost to Breeden by 801 votes.  But, as Chuck Muth pointed out during this morning’s panel discussion on KNPR, Heck’s campaign ignored his advice to court the Libertarian active voting block (which by all counts was larger by far than Heck’s loss margin).  A few calls and mailers to Libertarian types and who knows what could have been?

– Incumbent Senator Bob Beers (R) was outspent and outslimed by a Democratic machine that did not hesitate to twist, lie and libel.  And somehow it didn’t seem to matter to voters that his opponent, Allison Copening, ducked most debate and interview opportunities throughout the campaign. 

– I was dissatisfied with both Beers’ and Copening’s pre-election responses to my “what will you cut, or what taxes will you raise, specifically” question in re: to Nevada’s budget shortfall.  Beers said we’d have to do one or the other (duh!) and Copening said she’d figure it out when she got to Carson City.  These answers are not good enough.  Voters have the right to know what their candidates plan to do before they cast their ballots.

– Congrats to Chad Christensen who is “my” Assemblyman.  A lot of people thought he was done, including Jon Ralston.

– Memo to Senator Raggio:  Please do what you can to convince your fellow senators to cut the budget and raise taxes as little as possible.

No matter who wins tonight, all of this needs a full audit and the full attention of the public.  It is ridiculous and shameful that our election processes should be so fraught with ineptitude and/or corruption.  America can do better.

It’s almost 7:30 back east so the polls – if running on time – are now closed in Kentucky and Indiana as well as VT, parts of NH, VA, SC, GA, and FL. 

MSN’s map (a pretty good one – interactive and clickable and fun) is showing Indiana with McCain at 50% and Obama at 49% with 10% of precincts reporting. 

Kentucky is coming in as expected; it will be red.

I’ll be blogging all night but it won’t be every 5 minutes.  I think The Corner will be blogging pretty frequently, so I suggest going there and checking back here maybe every 30 to 60 minutes.

I didn’t mention Dean Heller’s congressional race in my prediction blurb because he’s going to crush Democrat Jill Derby and I assumed everyone knew that.

I surely must be dreaming…because my election predictions made NRO along with those of Kenneth Blackwell, Alex Castellanos, editor Kathryn Jean Lopez, Rob Long, John Miller, John Pitney, Lisa Schiffren, and the great Mark Steyn.  (Mine is the third blurb down.)

What an honor.

Now if only my prediction is wrong and McCain wins handily, I can go home and really enjoy that bottle of champagne that’s chilling in the fridge.

Karl Rove has called it for Obama.  He’s got the electoral vote count totals at 338-200 because (he says)Obama wins in NV, CO, NM, MI, OH, FL, VA, PA, and NH while McCain only wins in MO, IN, and NC.

Of course, evil Republican genius* that he is, Rove could just be trying to lull Obama voters into a false sense of security (i.e. staying home).

*For those not aware, this is a liberal term of endearment for Rove.

Most people who follow election day results know that poll closing times drive news coverage throughout the afternoon/evening.  Below are how the closing times fall (all times are Eastern) along with some notes.  Electoral votes are in parenthesis where indicated.

6:00 – Most of KY and IN – Indiana is a battleground state this year.

7:00 – Remaining precincts in KY and IN + VT, half of NH, VA, SC, GA, FL – This is the “first wave” of election results.  Kentucky (8), South Carolina (8), and Georgia (15) are red states.  Vermont (3) is blue.  Eyes are on Indiana (11), New Hampshire (4), Virginia (13), and Florida (27).  I’ve seen polls in these states that have the candidates virtually tied and polls that have Obama up by 3 to 5 points.  I predict FL and NC for McCain; not sure on NH and VA.

7:30 – OH, WV, NC – Ohio is huge with 20 electoral votes.  West Virginia (5) is red, but North Carolina (15) is in play.  I predict McCain will win NC, but Ohio is anybody’s guess.  Obama could win without Ohio, but I’m not sure McCain can.

