Unity Campaign update: Despite persistant pestering by me, The Unity Campaign has not corrected its Battleground map.
They did post two notices saying they would update the map on Aug. 31 and Sept. 3 and I assumed that John Pearce would do the right thing and post the latest numbers which show Nader not impacting John Kerry's presidential race at all. Well, I thought wrong.
They are still using old polling data - some of it many months old. As has been posted here repeatedly, Nader isn't a factor in the 2004 election cycle. I wish he was more of a factor. I wish he, Badnarik, Cobb and Peroutka, were all given the same coverage as the two major party candidates. Sadly, the media shirks its responsibility. Even sadder is that The Unity Campaign and other Nader-haters can't be honest with the voters of America. They are continuing to perpetuate an electoral fib, a non-existent political phenomenon and they are the lesser for it.

However, anyone watching the news of late can see that Kerry could be impacting his own campaign. A relative of mine recently stated that watching this campaign during the last few weeks reminded him of what happened to Mike Dukakis in 1988. I agree. Maybe Kerry should have attacked the Swiftboat people right away, before the book became a best-seller. Maybe he should have considered signing the Pentagon's Standard Form 180, as conservatives have suggested he do. I don't know. Needless to say, he needs to do something dramatic - quickly.

Will Swiftboats sink Kerry?:
Just when we thought our home state Sen. John Kerry was about to win the presidency of the United States, a loathsome thing happened: A group of former veterans holding a 35-year grudge orchestrated one of the harshest political attacks that our generation has ever seen.
The group, The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, has made all kinds of claims about Kerry's service in Vietnam. Depending on which newspaper you read or TV program you watch, the viewer gets a different version of the story. For every claim that one of his Purple Heart awards was for a self-inflicted wound, there is a firsthand account of someone else who says Kerry plucked him from the water, under enemy fire.
Since I wasn't there, I don't know what actually happened and neither do most of us. No matter what someone may think of the attacks themselves, they were broad. The Swiftboat group and their well-financed Republican backers from Texas, impressively calculated their attacks for maximum damage - rolled out with unbelievable media precision.
First, a book, "Unfit for Command," was released. Then a small $100,000 TV ad buy in a handful of swing states - which was then blasted over and over again on every news program possible. Then there were interviews with the key people involved saying all kinds of nasty things about Kerry. Kerry foolishly said little in his own defense - choosing instead to go windsurfing - at a critical time in the campaign cycle.
This was a surgical attack on a level we have never seen before in politics. It was planned and thought out for months, probably a long time before Kerry sewed up the nomination. Anyone who has dealt with publishing knows that it takes a long time to get a book edited and published. While I haven't read it [I've only skimmed it and read excerpts], the book was probably quite an undertaking.
Swiftboat spokesman John O'Neill seems to have performed his assault task dutifully, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. O'Neill cut his teeth as a member of the Nixon dirty tricks squad. He has also made some outlandish accusations, saying that Kerry should have been court-martialed for crossing into Cambodia, while ignoring the fact that O'Neill was recorded on tape telling Nixon that he himself had crossed into Cambodia. There are also the different versions of events from many of the members of his group. The Washington Post recently released an exhaustive study of their allegations, calling them unproven.
Yet what is really amazing about all of this is that we are still fighting about Vietnam more than three decades later while our soldiers die in Iraq and Afghanistan. What happened to the mentality of Support our Troops, Support our Veterans, no matter what? Shouldn't veterans like Kerry be given the benefit of the doubt? Or, will the American people have to call for an audit of every Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Silver Star, Medal of Honor, etc. ever awarded to a soldier to make sure that every last veteran actually earned his medals?
Part of this attack on Kerry is his own fault. Under the contrived spectacle that was the Democratic National Convention, Kerry spent a lot of time talking about his military service, a whole 11 months of his life. Almost nothing was said about the 19-plus years he spent in the Senate but that isn't surprising. We all know Kerry's lack of commitment to constituent services and his well-earned reputation for changing his mind and voting against the interests of Massachusetts.
But because he relied so heavily on his Vietnam war record in his speeches and advertising, he opened himself up to the Swiftboat attack. Kerry was tripped up on his own war-time braggadocio.
Shockingly, the Kerry campaign was completely unprepared for this - thinking that the limited defense they have run in previous Senate campaigns and the extensive biographical coverage written was enough to fend off future attacks. It wasn't.
All across the United States, polls are shifting and the slight bounce Kerry received from his convention has fallen out from underneath him. It was only a couple of weeks ago when safe red states - states in which President George W. Bush was almost guaranteed a victory - were in play for the Democrats. In Arkansas, Arizona, North Carolina, and Virginia, states where Democrats have rarely been able to compete, Kerry was within the margin-of-error of Bush. It was all pretty amazing. But as easy as the shifting tides, there goes Kerry's bounce, eaten up by this nasty political hit. It really makes you wonder if Kerry was the right Democrat to be taking on the president at this crucial time in our history.
What is disappointing about all of this is that there are real problems in our nation and this world that need solving. Many of them are the fault of Bush and the Republicans. Many others are the fault of Kerry and the Democrats. Inside Madison Square Garden, Republicans raised the bloody shirt of 9/11, hammering away at the flip-flopping, soulless yuppie Kerry. While outside, the Democrats walked with flag-draped coffins, comparing the president to Adolf Hitler. Is this the best we can do?
While we all know what must be done, the answers are not as clear as we might think - with those same answers bogged down in the emotional phenomenon that is known as partisan, two-party politics.
But what seems assured is that no matter who wins, we'll all end up losers.

Is Kerry in trouble?: There is a lot of new polling out and Kerry is clearly losing position in tight races even though the race for the presidency is still a toss up. I don't know if the extensive coverage in the media of the claims by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is the reason for his slippage. But what is very clear is that Ralph Nader has nothing to do with the Kerry slide. If Kerry still continues to slide, however, watch how fast the Democrats pummel Nader even more than they already are. At the same time, support for Libertarian Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb, seems to be building. This is acknowledged in at least one poll. Here is the latest information:

Arkansas: This presumed safe Bush state is now a toss up with little wiggle room for either candidate. The latest poll, posted by Survey USA on Aug. 23, shows a slight Bush lead with 48 percent, Kerry at 47, Other with 3, and Undecided at 2 percent. Interestingly, Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln has a 24 percent lead over her Republican opponent. Survey USA did not state who the "Other" candidates were, but Nader, Badnarik, and Cobb are on the ballot. The "Other" voters identified themselves as "probable" voters, aged 18 to 49, white and Asian, mostly registered independent describing themselves as liberal, yet also both pro-life and pro-choice. Two percent of Democrats and 1 percent of Republicans are voting for "Other." Five percent of Democrats are undecided. Nine percent of Democrats and 8 percent of "liberals" are planning on voting for Bush.

Florida: Not unlike 2000, two of the latest polls show the state extremely close. Rasmussen Reports has a poll out from Wednesday showing Bush with 49, Kerry with 47, Nader at 2, Badnarik at 1, Cobb with 1 percent, and 1 percent "Not Sure." Again, like Arkansas, there is no room for growth for the two major candidates. The state is a toss up. It is interesting that Rasmussen - which previously stated that Nader would not be a factor in 2004, hence they were not including him in polls - is now including most minor candidates in polling. Frankly, all of the polling agencies should take the extra sentence or two to acknowledge the three other minor candidates on a regular basis, especially if identified by voters. Rasmussen did not ask people how they would vote in a two-way race and did not post specifics on its Web site, preferring to charge people for access to its data. So, the Nader impact is unknown.
In another poll, posted Tuesday, USA Today/CNN/Gallup had Bush at 48, Kerry with 46, Nader at 2, and "Neither/other/no opinion" at 4 percent. Without Nader, the results would be Bush 48, Kerry 47, and 5 percent saying neither, other, or no opinion. No other relevant data was shown in the poll.
Since June there have been 19 polls in the state, Kerry has led in 11 with two being a tie between the two.

