PPP's numbers don't just look good for Dems in the Presidential race in Montana. Here's the rest of the races:
Bullock 49%
Fox 44%
Undecided 7%
Lindeen 50%
Grimes 42%
Undecided 9%
McCulloch 47%
Johnson 46%
Undecided 7%
Juneau 49%
Herman 40%
That's not all. Schweitzer is polling above 60%. Baucus is polling above 70% (!) (!!!!). Those numbers are huge.
One big cautionary note -- these races are close with large numbers of undecideds. And the partisan breakdown is far more favorable to Dems than exit polls have shown in recent years.
So this poll may be D biased. I'm not saying that it definitely is -- the fundamental partisan numbers of Montana could very well be shifting. Just don't take one poll as a sign from the heavens.
Final point -- that secretary of state's race is damn close. If Linda McCulloch pulls this one off, my guess is it will have a lot to do with the Secretary of State Project, which has put a lot of resources into that race, backed by polling from Celinda Lake. If McCulloch pulls off what may be the closest race in the state, it will probably be in large part due to SOS Project's work.
Among their efforts -- a radio ad featuring Sue Furey, Kevin's mother, talking about the voter challenges.
Here's a little treat for your morning coffee: Obama 48, McCain 47, Paul 4. I like this poll, and not just for the obvious reasons, but because Paul's included in the sampling (and pulls equally from Democrats and Republicans in the poll), and because the poll shows Obama leading young voters, 54-41. (Pretty close to Matt's guestimate in the GFT piece on young voters.)
There's a simply unbelievable story in USA Today about Dan Cooper, a Bitterroot gunsmith, whose livelihood came under fire from nutjobs across the country because he had the audacity to contribute to Barack Obama's campaign for President.
Cooper had a chance to talk one-on-one with Obama regarding gun ownership and is confident that his gun rights are safe under an Obama Presidency. But it seems pretty clear that as long as the lunatic fringe is as powerful on gun issues as it is that this talented gunsmith will have to look for other work.
The irony here is that this is happening at the same time that Obama's campaign is being attacked for not supporting freedom of speech.
In Missoula, I considered for some time not spending my money at businesses that I knew were owned by local Republicans. A political boycott had a certain schoolyard appeal. I ended up rejecting the idea, concluding that for all my disagreements with those folks, that they weren't a fundamental threat to my way of life and I'd be silly to treat them as though they were.
As time has gone on, I've become increasingly convinced that the ratcheted up nonsense coming from the far right over the insane dangers of electing Barack Obama will boil over soon as some surrogate goes on TV and ends up spewing, "But...but...but he's black!" Alternate possibility -- on election night, about 7 million far-right conservatives will have the first collective aneurysm in the known history of humanity when the networks call it for Obama.
There's a really bizarre paranoid fear out there regarding Obama that I just can't figure out. It's pretty hard to believe that it isn't racial. It's kind of like if the entire grassroots left was convinced not only that we didn't especially like John McCain and Sarah Palin but that John McCain is a Manchurian candidate and that Sarah Palin is a robot sent from the future with an accent programmed after watching Fargo. Or something. Crazy. Ya know?
I just don't get it.
I don't know what can be done for Dan Cooper. Maybe he'll find some way to keep making rifles and maybe some of those numerous sane hunters and shooters on the left, right, and center can buy his rifles to show respect for his right to his completely mainstream political beliefs.
Or maybe we should all just fucking hate eachother.
Like me, you were probably scratching your head when Matt wrote about a "Rasmussen" poll showing McCain +4. What Rasmussen poll? Why, this one!
It has McCain with 50 percent and Obama with 46. Again, Ron Paul not part of the sampling, although the pollster did say, "Six percent (6%) of McCain voters might vote for a third-party candidate while Obama faces no such threat."
While everyone else polls McCain/Obama and finds a close race, Daily Kos goes the extra mile to find McCain is vulnerable in 2010 to a challenge from Janet Napolitano. By "vulnerable," I mean he'd be lucky to survive.
Honestly, that in a nutshell is why Daily Kos is the site that it is. A lot of smart political writers out there. Markos pulls himself out of the meta and does brilliant crap like this.
I'd be real surprised if that poll doesn't work its way into a narrative of whether -- with an impending loss in the Presidential race and a tough re-elect ahead -- McCain's political career is about to come to an end.
Nothing like a death narrative for the last four days of a campaign.
Update -- This is good news for McCain's team, though. They've got some form of job security. While everyone else in GOP politics will be scrambling for pay soon, they'll have a difficult re-elect campaign to work.
This is it. The final stretch from Halloween to Election Day -- two of my favorite days of the year (God, I'm a nerd).