8:00 – ME (4), the other half of NH, MA (12), CT (7), PA (21), NJ (15), DE (3), MD (10), D.C. (3), MI (17), TN (11), AL (9), MS (6), IL (21), MO (11), SD (3), KS (6), OK (7), TX (34) - The battleground states on this list are NH, PA, MI, and MO.  Mchigan will go blue.  I think Missouri will go red.  I would have called PA for Obama up until a week ago, but now I’m not so sure.  PA is second in importance behind Ohio, and no matter what McCain can’t lose both of them and win the way things are looking.

8:30 – AR (6) – Arkansas is red.

9:00 – RI (4), NY (31), LA (9), WI (10), MN (10), parts of ND (3) and SD (3), NE (5), WY (3), CO (9), NM (5), AZ (10) – The only real question marks here are Colorado and New Mexico.  All the polls say Colorado will go to Obama and the margin seems to make that likely.  The race in New Mexico is closer.  Strangely enough, the way these things work, McCain really needs New Mexico’s five electoral votes.  (And I noted that he spent some time there today so his campaign concurs.)  I ran quite a few scenarios earlier including one in which McCain won NH, IN, OH, VA, NC, FL, MO, and lost PA, MI, CO, NV, and NM…which resulted in a tie:  269 electoral votes each.  Moving NM’s 5 to Obama’s column resulted in a 274-264 Obama win.

10:00 – IA (7), MT (3), ID (4), UT (5), NV (5) - Iowa is blue.  The rest are red except Nevada which is in play this year.  Based on registration rolls, many people are calling Nevada for Obama, but the predicted Dem wins in the primaries (for the same reason) didn’t happen.  So, we’ll see.  

11:00 – WA (11), OR (7), CA (55) – “Yawn”:  The most boring poll closing since all are blue.

12:00 – AK (3), HI (4) – Alaska is red; Hawaii blue.

Tomorrow afternoon – when the polls have not yet closed and the exit polls are all we have to talk about - let’s not forget that the 2004 exit polls had everyone predicting an easy Kerry win. 

Exit polling is not scientific.  Someone stands outside the poll place and asks voters, “Will you tell me who you voted for?”  People can answer or take a pass.

Historically, exit polls do tend to skew Democratic.  I’ve heard various theories as to why:  some say it’s the bias of the exit pollers; some say conservatives/Republicans tend to be more private so don’t share personal information as easily.

IowaHawk brings the funny yet again.  Read the whole thing.  (Parental Guidance suggested.)

UPDATE:  My stomach still hurts from laughing at this other IowaHawk post.  Sheer genius.

With just 8 days left until the polls close for the 2008 presidential election, the Las Vegas Review Journal is reporting that nearly 190,000 voters had turned out through Saturday in early voting in Nevada’s largest county (Clark).  Of the 186,849 voters to show up at the polls, 103,719 were Democrats and 52,850 were Republicans.  Of mail ballots received so far, there have been about 14,000 Republicans ballots vs. 12,500 Democrat ballots.  Combining both mail ballots and early voting, Dems represented 54 percent of all Clark County voters while Republicans represented 31 percent.

What remains to be seen is how the rest of Nevada’s counties - many of which lean Republican – turn out.  Washoe County, which contains Reno-Sparks, is particularly of interest.  According to the Washoe County website, 51,209 voters have turned out to the polls as of yesterday.  26,214 of those were Democrats, compared to 16,838 Republicans.  The final count will likely be a lot closer, though.  A late September Reno Gazette Journal piece said that total Washoe County registration stood at 87,971 registered Republicans and 84,705 registered Democrats, with a backlog of about 5,000 registration applications still awaiting processing at that point.  If we assume that most of that backlog were Democrats, Washoe may be ”a wash” because the numbers will be nearly even.