Maine: Strangely, Maine, a traditional safe-blue state, could be in play this year. A Survey USA poll, has Kerry with a 5 point lead: Kerry 49, Bush 44, Other 5, and Undecided at 2 percent. The pollster noted that since Maine is not a "winner-take-all" Electoral College vote state, Bush could potentially win 1 EC vote if his numbers are good in the north country, the most conservative part of the state. Currently, Bush and Kerry are tied in that region. While the "Other" candidates were not identified, the voters described themselves as "probable" voters, aged 18 to 49, mostly registered independents, who are also liberal, while both pro-choice and pro-life. Badnarik, Cobb and Constitution Party member Michael Peroutka are on the ballot in the state. Cobb's VP, Patricia LaMarche, a radio talk show host from Yarmouth, is expected to help the Greens to fight for third. Running under "The Better Life" party line, Nader barely submitted enough signatures to get on the ballot in Maine. Those signatures are currently being challenged by the state's Democratic Party - supposed champions of "democracy." Four percent of Republicans and 3 percent of Democrats are voting for "Other." Eleven percent of both Republicans are voting for Kerry while 11 percent of Democrats are voting for Bush. Also voting for Bush: 12 percent of liberals and 38 percent of union households.

Michigan: Kerry has had consistent leads in Michigan [14 out of 16 since June] but the race is now tight. The latest Survey USA poll, posted Aug. 23, shows Kerry with a 3 point lead: Kerry 48, Bush 45, Other 5, Undecided 2 percent. The "Other" voters were described as "certain" voters, aged 18-34 and 50 to over 65, mostly Hispanic and Asian, registered Democrats and independents, and equally pro-life and pro-choice. Eight percent of Democrats, 36 percent of union households, and 12 percent of liberals said they were voting for Bush. Although Survey USA did not identified the Other candidates, Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka, and the Natural Law Party's Walter Brown, are on the ballot. Nader submitted signatures and was also supposed to be on the Reform Party line, but he has not been granted access because the Democrats are suing.

Missouri: The presumed safe red state is still a toss up. A Los Angeles Times poll released yesterday shows Bush with a 4 point lead: Bush 48, Kerry 44. Nader was not included in the data and will not be on the ballot in the state. A subscription is required to access data from the poll. Badnarik will be on the ballot in the state.

Nevada: A safe red state now a toss up. A Research 2000 poll posted on Aug. 21 shows a Bush 44, Kerry 42, Nader 2, with 12 percent "Unsure," or room for any of the candidates to gain support. Without Nader, the results were Bush 44, Kerry 43. No other data was posted on the site. Nader, Cobb, and Badnarik will be on the ballot.

Ohio: Pundits have been predicting that Ohio will be 2004's Florida and we agree. A Los Angeles Times poll from earlier this week gives Bush the edge: 49 to 44 but the leads have been flipping back and forth. Nader was not included in the poll but will be on the ballot along with Badnarik. No other data was available. Kerry has led in 8 out of 14 polls in the state since June.

Pennsylvania: Another toss up. The latest poll, from the IssuesPA/Pew posted Aug. 22 shows Kerry 45, Bush 43, Nader 3 and 9 percent undecided/other. In a PDF linked to the site, Bush received 9 percent of the Democratic vote while Nader received 2 percent. Seven percent of Democrats were undecided. One percent of Republicans were voting for Nader. Badnarik and Cobb will be on the ballot but Nader may not be because of challenges by Democrats. Cobb has agreed not to campaign in the state because it is a swing state and the state's Greens are furious about it. Kerry has led in 12 out of 13 polls from the state since June.

Wisconsin: A surprising swing state swings back to Bush. Another Los Angeles Times poll released Aug. 25, Bush has a 4-point lead: Bush 48, Kerry 44. Nader was not included in the poll. The leads have been switching back and forth in a state that is historically blue. The ballot deadline isn't until September. Badnarik and Cobb are both on the ballot. Nader is trying to get on the ballot. Since June there have been eight polls with Bush and Kerry leading in four each.

Other anomalies in recent polling:
In Alabama, Bush has a huge 21-point lead, according to a Survey USA poll released on Aug. 23. However, 10 percent of Democrats, 23 percent of liberals, 59 percent of independents, and 13 percent of blacks are voting for Bush.
In Oklahoma, Bush has a 19-point lead, with 25 percent of the state's Democrats voting for him, according to a Survey USA poll posted Aug. 19. Eighteen percent of liberals and 35 percent of pro-choice supporters are voting for Bush.
In Maryland, Kerry has an 11-point lead, according to an Aug. 25 Survey USA poll. In it, Bush is getting 14 percent of Democrats, 13 percent of liberals, 28 percent of pro-choice voters, and 37 percent of union households.
In New Jersey, Kerry has a solid 10-point lead, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released this week. However, 9 percent of Democrats are voting for Bush and 3 percent of Democrats voting for Nader. Twelve percent of Republicans are voting for Kerry with 2 percent of Republicans voting for Nader.
In Texas, Bush has a 21 percent lead, according to an Aug. 23 Survey USA poll. In the poll, 12 percent of Democrats, 21 percent of liberals, 41 percent of pro-choice supporters, and 52 percent of union households are voting for Bush.
In Virginia, the race has become surprisingly very tight, with Bush at a 4-point lead, according to Survey USA. In the poll, 6 percent of Democrats, 13 percent of liberals, 35 percent of pro-choice supporters and 44 percent of union households plan on voting for Bush.

These polls reveal a lot of information. But a few things are clear: Kerry is having problems holding his base - who are voting for Bush in droves - with Nader and the other minor candidates not impacting the race.

The Unity Campaign updates its map
I spoke too soon. The Unity Campaign updated their national map slightly on Monday, raising John Kerry's Electoral College vote totals, without Ralph Nader on the ballot, to 275. However, the group did not post a number of new polls showing that Nader was not impacting John Kerry's race.
The group also changed their map from "This week in the Battleground" to the "Nader 04 Impact Map." It is located here: [Nader 04 Impact Map].
The name change is interesting. Before, they gave the impression that they would be updating the Battleground map weekly. They will update the map again on Aug. 30.
In an email, John Pearce, one of the founders of the group, said initial visitors found the map "obscure" and "the Nader impact issue was not clear." Fair enough. I told him that I thought the map was a good idea - so long as it was accurate and updated promptly. Pearce then wrote:

"We are not trying to shade the numbers. We are very small as an organization and are working on three other major campaigns. I know of the polls you mention and we'll add all the latest that match our methodology in our next update."

If they do that, the group will quickly find out that Nader is not impacting Kerry's numbers in the latest round of polling. We look forward to seeing their new map.

Why Open Secrets is a great site:
The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org, a Web site which analyzes and posts data from political campaigns, has just released a new report debunking the "Republicans for Nader" meme that has been circulating through the Web like a virus. The article is here: ["Double Impact"]. Personally, I love this section here:

"As a group, the 51 donors have given $54,300 to Nader and just over $415,000 to Republican candidates, parties and leadership PACs. They have contributed nearly $66,000 to Democrats. All but six of those donors have contributed more to Republicans than to Democrats during the current election cycle."

Hmm. Republicans gave Nader $54,300 - but they also gave Democrats "nearly $66,000." Gee, why are the Dems so mad? The Republicans gave them more money than Nader! This goes to the heart of what independents are always complaining about: Donors backing both major political parties. Now, they are throwing money at Nader, too. So maybe all this "Republicans for Nader" stuff is a bunch of bunk after all, eh?
Interestingly, this follow up by Open Secrets has been totally missed by the lamestream press over the last five days. A Google News search of "Nader, Republicans, Center for Responsive Politics," the parent group of the Open Secrets site, posted nine links and two stories published since the Center for Responsive Politics published its article. The other seven links were stories from news outlets before the Center released its article, including the USA Today, NPR, the Hartford Courant, and the Atlantic Monthly online. Here is what the two links revealed:
First, The Washington Post via MSNBC posted a story today about Nader ballot problems. The story is here: ["Nader unsure of ballot spots"].

"While Republicans do not deny offering logistical support to Nader's petition efforts in several states, direct financial contributions from those who have also donated to Bush so far amount to only $54,300, or 4 percent of the $1.5 million Nader has raised."