Jay already covered this, but late yesterday, Rasmussen put out some new numbers showing McCain +4 in Montana. That comes on the heels of the Mason-Dixon numbers showing the same margin even as MSU-B recently showed the state +4 for Obama.
So what's happening?
A few possibilities:
MSU-B seems to have a Democratic bias in their polls. 538's Nate Silver detects a mild Republican bias in Mason-Dixon's polling this year. Maybe all the numbers are a bit off due to some minor polling errors and natural MoE. The race is somewhere between +4 Obama and +4 McCain.
MSU-B included Paul while Mason-Dixon and Rasmussen excluded him. Rasmussen even notes that more McCain voters than Obama voters are expressing interest in potentially voting third party (and if polling continues to predict an Obama blowout come Election Day, more of those voters are likely to defect). That would say the race is more narrowly pro-McCain than M-D or Ras indicate right now.
The youth vote. Unfortunately, neither Mason-Dixon nor MSU-B have made crosstabs available. I've seen the Rasmussen crosstabs and they have McCain winning the youth vote significantly. That is, um, unlikely to happen, especially in a situation where McCain is only up by four. Democracy Corps -- a respect Dem polling firm -- shows Obama winning white youth 51-38. Montana's under 30 vote is basically 90% white, 8% Indian, and 2% everyone else. So you can use the 51-38 as a baseline and then tweak it a few more points toward Obama. Long story short -- McCain probably isn't winning the youth vote in Montana.
Bottom line -- looking at all the polling right now, it looks like we've got ourselves a race here in Montana.
And elections are not decided by some mystical deciphering of the will of the electorate. They're decided by people who vote. That's why casting those ballots is so crucial and also why last minute field efforts make a big difference. Here's some numbers based on rough field math:
On doors, for every 10 people you talk to -- an additional person will vote.
On phones, for every 20 people you talk to -- an additional person will vote.
On text messages, for every 20 people you text -- an additional person will vote.
On yard signs, for every 100 yard signs you put up -- there is no evidence that a single additional person will vote.
On robo-calls, for every 100,000 made by the campaign -- there is no evidence that a single additional person will vote.
GOTV is called a ground game for a reason. It is ultimately won and lost by large numbers of volunteers -- an army so to speak.
In other words, this race will now be decided by the actions of every day Montanans who choose (or choose not) to get involved.
So, yeah, no bitching if you don't knock doors. Voting ain't enough.
Update -- Just to be clear, the numbers above apply to mobilization of voters. Persuasion, name ID, volunteer motivation, and other things are also important to campaigns.
But we're in mobilizing mode now where what matters is how many people get turned out to the polls. Spending time election weekend asking for yard signs is a waste of time. Hell, lit dropping isn't very effective right now (especially in the Presidential race since everyone in America knows the names Barack Obama and John McCain right now).
Months ago, a lot of things could make a difference. Right now, basically three things do:
Door to door canvassing
Phone calls
Personal outreach to your own network of folks, especially folks you know who may not be planning to vote.
FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver, discussing Mason-Dixon in the context of a recent Pennsylvania poll (emphasis Silver's):
Mason-Dixon is a pretty strong pollster. So, however, are many others from among the literally dozen or so agencies that have conducted polling within Pennsylvania over the past 72 hours. And none of those other pollsters shows the race that tight.
Mason-Dixon has also had a Republican "lean" this cycle of perhaps 2-3 points. They are quite frequently the most favorable number for John McCain in any given state. That doesn't mean that they are "biased", and it doesn't mean that they are wrong - there are many different (and legitimate!) ways to think about this election. But it does mean that their polls need to be interpreted in that context. Let's say the average poll in Pennsylvania has Obama ahead by 9.5 points. Mason-Dixon will probably start out seeing a 9.5-point state at a 7-point state. If they then end up toward the McCain side of their margin of error -- and they don't use huge sample sizes - that's how you get to Obama +4.
Now I'm not saying Mason-Dixon's Montana poll is necessarily leaning 2-3 points towards McCain. It might be. But that possible lean and the fact that Ron Paul wasn't in the sampling makes it pretty clear what all of us know anyway: it's a dead heat in Montana between Obama and McCain.
Later today I'll post about GOTV efforts for Obama and the Democratic party. Where, when, what. If you've never knocked on doors before, this is your big chance. It's a little scary at first, but it's much, much more, oh ever so muchly more easy and fun to do than phone banking.
Looks like we got ourselves a new poll for Montana: Mason-Dixon found McCain to have a four-point edge over Obama in the state. As always, here are the recent polls:
The only thing I know about this most recent poll that it had 600+ respondents.