For the break down of voter rolls of Nevada’s 15 remaining counties, see the Sec. of State’s website.  The sum up is this:  when the numbers from Clark and Washoe counties are set aside, the rest of Nevada leans Republican.  September stats showed Republican registrations at 75,402 vs. Democrat registrations at 49,687 in these counties.  The GOP to Dem ratio used to be a lot bigger in northern Nevada, but the large influx of liberal leaning California residents has chipped away at it over the last decade.

According to this RJ piece last week, Nevada Democrats increased their total voter registration edge over Republicans to 111,559 this year – huge in comparison to the edge of about 4,100 voters a year ago.  The RJ says the total of all registered voters in Nevada stands at nearly 1.5 million, including 625,333 Democrats and 513,774 Republicans.  For Democrats, that’s 43 percent of the voters; and for Republicans it’s about 36 percent.

Note:  The numbers of active voters on the Sec. of State’s webpage are a lot lower than the RJ is reporting so I called Matt Griffin, our state Elections Deputy, to verify.  I’m waiting on a call back and will report.*  The SOS website says that as of September 2008 there are 498,143 registered Democrats; 417,477 registered Republicans; 168,606 Non-partisans; 44,481 Independents; 6,388 Libertarians; 3,699 Others; 3,282 Greens; and 200 Natural Laws (what the heck is a “Natural Law” voter?)

Assuming these numbers are correct, those identifying with parties other than the Big Two total 226,656 with the Independent/Non-partisan voters totaling 213,087.  That being the case, it looks like it’s the Independent/Non-partisan votes that will make the difference in Nevada.

I know a lot of in-state folks have called Nevada for Obama already.  This little blogger ain’t so sure.  Nevada’s independent voters tend to lean conservative and residents of all political stripes favor low taxes, small government and generally being left alone. 

The more Obama talks about government programs, the less likely he is to please the Silver State’s electorate.  Las Vegas also has hundreds of small businesses whose owners (and nervous employees) may well have been swayed by McCain’s Joe-the-Plumber-esque pitch this past week.  And let’s not forget:  we are very much a war-hawk/pro-military state, with Nellis AFB just a few miles east of Vegas.

Election Fact:  Since 1912, Nevada has voted for the winner of every presidential election, except 1976, when the state chose Republican Gerald Ford rather than Democrat Jimmy Carter. 

*Elections Deputy Matt Griffin called me back re: the discrepancy on voter registration rolls.  He said the RJ is likely basing their numbers on registered but-not-yet-validated voters, whereas the Sec. of State’s website is citing verified, eligible voters.

Kathleen Parker chimed in on the Christopher Buckley thing.  A very well written piece, and I agree with much (though not all) of it.

Let me be clear that I have no issue with Buckley’s complaints against and dissatisfaction with the Republican party.  In these things I agree with him and am similarly disgruntled.

My criticism was not of the fact that Buckley left National Review; it was the way he left.

And, though his vote is his own, I don’t think it makes sense to show your disgust for the lack of conservatism in the GOP by voting for the candidate/party who has even less of it.

UPDATE:  As for the “shunning” of conservatives like Buckley, I have to agree with what Rich Lowry said just a bit ago, mentioning both Kathleen and Peggy Noonan:

In her Palin-centered column, Peggy says those “whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives,” and then cites Christopher’s resignation from his NR column as an example. Peggy is a busy person, so I suppose she hasn’t had time to notice that Kathleen Parker’s columns ripping Sarah Palin have appeared on NRO. That David Frum has aired his discontent with the Palin pick on NRO. That others of us—Ramesh and even me (between my occasional bouts of rhapsodic gushing!)—have criticized aspects of her performance. And that other writers on NRO have stuck up for Palin and pushed back against the critics. It’s called debate.