Not bad. At least the reporters noted that the donations were a very small amount of Nader's overall donations. However, there was no mention of the Republican money men giving to the Democrats.
Another link from the news search yielded a localized version of the story from Alabama, in The Mobile Register: ["Nader finds cash in Alabama"]. However, reporter Steve Myers also failed to mention that these Republican contributors had also given to Democrats:

"Last week, the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal campaign finances, reported that at least 51 Nader donors also had donated to GOP campaigns.
Those donors gave Nader $54,300 while pouring $415,000 to Republican candidates, action committees and parties, according to the organization."

Howard Kurtz, Dan Kennedy, where are you? :-)
At the same time, a Google News search of "Nader, Republicans," yielded more than 2,000 news story hits. Clearly, anti-Nader media bias is starting to slip into the coverage of this story.
A Google News search of "Nader, Republicans, Capital Eye" yielded one article from the San Diego Union Tribune about the political passions of online dating [In the article, John Hlinko is talked about. Hlinko is one of the co-founders of MoveOn.org and the Nader-hating site TheNaderFactor.org].
A search of "Nader, Republicans, Open Secrets" yielded an editorial from the Albuquerque Tribune on Aug. 18 attacking state Sen. Rod Adair, a Roswell Republican, for urging people on his email list to sign Nader petitions.
"Nader, Republicans, OpenSecrets.org," yielded no results from Google News.

Kerry leads shift:
It's been 10 days since The Unity Campaign sent out a national press release with an interactive map of the nation accusing Ralph Nader of potentially costing John Kerry the presidency. In three posts on Politizine, found in our Special Reports section, we've challenged the group's assertions with more extensive state polling data and even exchanged emails with the founder of the group. Since that time, using the group's methodology, there have been some major shifts in polling data - with potential bad news for Kerry. And the news has little to do with Nader.

The latest state polling data shows a very volatile political landscape with leads in many swing states switching back and forth between Kerry and President George W. Bush. It also changes the dynamic of the group's interactive map claiming Nader is impacting Kerry's ability to win.
Sidebar: The Unity Campaign has not updated its map since the press release was sent out. Most of the data on the map is now outdated. Some of the state polls are two months old. If they are to be true to their mission, they should update their map weekly and post the most recent polling data in a more timely manner.

Back to the latest polling: Since Tuesday's update, Kerry has slipped in some state polls.

The latest polls out of California, an assumed safe blue state, show Bush within striking distance, although the state is still slightly leaning to Kerry. Survey USA posted the Kerry 49, Bush 46 poll on Aug. 19, with 3 percent of respondents saying they were supporting "other" candidates and another 3 percent "undecided." In its methodology and demographics report, Survey USA said since Nader will not be on the ballot there, he would not be included in their California polling. So Kerry's slip in the latest Cali poll has nothing to do with Nader. The poll also did not list who the "other" candidates were. While some may assume Nader voters are in this 3 percent, those voters could be supporting Green Party candidate David Cobb or Libertarian Michael Badnarik, who has been appearing in some southwestern state polls. Deep in the data, the bulk of "other" voters were described as mostly male, "probable" voters, registered independents, Asian and Black, who had some college education, and in the 18-34 and 50 to 64 age brackets. It doesn't prove anything but it is interesting data. Registered Democrats gave Bush 6 percent of their support, while Kerry received 11 percent of the registered Republican votes - the highest amount of Republican support he has received in state polls. However, the 3 point spread would move California from the "solid Kerry" to the "slight lean Kerry" category on The Unity Campaign's map with no blame for Nader. Maybe Badnarik or Cobb will be a factor in the end. Will the group start attacking them too?

In Florida, the race is also tightening. The latest Strategic Vision poll from Aug. 20 shows a Kerry 48, Bush 46 race without Nader and a Kerry 47, Bush 46, Nader 2, with 5 undecided race when Nader is included. So, Florida would move from slight lean Kerry to toss up with or without Nader in the poll.
Note: Strategic Vision doesn't share any demographic information on its Web site so we are unable to look at other polling anomalies such as Democrats voting for Bush or the makeup of Nader's voters.

Strategic Vision also released a poll from Iowa on Aug. 19 showing similar results as Florida. In a one-on-one, Kerry leads 49 to 47. In a three-way, Kerry has 48, Bush 47, and Nader 2, with 3 undecided. So, Iowa would move from slight lean Kerry to toss up with or without Nader on the ballot.

A new poll from Ohio also yields bad news for Kerry. A Strategic Vision poll from Aug. 19 shows a 4 point Bush lead: Bush 49, Kerry 45, with Nader at 2 percent. Four percent are undecided. Without Nader, Kerry gains a point: Bush 49, Kerry 46, with 5 undecided. These latest numbers move Ohio back to a slight lean Bush state and back in line with The Unity Campaign's map. However, Nader doesn't impact Kerry's numbers enough to move it back into the toss up column, meaning the map is still inaccurate when clicking on the "no Nader" icon.

In other states, the polls are tightening but the states remain slight lean Kerry.

In Michigan, American Research Group released a poll Aug. 20. Without Nader in the poll, Kerry leads 49 to 46. With Nader, Kerry holds the same lead: 48 to 45, with Nader getting 1 percent. Nader takes equally from both candidates and isn't a factor. Since ARG does provide demographics, more data is revealed. In it, Nader earns votes equally from Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Yet, 9 percent of Democrats are voting for Bush. Clearly Democrats abandoning their own nominee is a bigger problem in Michigan than Nader.

In Minnesota, the situation is similar: Strategic Vision released a poll showing a Kerry lead 49 to 44. With Nader added, Kerry leads 47 to 44, with Nader getting 2 percent. But even with Nader earning 2 percent of possible Kerry support, the state remains a slight lean Kerry state on the map.

There is also more evidence that Nevada has moved back to a slightly lean Bush state - changing the dynamic on the map - although Nader is not to blame. Survey USA posted a poll Aug. 18 showing Bush with a 3 point lead. In the poll, 12 percent of Democrats and 19 percent who described themselves as "liberal" are voting for Bush. How can this be? Aren't liberals "united" against Bush? The voters in the "other" category are described as registered independent/other, Asian/other, and in the 35-49 age bracket.

However, there is also more evidence backing up our updates that more red states might be in play.

A Rasmussen Reports poll out of Colorado shows a 47 to 47 tie between Bush and Kerry. According to its main site, Nader is not included in Rasmussen's polls because they don't believe him to be a factor. Nader is supposed to be on the ballot on the Reform Party line. This is the second poll in a row showing Kerry competing in what was thought to be a red state and no Nader impact. It should be moved from slight lean Bush to toss up on The Unity Campaign's map.

In Missouri, Survey USA released a poll Aug. 18 showing a 1 point race: Bush 48, Kerry 47, 5 "other/undecided." No names were given for the undecided category. However, these voters were described as Asian/other, probable voters, liberal, both pro-life and pro-choice, and mostly registered as independents or to other parties. This means Badnarik, Cobb or Nader could be factors in the race. Seven percent of Democrats and 33 percent of union households are voting for Bush in the state. Missouri should be listed as a toss up with or without Nader. It is not on their map.

In an Aug. 20 ARG poll out of New Mexico, the state goes to Kerry. Without Nader, Kerry leads 52 to 42. With Nader, Kerry leads 49 to 42 with Nader getting 2. Seven are undecided. On The Unity Campaign's Web site, this latest poll would list Nader as impacting the state from a dark blue to light blue even though Nader only earns 2 percent of the vote. One percent of the vote decides not to vote for Kerry when Nader is added to the poll even though that 1 percent doesn't support Nader either, a strange anomaly. Also, in the demographics, 11 percent of Democrats are voting for Bush. However, with or without Nader, Kerry still has a substanial lead, so there's no impact.

Also, a newer poll out of North Carolina supports the premise that the state is no longer solid Bush but instead a slight lead Bush state. Survey USA on Aug. 16 posted a 51 to 46 Bush lead. However, this is below the 8 percent solid lead threshold needed to call it a safe Bush state. Also, Nader will not be on the ballot so he won't be a factor. There are reportedly only three candidates on the ballot in North Carolina: Badnarik, Bush, and Kerry. So, the 2 percent of those surveyed in the poll that selected "other," are probably with Badnarik. Two percent remain undecided. Those surveyed in the "other" category are described as Asian/other, probable voters, conservative to moderate although registered independents and in the 18-34 age bracket.