Now, I regret how some conservatives immediately question the motives of the critics of Palin, but it’s equally regrettable that Noonan, Parker et al are portraying most conservatives as irrational thugs. It makes you wonder: Who is really being overly emotional and deeply unfair in this intra-mural conservative debate? Which brings us naturally to Kathleen Parker’s column today. Read and judge for yourself. Is this calm, cool deliberation? Or hyperbole worthy of a peeved e-mailer? (By the way, I hate that Kathleen got any abusive e-mails at all; it’s a very unfortunate part of the world of the web. But hate e-mail goes both ways. I wouldn’t want to live for a minute with, say, Kathryn Lopez’s or Jonah Goldberg’s in-box on any given day.)

Finally, on Christopher, I already addressed it here. But he proffered a “sincere offer” of resignation of his column that he had taken up temporarily while Mark Steyn was on hiatus. It struck us as a win-win: Chris would get out of a column we thought he wanted out of; we’d get Mark Steyn, who had recently returned to writing, back on our back page. We never imagined Chris would feel he’d been “fatwa-ed.” In any case, Chris is still on NR’s board, and is welcome to write pieces for us going forward, which I’m hoping he’ll do after everyone, very much including the Noonans and Parkers of the world, takes a deep breath.

And BTW, I posted on what Peggy Noonan said earlier over at Culture11‘s LadyBlog.

This morning, Culture11′s James Poulous called Yuval Levin “one of the sharpest tools in the conservative shed” and provided a link to this piece on why John McCain is a better choice than Obama.

I cheerfully admit to being biased toward all things Levin - you can see what I mean over at The New Atlantis - but the piece is well worth reading even for non-admirers.

From one of Steyn’s Corner posts today:

Senator Obama famously shrugged off William Ayers as just a guy in his neighborhood. In a way, that’s right. The Ayers/Obama connection isn’t about the Senator’s social life, it’s about where he lives, politically speaking. Ayers’ Weather Underground grew out of “Students For A Democratic Society”, as did ACORN. Today, Ayers and his fellow “educators” are engaged with considerable success in radicalizing the next generation of Americans. But, if that doesn’t work, ACORN has a fallback strategy.

What does ACORN do? It steals elections:

In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN turned in 5,000 new registrations. The authorities there started reviewing them, and quit after they found that the first 2,100 were all fraudulent. The mind boggles: ACORN turns in thousands of new registrations, and not a single one represents a legitimate voter.

Who does ACORN steals elections for? Ah, well, that’s a little harder to figure out from the CNN report. But the Obama campaign gave 800 grand from its many illegal foreign contributions to ACORN.

There is something ridiculous about this country’s approach to elections. If a Swedish businessman flies in for a one-day meeting in New York, he’ll undergo a retinal scan at JFK. But, if that same businessman decides to stay on a day or two, he can wander into half the polling stations in America and cast an illegal vote more or less with impunity. We have retinal scans at the airport because it’s a national security issue, but in elections it’s ”racist” or “discriminatory” to require a driver’s license, passport or even proof of corporeal existence. The integrity of the ballot box is, ultimately, also a national security issue. ACORN has now registered approaching one and a half million “voters”, not in Utah or in Massachusetts, but in those key states where this election will be decided. They have more than enough to change the result.

10/14 08:21 AM

E!! Note:  If you live in Nevada, you should care about this.  ACORN is under investigation here, too.

NV Congressman Dean Heller is holding his lead over challenger Jill Derby. 

Heller voted against the $700 bailout bill (twice) and has consistently complained about the spendy RINO (Republicans in name only) in D.C.  Heller represents our second district, which encompasses most of rural Nevada.  A little history:

Heller announced his run for the House in 2005.  He won the GOP primary for the seat being vacated by Jim Gibbons who was then running for governor.  In the primary, Heller received 24,781 votes to Sharron Angle’s 24,353 (squeaker!) and, interestingly, to Dawn Gibbons’ (yes THAT Mrs. Gibbons) 17,328.

In the general election, Heller defeated U of NV regent and Dem candidate Jill Derby by about 5%.  Although he lost Washoe County/Reno, he won in the rural areas by a margin of over 2-1 and took the election by over 12,000 votes.

Apparently the peeps back in Massachusetts are considering getting rid of the state income tax.

Didn’t believe it myself until I read this (very biased) Globe piece which confirms that Question 1 is indeed on the ballot, that it would completely abolish the state income tax, and that the last time around (2002) the measure got 45% of the vote.

If approved, the state income tax would be cut from 5.3 to 2.65 percent on Jan. 1, 2009 and then be abolished a year later.

The usual suspects are opposed to the measure, citing concerns about the loss of tax revenue and the subsequent “catastrophic” cuts to “needed” services.  

Taxaholics always warn of the rapid decline of schools, roads, and public safety if voters dare to abolish taxes.  They paint a dire picture of social disintegration:  your kids will suddenly become uneducated boobs; you’ll have to drive a covered wagon to work on a dirt road; and your town will be plundered by Viking marauders.

Or, as supporters of the measure say, Beacon Hill will be forced to find more efficient ways to achieve what really matters and cut unnecessary spending. 

Currently, seven states manage to avoid sliding into total anarchy while imposing no income tax:  Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.  Additionally, New Hampshire and Tennessee limit their state income taxes to dividends and interest income only.

(Hat Tip on Question 1:  My friends at the Americans for Tax Reform blog)

Mary Pat Flaherty @ the Washington Post is reporting a raid of ACORN’s Nevada office as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged voter fraud.

Apparently seven agents from the NV Sec of State and AG offices served a search warrant and removed boxes and computers.

(ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.)

The gist of the complaint against ACORN is that they are trying to bombard election officials with new registrations that are carelessly gathered and might enable unqualified voters to get on the rolls.

So far, proven offenses range from illegible names on registration cards to names being drawn from telephone listings or other public directories. 

Here’s ACORN’s Nevada website/contact info if you are curious.

From a Newt e-blast today:

To give you a sense of how failed the current [financial] strategy has been, consider this: This summer a $300 billion housing bailout was passed with a $500 million a year payment to a radical, anti-free market group called ACORN and other left-wing organizing groups.

ACORN is a left-wing, political extortion racket. It’s currently busy bussing people to vote early in Ohio and elsewhere…these are your tax dollars at work.

You get taxed to send a left-wing group money to use to elect left-wing predatory politicians to raise your taxes to give more money to groups who help them get elected…etc.

It was suicidal for a Republican president to sign that housing bailout bill and any bill that contains funding for groups so radically opposed to the values and interests of the vast majority of Americans.

If you aren’t in the loop on all this, in Ohio and other swing states ACORN has been bussing poor and homeless people to voter registration stations where they sign up, and vote, same day, in some cases without providing proper proof of residency/address.  In many cases, it’s being reported that election monitors are not present at these stations.

Will these thousands of same-day registrations/votes be properly examined and rejected if invalid?  Who knows?

I’m doing some research here in Nevada, where ACORN is also active, and will report back with any findings. 

Another gaffe Obama recently made is saying there will be a change of President in 40 days (counting to the election rather than the inauguration).

I’m sure he’s eagerly crossing off the days on his calendar and already planning what he’ll wear on the first day of School…

Here’s an interesting link-up/post on Obama and Yucca Mountain by Edward John Craig @ Planet Gore blog @ National Review Online.  After he quotes Max Schulz in the D.C. Examiner, Craig quips, “A northern liberal equating elite opinion with public opinion?  Nah . . . never happens.”

Obama on Yucca Mountain

[Edward John Craig writes] Max Schulz in the D.C. Examiner suggests that Obama has a bad read on Nevada voters’ position on Yucca Mountain.

Obama is gambling that his anti-Yucca stance will put Nevada in his column. Conventional wisdom holds that Obama has taken the safer bet. Yet it’s actually a risky strategy, based on the highly questionable assumption that Nevada voters oppose Yucca Mountain as fervently as do the state’s elected officials. The last two presidential elections suggest they don’t.

In 2000, Yucca supporter Bush took the state with more votes than opponents Gore and Ralph Nader combined. Those five electoral votes were the difference between victory and defeat.