More data from Pennsylvania confirms assertions that the state isn't a slight lean Bush state, as stated on the group's map, but a slight lean Kerry state. Strategic Vision released a poll Aug. 20 showing a 5 point Kerry lead: Kerry 49, Bush 44. With Nader: Kerry 48, Bush 44, Nader 2, with 6 undecided. With or without Nader, Kerry has a 3 or more point lead. Again, the map is wrong.

In Washington state, the latest poll moves it from a slight lean Kerry to a solid Kerry state. Survey USA on Aug. 18 showed Kerry with 53, Bush 41, and Nader with 2 percent. Three percent were listed as "other/undecided." Deep inside the poll, 6 percent of Democrats and 8 percent of self-described liberals are voting for Bush. Other/undecided took 2 percent of the Republican vote - clearly Bardanik or Constitution Party nominee Michael Peroutka voters in action, a state where both candidates are on the ballot.

A Strategic Vision poll from Wisconsin has Kerry in a tie with Bush: 46 to 46, with Nader getting 2 percent. Without Nader, Kerry gains 1 percent and the lead: 47 to 46. This poll is one of a handful out of almost 300 state polls where Nader impacts Kerry's numbers. This poll also moves the state from a slight lean Kerry to the toss up category, with or without Nader.

Conclusions? When combining these new figures with previous revisions, The Unity Campaign's battleground map goes from a 254-252-32 virtual tie to a 237-186-115 slight Kerry lead. Nader impacts one small blue state. Although, analyzing the results of the polls on a win-lose basis, Kerry should still win the election - 286-242-10 [tie] - even with Nader on the ballot.

Quick Unity Campaign update:
Yesterday afternoon, I had some interesting back and forth with John Pearce, the main person behind The Unity Campaign, in reaction to my latest update about his group: [Falsely attacking Ralph Nader] .
Not surprisingly, Pearce took great offense to the post about his efforts, calling it "uncivil" and labeling my opinion that his group was profiting from attacking Nader as "slander." In closing, he challenged me to prove a "test of character" as to whether I would alter the offending words. Pearce also said he would respond with a counter-analysis of my thoughts about his map.
After explaining some legal terms to him - and the broader definition of the word "profit" - I modified the post in an effort to stem any frivolous lawsuits and to be more civil to the people ruthlessly attacking Nader [Hey John, how about giving some of that civility back to Ralph, eh?].

Interestingly enough, on the map front, there have been some more changes that make John Kerry's Electoral outlook even brighter than on Thursday when I posted the post.
In Colorado, a Survey USA poll out yesterday has Bush and Kerry in a 46 to 46 tie, with Nader not included in the poll. "Other" received 4 percent and 2 percent were undecided. However, since Survey USA allows people to look at their data with .pdfs posted on the Web, you can find out some interesting information about those people polled. For example, voters polled in the Other category were described as "probable" voters, black or Native American, female, registered as independents, leaning moderate to liberal, and in the 18 to 34 age bracket. The 4 percent could be for Nader or Libertarian Michael Badnarik. Nine percent of Democrats say they are voting for Bush. These latest numbers move the state from "slight-lean Bush" to the "toss up" category.
In an Aug. 11 Research 2000 poll, Kerry is within 3 percent of Bush in North Carolina, a supposedly solid red state. This is huge, and may be showing the positive effects of John Edwards to the ticket [Bush 48, Kerry 45, Nader, who won't be on the ballot in the state, received 0 percent]. A Survey USA poll from Aug. 2 out of Tennessee [missed by everyone], shows Kerry within 2 points of Bush: Bush 48, Kerry 46, Nader 0. This poll moves the state from solid red to slight lean Bush.
On the bad for Kerry side of things, there is a new poll out from New Mexico which moves the state from slight-lean Kerry to toss up - but Nader isn't even included in the poll. In a Rasmussen Reports poll from Aug. 15, Bush and Kerry are tied with 46 percent, with Badnarik gaining 4 percent. Nader is at 0 percent. What a spoiler that Badnarik is for potentially stealing 4 percent from Bush [tongue firmly planted in cheek]! What is he thinking? Isn't he hurting the conservative cause [That's sarcasm, folks]? This latest poll costs Kerry 5 EC votes but it has nothing to do with Nader.
So, let's update: Combined with my revisions from Thursday, the dynamic in The Unity Campaign's battleground map goes from a 254-252 virtual tie - to a win for Kerry with 291 Electoral College votes. Bush should be at 181 and 66 should be ruled as toss ups. And again, there is no Nader factor.
Now, as has been stated many times before, this could all change. But we won't be holding our breath to see if Pearce updates his map to truly reflect the accurate polling data and the non-impact of Nader's campaign. We may consider writing a more extensive piece about The Unity Campaign and other Nader-hating orgs sometime in the future.

Falsely attacking Ralph Nader:
It is getting pretty amazing out here in Internet land. Over the last few months, I have posted two reports about the non-Nader factor. You can read them here: ["Anti-Nader study falls flat"] and here: ["The non-Nader factor"].

Since that time, a few things have happened. First, the RalphDontRun.net and DontRunRalph.net folks have totally changed their strategy. They are now called "The Unity Campaign." They are also taking advantage of the popular Nader-bashing phenom. The group is actively soliciting donations for its effort and has barely raised over $13,000 destroying a great man who has a Constitutional right to run for president.

Second, they have totally changed their reporting perspective which is probably in response to the two reports posted here on Politizine. The group no longer tracks national preference polling to make their claims that Nader will cost John Kerry the election. Instead, they are following state by state polls, as we wisely suggested they should. The Unity Campaign now has an interactive map, with some of the latest numbers, posted here: [This week in the Battleground].

Sidebar: Not to brag, but it is clear that criticism posted about their data - both here and other places on the Web - led them to alter their strategy. This may be why they emailed me their data and Web site on Thursday. Politizine commends them for acknowledging that their previous data and strategy were flawed. Unfortunately, they haven't altered their attacks against Nader.

Back to the map: While looking at their current battleground map, it is clear that the strategic changes they made still lack some fundamentals. They still don't seem to understand the nature of winning and losing or assumptions that can be made from polling data. They also cleverly limit their data to make their case - even though more thorough analysis continues to show no Nader factor.

The group awards each state's Electoral College votes in the following manner: If a candidate has less than 3 percent of a lead, the state is deemed a "toss-up margin." If a candidate has a 3 to 8 percent lead, the state is identified as a "slight lean" state. More than an 8 percent lead, the state is called "leaning" or what would otherwise be called a solid for a specific candidate. The Unity Campaign's map has the race at Kerry 254, Bush 252, with 32 Electoral College votes as toss ups. We understand their methodology but challenge the premise that somehow a candidate is in a better position to win whether he has 2 percent or 3 percent. Most polls have the margin of error around 4 to 5 percent. If they altered their map to the 4 to 5 percent threshold - as others have - they could make the case that Kerry is in danger of losing the presidency, with or without Nader in the race.

Second sidebar: Since January, I have been watching the state polls at The Hedgehog Report, a site put together by David Wissing, a Republican activist. Sometime in July, he cleared the site of almost eight months worth of polls, saying it was getting too difficult to update. Luckily, I saved most of the analysis from these polls. His new site is here: [The Hedgehog Report] . Despite his Republican leanings, Wissing has shown Kerry with huge Electoral College vote leads based on polling he has been tracking for months. While he is a partisan, I think his methodology is very accurate and his site offers the most thorough polling data on the Web.
Currently, Wissing has the race at Kerry 296, Bush 242, based on recent state polls and previous election results.

For example, their electoral map lists four states with 32 Electoral College maps as "tossup" [sic] states: Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and New Hampshire. In three of those states, Minnesota, Missouri, and New Hampshire, Kerry is actually leading even though Nader is receiving small percentage points in polls. While the lead is within the margin of error in all the states, he still would hypothetically win those states.