Shortly after taking office, Bush pushed Yucca Mountain legislation through Congress, sparking fresh outrage from Nevada’s political leaders. It didn’t matter. In the 2004 presidential election, Bush again won the Silver State. Incredibly, he tallied nearly 39 percent more votes than four years before.

A big problem with Obama’s reflexive Democratic opposition to Yucca Mountain is that he proposes no viable alternatives at a time when Washington is on the hook for an answer to the nuclear waste question.

Failure to come up with a workable solution throws a wrench into plans to revive nuclear power’s fortunes just when voters are increasingly worried about climate change and over-reliance on foreign energy sources.

Without an alternative proposal, Obama’s pro-nuclear comments are merely lip service. That could have ramifications in states other than Nevada. All signs point to a public and an investment climate increasingly supportive of nuclear power.

Obama is a savvy politician who for two years has run a nearly flawless campaign for the White House. He is also known to be a pretty good poker player. But with his opposition to Yucca Mountain, as with his dissembling on offshore drilling, he looks to have played the energy card all wrong. It just might cost him a big pot on November 4.

Had a good conversation with a conservative friend this weekend re: government spending and Republican Rep. Jon Porter’s apparent affinity for it (despite his claims to the contrary – especially, my friend noted, when he is looking for campaign contributions).

This convo occured before I read Jon Ralston’s column in the Las Vegas Sun yesterday, in which he noted that although Porter has a new ad slamming Democrat challenger and former state senator Dina Titus for voting for the largest tax hike in Nevada’s history back in 2003 - which she did – Porter likely would have voted for it, too.

In light of Jon Porter’s record of voting for pork bills in Congress, including this year’s scandalous Farm Bill, Ralston’s assumption is fair.

Does Jon Porter really think he can sell himself as a fiscal conservative at this point?  And even if he tries, why on earth would we believe him?

And now for a serious look at this year’s campaign season (turn speakers on; page load time is worth the wait).

On the subject of my dismal (0-3) election prediction record:

Jack Pitney only got it one-quarter right with this prediction last year:

Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani for president. To hold GOP women who might vote for Hillary and to stress his commitment to reform, Giuliani surprises the political class by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton makes a move into GOP territory by picking Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. Giuliani-Palin wins with 52 percent of the popular vote and 293 electoral votes.

James Poulos has an interesting piece re: Veep picks up on Culture11 today.  As a result of his column, and a few others I’ve read, I’ve revised my opinion about the Biden pick.

To say Biden is either a Terrible or Genius pick implies that the choice mattered, which – in this unique election year – it really did not.

Obama’s candidacy is so historic, his political chronicle so polarizing, and his persona so massive, that Biden is quite beside the point. Obama could have chosen just about anyone; November’s result will turn on other realities.

Blue Collar Muse has a good piece up on Fred Baron’s seemingly bottomless pile of cash and what he’s choosing to do with it:  among other things, hide the truth (Edwards’ affair) from the public and attempt to swing national elections. 

Here’s some good op-ed’ing on Biden at Rocky Mountain News.

The Muthster tells me that Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley did an interview last week in which she threatened to target any Republican candidate who signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. 

On the other side is Muth and Citizen Outreach, not-so-gently reminding candidates that there will be a barrage of pre-election phone calls and mail-outs into their districts if they don’t sign the Pledge.

What’s a Republican candidate to do?  Buckle when the leader of the opposition party points her canons his way, or stand up for fiscal conservatism and fight the Good Fight?

Here’s a third alternative for Nevada’s candidates:  if you’re billing yourself as a Republican but support raising taxes on an already over-taxed citizenry, do us all a favor and leave the party.  Buckley will be glad to have you, and we’ll be glad to see you go.

If you’re a voter who opposes new taxes, or are running for election and want to see and/or sign the Pledge, go here.  Candidates can fax it to Citizen Outreach at (775) 522-3925.