Since June, there have been seven polls in Iowa. One shows a tie between Kerry and Bush. One shows Bush with a 1 point lead and Nader receiving 2 percent. However, this Des Moines Register poll from mid-July does not list any specific data about Nader's supporters except that they will be voting in November. So, while Nader could be impacting this poll, without the specifics, we just don't know. Five other polls show Kerry leads of 2 to 4 percent. In almost every other poll taken from Iowa between February and June, Kerry wins. In all other polls than the one mentioned above, Kerry wins or loses the race whether Nader is on the ballot or not. Iowa has also historically been a blue state. So, even though The Unity Campaign lists the state as a toss up, in reality, it is at worst a "slight lean" Kerry state. At best, it is a Kerry win.

Onto Minnesota, where the group has a poll posted from July 12 showing Kerry with a 1 point lead over Bush. Nader has 2 percent. However, there have been three other polls since that time showing Kerry leads as high as 7 percent. In all but one of the seven polls since June, Kerry has had leads as high as 9 percent. In the one poll - Strategic Vision from July 20-24 - Bush and Kerry were tied at 47, with Nader getting 2. Without Nader, Kerry has the lead, 48 to 47. In almost 250 polls done since January, this is one of about 10 that shows Nader potentially hurting Kerry. Nader's candidacy doesn't give Bush the lead, but he does potentially take the lead from Kerry. Strategic Vision, unfortunately, doesn't list any of the specific demographics from the poll on its Web site, so we don't know much about the methodology or how many Democrats are voting for Bush, an important anomaly in the 2004 election cycle. However, with or without Nader, Minnesota is clearly a "slight lean" Kerry state, at worst.

Missouri is a bit trickier. Between January and June, Bush led almost every poll in the state which has been considered a red state. However, with the economy in the tank and manufacturing getting hammered - something that both Kerry and Bush are to blame for - Missouri is now in play. Leads have been going back and forth between the two major party candidates. Bush's best lead was 11 percent in early June; Kerry, 3 points, in late July. However, Nader on the ballot in the state doesn't affect Kerry's results. In seven polls done in the state since June, Kerry either wins or loses on his own. I agree that the state is a toss up. But there is no Nader factor, despite assertions by the Web site.

Lastly, New Hampshire, which is always a mysterious state. Since after the primary in January, Bush and Kerry have traded leads back and forth. In all but one of the polls done in the state, Nader has not been a factor. In a Becker Institute poll from June, Kerry's 48 to 45 lead drops to a Bush 45 to 44 lead when Nader is added. But in other polls, Nader on the ballot has been a plus for Kerry, taking Republican votes away from Bush, as noted in a March ARG poll. In four other polls, Nader takes equally from both Bush and Kerry, 1 percent, again proving claims Nader and others have made about the 2000 election cycle: [Debunking the Myth]. Kerry has led in five of the polls from the state since June, with leads as high as 7 percent. New Hampshire could easily be rated a "slight lean" Kerry state.

With that said, their map also does not take into account all kinds of other polls held or current polls posted on Wissing's site. If The Unity Campaign did use these polls, their argument would be thrown right out the window.

For example, on their map, Ohio is listed as a "slight lean" Bush state when at best, it is a toss up. In the 10 polls held since June, Kerry has led in five and Bush in five. And again, Kerry wins or loses the state whether Nader is on the ballot or not. This has been consistent in all the polling done in the state, with one poll in June showing Nader helping Kerry by taking away more votes from Bush. In the poll they use to call the state slight lean Bush - from the Columbus Dispatch, mid-July - Bush is only leading by 3 percent, the definition of toss up in most people's eyes since it is below the standard 4 to 5 percent margin of error. So why again do they lean the state to Bush? Ohio is a toss up state, pure and simple.

They also list Pennsylvania as a "slight lean" Bush state based on a poll from late June. Since that poll, seven other polls have shown Kerry with decent leads in that state, mostly in the 5 to 12 percent range. In fact, the Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll listed is the only poll out of 10 since June with a Bush lead. And, there is no Nader factor in the polls. At worst, Pennsylvania is a "slight lean" Kerry state. At best, it will go to Kerry.

One could also argue that other states they designate as Bush "slight lean" states - Arkansas, Arizona, and Nevada - are actually toss ups. Using their definition, less than 3 percent being a toss up, all three states fit the toss up profile.
The Unity Campaign's latest poll posted from Arkansas is from May. Since that time, three other polls have shown a 1 point Kerry lead, a tie, and a 2 point Bush lead, with no Nader influence. So, Arkansas is clearly a toss up.
Over in Arizona, the same could be true. While Bush has led most polls - some by huge margins - the last two polls have a Bush 3 point lead and a Kerry 1 point lead. Nader won't be on the ballot in Arizona so it is doubtful he will be a factor. While lots of people admire him there, write-in candidates rarely earn many votes. Arizona should be listed as a toss up.
In Nevada, while Bush has led in past polls, the last two show a Bush lead by 3 and a Kerry lead by 4. In the poll in which Bush led, Nader received 4 percent, showing potential influence in the race although Mason-Dixon, the polling agency, offered no specifics in the methodology. In the other polls from all three states, Nader is not a factor. So Nevada should be considered a toss up too.

These mistakes alone change the dynamic in The Unity Campaign's battleground map - from a 254-252 virtual tie - to a win for Kerry with 296 Electoral College votes. Bush should be at 190 and 52 would be ruled as toss ups.

Conclusion? There is still no Nader factor. Kerry is currently leading - as he was when Politizine filed the two other reports. If The Unity Campaign folks would read the data properly and follow the polls correctly, they would see this.
Now, this could change. But as it stands now, Aug. 12, the day The Unity Campaign sent out their press release to the nation, it just isn't so. There is no Nader impact. These are the facts.
However, following the data properly and reporting accurately does not fit into The Unity Campaign's agenda. They are raising money and appearing on television talking about a political phenomenon that doesn't exist. It is a myth and their presumptions are wrong. Their actions are corrupt and they should be ashamed of themselves. Trashing Nader and misleading people about his campaign will not help Kerry win.

We will continue to follow this data and update it as the campaign moves along.

A few other notes:
Although I have curbed my blogging, Blogger has changed formats and it performs much better now. They have made these awesome new changes that make it easier to post links and design the pages. It is pretty impressive and very user-friendly. We are also delaying our new format introduction for a few more weeks until I can find a few more people to make commitments to post material here.

R.I.P.: Rick James

DNC Coverage
For whatever reason, our pal Kristina from the Wicked Words blog hasn't been posting any DNC stuff to us. More than likely, she is having too good a time on the floor of the Fleet and at parties ... 
However, not surprisingly, the Boston Phoenix has some dynamite coverage from almost every angle imaginable: ["DNC Coverage Index"] . Media Log's Dan Kennedy makes a pretty important point here about the lack of time reporters have to read all the other stuff being written about the convention: ["No-Reading Zone"] . Although, thank God for technology - how would the rest of us be able to hear about all the great stuff going on?
Lastly, the Boston Herald has been publishing an impressive front section of DNC coverage with big tabloid pictures, hilarious headlines, and their stellar columnists working over time: ["DNC 2004 coverage"] 

'OutFoxed' film misfires

At house parties in Winchester and all across the nation last week, concerned voters watched Robert Greenwald's new political documentary, "OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism," a film which targets the cozy relationship between Murdoch and the Republican Party.
Unfortunately, the film doesn't tell the whole story.
The film concentrates its criticism on the FoxNews Channel, Murdoch's flashy news channel, claiming the network is an organ grinder for the GOP. Through internal memos, disgruntled former employees and repetitive clips, the case against FoxNews seems overwhelming, questioning the channel's trademarked "Fair & Balanced" slogan. In the presidential race, Greenwald points to coverage where Sen. John Kerry is disparaged as a flip-flopper while President George W. Bush is consistently commended for showing leadership via live shots of speeches most every day.
However, the film completely ignores the fact that most of FoxNews is opinion-based programming - not news. It also overlooks the role of elected Democrats in what our national media has become, placing all the blame on Republicans through subtle hints and careful editing.
For example, it is strange to watch the comments of former FoxNews contributor Jeff Cohen, who in the past has worked with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR]. Cohen has been a consistent critic of both political parties and of corporate influence in the media. In one of his comments, Cohen attacks radio and TV station consolidation yet is silent about the bipartisan 1996 Telecom Bill which allowed this consolidation to occur. He mentions Clear Channel, which owns about 1,200 stations and cuts anti-war artists from its playlists, but never says a word about the hundreds of Democrats who voted to allow this company to buy the radio stations. Did clips of Cohen's criticism about Democrats end up on the cutting room floor?
Chellie Pingree, a former state Senator from Maine, complains in the documentary about the Fairness Doctrine, rescinded during "the Reagan Administration," again, a shot at Republicans. But Pingree disregards the fact that rescinding the Fairness Doctrine was a bipartisan proposal even though small broadcasters and news editors were urging them not to change the law. The Democrats supported the law because at the time they thought they would have control over the media instead of the Republicans. Thought wrong, didn't they?
In some of the creative editing, Sean Hannity, one of Fox's hosts, is shown repeatedly announcing the number of days left until Bush wins the election. Any regular viewer knows that on alternating days, liberal host Alan Colmes announces the number of days left until Kerry is elected, yet those clips are not presented.
One disgruntled employee claims that she only recognized the name of one prominent Democrat hired as a FoxNews contributor. But again, any regular viewer to the channel will see such liberal heavyweights as 1984 VP nominee Geraldine Ferraro, almost-NYC Mayor Mark Green, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, and consultant Donna Brazile.
The documentary also shows a lack of understanding about the news media in general.
Memos by John Moody, the news chief at FoxNews, offering conservative comments on the state of the nation are used to insinuate that his opinion influenced what was broadcast. While this might be true at Fox, it is true at other stations too. FAIR has done numerous studies showing how corporate opinions on business, culture, and politics influence media coverage. One of the most blatant examples was NBC doing a piece on how safe nuclear power plants were - with no opposing view. NBC is owned by General Electric, a major manufacturer of nuclear power plant components. We all know what happened at "60 Minutes" when they tried to do a story about the cigarette business which was accurately portrayed in the movie "The Insider."

In other words, FoxNews isn't an anomaly and the network's leanings have never been questioned. They didn't hire James Carville to run the network; they hired Roger Ailes. And how influential are they? At the height of the Iraqi invasion, only 4 million people were watching FoxNews or less than 2 percent of the population of the country. The shows most complained about in the film, like "The O'Reilly Factor," barely have 1 million viewers on any given night.

The documentary also doesn't understand why FoxNews is so popular. The network is fast-paced, combative, and yeah, entertaining. It fills a void for those unhappy with the old-styled TV news programs. And despite the protestations by liberals, much of the country is moderate to conservative and they want news that reflects their views or doesn't detract from their views. In the past, TV news coverage on the other networks was perceived to be out of step with the views of many American people.

The larger problem is the fact that many of the nation's voices - especially on the progressive side - are silenced because of the expensive nature of running a news operation. By continuing to support deregulation, Democrats hurt their own cause. "OutFoxed" makes some good points but Greenwald should have presented a fairer and more balanced film.
In the end, those worried about FoxNews can simply change the channel or shut the TV off.

Let Mitt make Senate appointment

This column originally appeared in The Winchester Star.
The battle raging on Beacon Hill over what happens to John Kerry's U.S. Senate seat in the wake of a presidential victory is getting just a bit ridiculous.

The latest eruption has to do with a proposal forwarded by Gov. Mitt Romney on Sunday which would allow him to make an appointment to fill the seat at the time of Kerry's inauguration - with approval from Senate president or House speaker - until a special election can be held sometime in the spring of 2005.

Under the amendment, Romney would submit names for a temporary appointment to House Speaker Tom Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini. One of the two of them would approve one of the recommended names within three days or Romney would be free to appoint whomever he wished. Both Finneran and Travaglini balked at the idea calling it "unconstitutional."

Why Romney would want to give any power over the selection to Finneran is frankly beyond belief. But at least the governor is trying to come to a comprise which will guarantee the state has representation for the months that the seat is vacant.

Currently, Romney has the legal right to appoint a senatorial successor who would hold the seat until the next federal election cycle in November 2006. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, grants Romney the right to make the appointment. But it also grants the Legislature the right to set a special election. The last two times a governor appointed a successor, Democrats have held the corner office. In 1985, just before being sworn in, Gov. Mike Dukakis appointed Kerry to the seat he had won a couple of months before. In 1960, a month after being elected president, John F. Kennedy resigned from his seat and lame duck Gov. Foster Furcolo appointed a family friend of Kennedy's, Ben Smith, to the Senate. Two years later, Ted Kennedy ran for the seat and was elected. Republicans - who were in a stronger political position in the state at the time - said little about the appointments. This, despite the fact that in 1960 John Volpe had just beaten Furcolo in the election and would come into office a few weeks before Kennedy's inauguration.

However, those were different political times.

The Democratically-controlled Legislature recently rammed through a bill to hold a special election within 160 days of a Senate vacancy and stripped Romney of his ability to make the appointment. Legislative leaders said the bill was about allowing "the people" to decide while at the same time eliminating "the people's" representation in the Senate. By approving this bill, the Legislature also limited the special election candidates to those who can raise huge sums of money in the shortest amount of time for a special election. Only two candidates - Rep. Ed Markey and Rep. Marty Meehan - have declared their intentions to run for the seat. Both have raised over $1 million for the race and hold good positions in polling data, according to a Boston Herald report last week. The governor has yet to sign the special election bill.

Personally, I understand the fear some Democrats have in the appointment of a Republican - even a temporary Republican - in the wake of a Kerry victory. But why the anxiety? Kerry will be the president so the Democrats won't have to worry about what happens because he will have veto power over anything that will come out of a Republican-controlled Senate, right?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Up until President George W. Bush authorized the invasion of Iraq, Democrats have been acting pretty much like Republicans for a long time. Sure, they talked a good game. But legislation-wise, look out. Most of the Massachusetts delegation voted for the invasion. They voted for the Constitution-shredding PATRIOT Act. They voted for the No Child Left Behind legislation and then refused to fund it. When Clinton was president, the Democrats were even worse, passing all kinds of bad legislation including eight planks of the GOP's Contract with America. With Democrats like these, who is really worried about Romney's appointment?

Actually, it is kind of amazing that the Democrats - the people who are always lecturing the rest of us about the hallowed nature of democracy, inclusion, diversity, and other worthy virtues - are doing everything they can to keep millions of residents from having their second voice in the Senate for more than five months. And the fact that they have set up a special election which will pretty much limit the candidates to the all-white, all-male, contributor-connected insiders is even worse.

Clearly, in the wake of a presidential victory by Kerry, the citizens of our state should not be without democratic representation just because partisans don't like that a Republican is making the appointment. Romney should be allowed to appoint a successor - it is the best thing for the people of Massachusetts.

The non-Nader factor: Back in May of this year, Politizine put together an extensive state by state polling analysis countering claims by Democratic front groups attacking the 2004 candidacy of Ralph Nader ["Anti-Nader study falls flat"]. What the analysis showed was that these groups were using flawed data – national preference polling – to come to the conclusion that Nader was harming Sen. John Kerry’s presidential effort. However, by examining individual state polls, those that determine the election of the president, Nader has little to no impact on the race. The analysis also showed that registered Democrats supporting the reelection of President George W. Bush were potentially a bigger problem for Kerry.

Six weeks and many more state polls later, the conclusion remains the same: Nader has little to no impact on Kerry’s campaign. In some polls, Nader actually helps Kerry gain better position against Bush.

Between Jan. 1 and July 9, 209 polls from 43 states of have been conducted. In most states, because of the demographics, the presidential race is essentially over.
In polls taken from Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Utah, Kerry loses with or without Nader in the polls [Note: The polls from North Carolina were held before Sen. John Edwards was chosen to be Kerry’s running mate]. Nader has not been included in polls taken from Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia [Note: The only poll from Virginia by Rasmussen Reports was within the margin of error but historically, this has been a safe Republican state]. There have been no polls taken in Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming, but all the states are considered to be safe Bush states. Winning these states will award 207 Electoral College votes to Bush.
In almost all the polls taken from California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, Kerry wins the state with or without Nader on the ballot. [Note: In one poll Fairleigh Dickinson from New Jersey in early April, Nader's appearance in the poll shifted the state from Kerry to Bush. However, countering this anomaly are six other polls showing Kerry with leads in an otherwise safe Democratic state]. There have been no polls in Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii, safe Kerry states. Winning these states will award 200 Electoral College votes to Kerry.

Nader’s positive impact
In some states, Nader’s candidacy has a positive influence on Kerry’s poll positions despite the relentless attacks against the independent candidate.
In a June 5-8 Los Angeles Times poll in Ohio, Nader takes more votes from Bush than Kerry, by a three-to-one ratio. It is enough Bush votes to help Kerry win the state by a wider margin than without Nader included in the poll. Without Nader: Kerry 46, Bush 45. With Nader: Kerry 45, Bush 42.
In a March 25-29 Keystone Poll from Pennsylvania Nader earned more Republican than Democrat votes by a 4-to-3 margin.
In a March 22-23 West Virginia ARG poll Nader’s appearance in the poll helped improve Kerry’s position in the state. Nader lures enough registered Democrat voters who planned to vote for Bush – a two-to-one margin – to help Kerry tie Bush in the state. With Nader: 46-46. Without Nader: Bush 47, Kerry 46. In this poll, Bush received a massive 22 percent of the registered Democrat vote.
In a March 15-18 ARG New Hampshire poll Nader garnered the support of 9 percent of Republicans compared to 4 percent of Democrats, a more than two-to-one margin and virtual repeat of what occurred in 2000, with Bush leading in the state with or without Nader [According to CNN exit polls, Nader received 2 percent of the Republican vote and 1 percent of the Democrat vote in 2000. Check out Debunking the Myth for more data on the 2000 results: ["Debunking the Myth"] ].
In 16 other polls from Ohio, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, Kerry and Bush switch off leads with no Nader impact.

Where Nader could be a factor
In 12 of 209 state polls – or 5.7 percent of all state polling done so far in the campaign - Nader could potentially be a factor. However, other data within these polls reveal bigger problems for Kerry than Nader’s candidacy.

In Florida there have been 13 polls, with leads flipping back and forth between Bush and Kerry. Kerry has taken slight leads in recent polls. In most, polling agencies have included two versions: One with and one without Nader. In three polls, Nader’s appearance cancels out a Kerry lead – but does not deliver a Bush win, a literal replay of 2000.
In a June 23-27 Quinnipiac University poll, Kerry posted a 46 to 44 lead. But with Nader in the poll, the numbers shift to a 43-43 tie, with 5 percent for Nader.
An American Research Group [ARG] poll from May 15-17 shows Bush leading 47-46, with Nader receiving 3 percent. Without Nader, the results are 47-47.
An ARG poll from April 18-20 showed similar results: Bush with 46, Kerry at 45, and Nader again receiving 3 percent. Without Nader, the results were 46-46.
But by looking deeper into the Florida polls, problems that have nothing to do with Nader arise.
In the Quinnipiac poll, five times as many Democrats plan to vote for Bush than Nader. Nader’s candidacy also cuts into Bush’s Democrat vote totals, dropping from 12 percent in a two-way race to 10 percent in a three-way race. In the May ARG poll, Bush receives more than three times the Democrat vote that Nader does: 11 to 3 percent. In the June ARG poll showing a Kerry lead, Bush receives 11 times the Democrat vote as Nader, 11 to 1 percent. In that poll, Nader received 1 percent of the Republican vote, earning equally from both sides.
This is a repeat of 2000 when a tiny percentage of Democrats, 1 percent, voted for Nader but many more voted for Bush: 13 percent and a virtual tie in the state.

Sixteen Michigan polls show similar results as Florida, with back and forth leads, regardless of whether Nader is included or not. Most polls have Kerry in the lead in the state. However, in two of those polls, Nader’s appearance on the ballot hypothetically delivers the state to Bush.
In a FoxNews/Opinion Dynamics June 22-23 poll, Kerry has a 44-43 lead. But when Nader is included, the poll flips to a Bush 44-42 lead.
In a Detroit News June 24-28 poll, Bush received 44 to Kerry’s 43 with Nader getting 5 percent.
However, neither of these polls released more specific data from the poll like voter registration designation or data without Nader included in the polling, so no assumption can be made about whether Nader voters would automatically go to Kerry.
But in an ARG poll from July 9, which showed a Kerry lead [50-43-2], Nader earned equally from Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent, while Bush took 7 percent of the Democrat vote.

New Mexico is one place where Nader’s candidacy could be a factor.
In a March 30-April 1 ARG poll, Bush had 46 to Kerry’s 45, with Nader getting 3 percent of the vote. Without Nader, the results would again be a tie: 47-47.
However, Nader took equally from both registered Republicans and Democrats, 2 percent, while Bush received a whopping 20 percent of registered Democrats in the state – a 10 to 1 margin over Nader. Again, in this poll, registered Democrats – and not Nader – are keeping Kerry from potentially winning the state.
In a more recent ARG poll from the state, released on July 9, Kerry had the lead, 49 to 42, with Nader earning 3 percent. Kerry’s lead is secure despite 13 percent of Democrats voting for Bush and 3 percent voting for Nader.

In Oregon, there have been eight polls with two showing Nader potentially influencing the outcome.
In a May 3-5 ARG poll, Bush and Kerry were tied at 45, with Nader clocking in with 5 percent. Without Nader, the result would be Kerry 48, Bush 46. In this poll, 6 percent of Democrats were planning on voting for Bush, with 7 percent voting for Nader.
A Rasmussen Reports poll released on April 25 showed Bush and Kerry tied with 43 and Nader receiving 8 percent. Without Nader, Kerry received 46 with Bush getting 45, and 6 percent said they would vote for "some other candidate." So even with only two choices, the bulk of Nader’s support inflexibly stayed with their candidate. This polling data shines light on the mistaken premise that Nader’s candidacy "costs" Kerry the election. Again, many of Nader's supporters are not going to vote for Kerry under any circumstances so he gains nothing from a two-candidate race.
However, four other polls from Oregon showed Kerry beating Bush even with Nader on the ballot. And two other polls – one in March and one in May – showed Bush beating Kerry in Oregon with no Nader candidacy at all.

In Pennsylvania, there have been 15 polls taken, with Bush and Kerry in a tug of war. However, only two polls show any Nader impact.
A March 9-15 Quinnipiac poll showed Bush with 44, Kerry at 40, and Nader with 7 percent. Without Nader, Kerry takes the lead with 45 to Bush's 44 percent. In the polling data, Nader earned the support of 4 percent of registered Republicans and 6 percent registered Democrats. Democrats supporting Bush came in at 14 percent.
In an April 16-25 Pew Charitable Trusts poll, Bush and Kerry were tied with 42 percent. Nader received 5 percent. The poll did not ask voters how they would vote if Nader were not on the ballot. Yet in this poll, Bush received 12 percent of the vote from registered Democrats – four times as many Democrat votes as Nader received. Another 10 percent of Democrats were undecided or supporting other candidates. So a full 22 percent of Democrats in Pennsylvania were supporting Bush, another candidate other than Nader, or were undecided, while only 3 percent were supporting Nader.

In Wisconsin, there have been eight polls with two showing potential Nader impact.
In one, a June 3-8 Los Angeles Times poll, Bush and Kerry are tied 44-44. But when Nader is thrown into the mix, Kerry loses 2 percent, with Bush leading 44 to 42.
In another poll, conducted by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, Bush leads 46 to Kerry’s 42 with Nader getting 5 percent.
Like the Michigan polls, these did not offer a "without Nader" option or any specific registration data, so no impact can be properly vetted. The UWSC poll did state that 90 percent of Republicans were backing Bush and 85 percent of Democrats were voting for Kerry. Kerry led among independent voters but no numbers were given. In two other polls from Wisconsin, Bush led Kerry with no impact by Nader, similar to results from Oregon.

There are four months until Election Day but the conclusion is clear: Nader is a non-factor at this point in the presidential race. Registered Democrats voting for Bush potentially could cost Kerry the presidency. As well, Green Party candidate David Cobb, who is on 23 ballot lines and has changed his mind about a "safe-state" approach, is more of a potential threat to Kerry than Nader who is only on 10 ballot lines. Lastly, as of July 9, Kerry had an Electoral College lead over Bush: 286 to 252, with other Web sites which track EC votes showing higher numbers for Kerry. In other words, at this point in the campaign, Kerry would win the presidency with or without Nader in the race.

Edwards gives Dems hope for November

Presumptive Democratic nominee Mass. Sen. John Kerry made a dynamic vice presidential choice Tuesday morning which should shift his sagging presidential campaign into overdrive.

Kerry chose North Carolina Sen. John Edwards as his running mate, calling him a man who "understands and defends the values of America" and "whose life has prepared him for leadership, and whose character brings him to exercise it," according to the Associated Press. The choice is a good one for Kerry and puts the Democrats in an even better position to take back the White House in November.

Throughout the primary process, Edwards was often the second choice candidate of voters. New Hampshire primary voters, who also cast votes for vice president in a non-binding referendum, cast more than 16,600 votes for Edwards. The high number of VP votes in the state inspired the Democratic insiders and the establishment media to spin the virtues of a Kerry/Edwards ticket. This spin, unfortunately, helped to derail Edwards' effort. Even though he said on a number of occasions that he wouldn't be Kerry's running mate, the insiders and the media got their wish.

And this isn't such a bad thing. Edwards has the Clintonesque Southern charm and personality without all the questionable ethics, morals and glad-handling. He isn't a career politician, having spent many years as a trial lawyer, taking on powerful interests and winning judgments for clients who had nowhere else to turn.

Edwards also has a moving life story to tell the undecided voters of America. The son of a mill worker and a postal clerk, Edwards was the first one in his family to go to college. He clearly understands what it is like to live amongst the lower middle class and knows what it means to work hard to earn what you have. His campaign theme - "Two Americas," one for the privileged and the other for the rest of us - was believable because he had been there. These values, or acknowledgement of such values, are important to the sea of red states between Pennsylvania and California which President George W. Bush won in 2000. When juxtaposed with Kerry and his Ivy League, privileged background, the decision to pick Edwards becomes even clearer.

On issues, both Kerry and Edwards are similar, approaching policy from the more centrist side of the party, despite criticism to the contrary. Both foolishly supported bad Bush policies like the invasion for Iraq resolution, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the unfunded federal mandate, No Child Left Behind. Both also supported Permanent Most Favored Nation trade status with China during Clinton's presidency, although Edwards actively campaigned against bad trade deals in the primaries. All of these votes in any other election would potentially hurt them with swing and liberal voters.

There is a good chance that Edwards will overshadow Kerry in the charisma, performance, and message departments, something Kerry probably thought a little bit about. The Republicans are clearly worried - starting their attacks 15 minutes after Kerry made the announcement - ridiculing Edwards' work as a lawyer and Kerry's comments that Edwards didn't have enough experience.

There is also the risk of having two senators on the ticket together. Only a couple of times in American history have two senators been able to win the presidency together. Although, the last time two senators competing for the nomination were on the ticket together, they won. In 1960, another JFK, John Kennedy, chose Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson to be on the ticket and the two slipped by then-Vice President Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., another Mass. senator, in a squeaker of a contest.

This November, the election will be another close one.

With the unpopular war raging on and the economy sputtering, most Democrats and independents seem energized with the prospect of changing direction. For months the angry mantra has been, "anyone but Bush," or ABB. But despite this anger, Kerry has been unable to gain ground on the incumbent. Most of the blame for this can be put on Kerry's spotty political record and flip-flopping on numerous issues.

Both Bush and Kerry are essentially in a dead-heat, with minor third party and independent candidates earning small fractions of the vote. The election, the experts say, will come down to a handful of states. But, if Kerry can hold onto the states Vice President Al Gore won in 2000 and possibly pick up Edwards' home state of North Carolina, Bush will lose the election, with or without the state of Florida.

In the end, that is probably why John Edwards was picked and it was a good choice.

Summer music doldrums

There was some pretty big news in the music world last week when the very popular Lollapalooza tour for this summer scrapped the entire tour just a few days after tickets went on sale.

The announcement came as a surprise because this year's tour looked like one of the stronger lineups in the last few years, even if the bands scheduled to play were not multi-platinum artists. Morrissey, alt-rockers The Flaming Lips, the art noise band Sonic Youth, and the delightful Polyphonic Spree were all scheduled to play during the 16-city tour. The tour also planned to have a second stage - powered entirely on solar energy - and MoveOn.org was sponsoring a voter registration drive.

Everyone in the music business was shocked by the cancellation which made national news. But, after a little analysis, it isn't that surprising that this tour - and others - have been cancelled. The music business is going through some serious changes and most have nothing to do with the file sharing controversy.

The most obvious culprit is a bad economy which is taking a toll on middle class folks who might take in a concert or two during the summer. If you think about it, the recent rise in gas prices weekly are about the cost of a concert ticket.

Other priorities in life also change the way the buying public spends its money. Most of the bands slated for Lollapalooza were "Generation X" bands. As we all know, we X-ers are getting older, buying homes, and raising families. Sure, we still might still hope to see a band or two, but the summers where we are out all week drinking and seeing bands are long behind us.

Another problem is the ticket price itself which some industry experts say has doubled over the last eight years. Recent Madonna tickets were priced as high as $300. Who is going to pay that? You really have to be a "material girl" to afford those tickets. The Lollapalooza tickets, however, seemed reasonably priced, around $30 for an all day show. It also doesn't help that a handful of companies now controls all of the ticket sales and concert promotions for the entire country, charging exorbitant fees and surcharges.

Personally, I have sworn off the big stadium concerts and my reasons go beyond the high ticket prices. Some readers may recall a column I wrote about seeing The Who at the Tweeter Center two years ago and how disturbing it was waiting in line for so long, being herded around like cattle and then frisked like I was a terrorist or something. Sorry, I'll wait for the live concert DVD, pay less money, and enjoy the concert repeatedly on my very loud stereo.

But the biggest problem of all is the music business itself and how wretched it has become. In some ways - I can't believe I am saying this, I sound like an old-timer - I miss the good old days of rock 'n' roll when a song became part of your life at the first moment you heard it. I long for the day when musical artists cared more about their art and less about their financial portfolios. In some ways, it isn't the artist's fault. There have always been crappy bands, signed by accountants masquerading as music lovers. A lot of these record company execs even ripped off artists - and continue to do so - with bad recording contracts that offer fewer rights than migrant workers have. Most artists make their money from touring and T-shirt sales. With tours tanking in the marketplace one has to wonder what some of these people are going to do to put food on the table.

Then, there is radio, which has been in a steady decline both in listenership and quality.

Radio has also been so formatted that very hard to find something fresh and new. Sure, college and community radio stations still challenge the listener. But their signals can be so small that unless you live right on top of the station, you can't pick it up. It is hard to imagine that just two decades ago the modern rock format was born out of the boredom of what has now become classic rock. Most of the bands were groundbreaking and some went on to become very popular.

But along the way, record companies wrecked this music too, by bombarding the listener with mediocre copycat bands with similar styles to those who made the "new wave." Instead of putting in the time and effort to find unique bands, record labels just turned on the cookie-cutter machine and everything started to sound the same. As one artist put it, a band like The Doors would never get signed in a million years because of their originality.

Over the last few years, alternative switched gears and basically became re-treaded metal - driving listeners away in droves. At the same time, Top 40 radio stations no longer air pop songs, preferring to pummel their audiences with grunts, samples, and screeching disguised as music.

Then, there are the pathetic stunts musicians pull to keep themselves in the limelight. Some are just plain silly, like lesbian kissing scenes on national television. Others are downright embarrassing.

Take INXS, one of my favorite bands, which now has a new reality TV series recently picked up by CBS. The band will try out aspiring singers, ala "American Idol," with the finalists living in Hollywood together until a winner is chosen. The winner then gets to go on tour with the band next year. It's pretty sad that a group of good musicians has to stoop this low just to make a comeback. Somewhere, their mate, the late singer Michael Hutchence, an amazing performer and songwriter who cared about his craft, is spinning in his grave.

Something has to give and hopefully, changes can be made. A good start would be musicians worrying less about the business aspect of the industry and embracing the art and joy of music again. That was originally the point, wasn't it? Record labels could also help by nurturing an artist instead of worrying about the quarterly spreadsheets. With the state of the music business now, nothing can hurt.