Not much to say. It could confirm that MSU-B is an outlier. Still, it's about what you'd expect.
Update (by Matt) -- Mason-Dixon is probably the gold standard of Montana polling. They typically handle Lee's polling and have pretty hefty experience in the state. That said, one of the clear emerging trends with the MSU-B poll in this and previous years is that it doesn't push leaners at all. So what we may be seeing is simply an enthusiasm gap, combined with a lack of a Ron Paul option.
That's not to say that the MSU-B numbers are more accurate. John McCain probably is the preferred candidate of slightly more Montanans. But a significant number of those Montanans display a fair amount of antipathy toward McCain still.
Bottom line -- this thing is pretty close and the race is to the point where a good field effort can change the outcome. The Obama campaign is still pushing super heavy for volunteers, so I assume that they still need help.
I won't be helping them as I'm focused on the down ballot, but I'd certainly encourage folks with bandwidth right now to lend a hand.
Yesterday Matt brought up the money the RNC is planning to dump onto the state airwaves. In that post, Matt speculates why they're bothering to spend money in the state. After all, Montana's worth only 3 Electoral College votes, a Montana win for Obama pretty much means McCain's lost everywhere else already, and the money could probably be put to better use elsewhere.
Well, today's report by Matt Gouras on Obama's efforts in the state led me to wonder, why in the h*ll did Obama spend so much money and effort in the state? I mean, based on the details -- 19 offices, 14,000 volunteers, developing subtle and sophisticated Western-based policy -- this wasn't just a feint to draw McCain's resources to the state. Obama sincerely wants to win Montana.
The Republican National Committee has purchased ads in the Presidential race here in Montana, a sure sign that some folks in DC are sweating the state's three electoral votes.
Marc Ambinder's take:
The ads begin Wednesday.
In 2004, George W. Bush won Montana by 20 points.
Ron Paul is on the ballot. And Ron Paul supporters aren't happy with John McCain...
A Republican congressman from Texas could throw the state to Barack Obama.
Ouch. This could very easily be too little too late.
Over 80,000 votes have already been cast in Montana.
My sense from demographic numbers and the counties where voter registration rolls are growing is that McCain is being massively out-organized.
Back to work.
Update -- The more I think about this, the weirder it is. It isn't even that strange that the GOP is playing defense here. It's that this is the best place for them to spend money. Most polling indicates that Montana is only competitive if Obama is winning in such a landslide that the game is already over. The Republican Party nationally is facing a real ass-whooping in the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House.
So why move cash into Montana? And why move the $300k-400k I'm seeing get mentioned? That's a very significant media buy in this state and in a competitive national environment, it is a serious piece of change to deploy.
All of that says to me that either:
Internal GOP polling shows Montana to be basically a firewall state for them -- that it has become a must-win. OR
The RNC is giving up on a lot of stuff, but is trying to help their down-ballot folks in Montana by sowing significant doubts around the Democratic brand. OR
Remember late in the 2006 campaign when all the state's newspapers started endorsing Jon Tester? I'm getting that feeling again...with all the usual caveats about how endorsements don't swing elections.
At this extremely challenging time, America needs a uniter, not a divider. In this economic turmoil, America needs a thoughtful, cool-headed optimist who envisions a bright future for all citizens. After several years in which worldwide respect for America has been diminished, our great nation needs a new leader who can inspire confidence at home and abroad.
Obama is that leader. As Gen. Colin Powell said last week, Obama is the president America needs now "because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities. ... He has both style and substance."
Again, it's hard to compare the MSU-B poll to what came before, because of different methodologies, etc. One of the characteristics that separates today's poll from the others is sample size. MSU-B, at 403 interviews, uses the smallest sample size out of the batch listed above. CNN (737), Research 2000 (500), Rasmussen (500), and ARG (600) all had at least 100 more responses, which makes the polling more accurate.
For another, without the cross-tabs, it's hard to really compare the results. Are there any demographics' results that catch the eye? Are any age groups underrepresented?
Still, there's reason to think this poll may be accurate. For one, this is the first poll to include Ron Paul in the sample. Paul is, of course, on the ballot in Montana.
For another, for the polls where we were able to examine the cross-tabs, it seems the youth vote leaned suspiciously towards McCain. For insight on why many polls may overestimate McCain's support among the young, check out FiveThirtyEight's post on today's IBB/TIPP poll, which showed just a 1.1% lead for Obama nationally. That poll showed McCain led among the 18-24 age set, 74-22, which certainly doesn't jibe with...well...reality. If anything, those numbers should be reversed.
So, how could a pollster arrive at those numbers? First, Nate Silver calculates the odds of a poll result deviating that much from the norm for a particular group, and finds that, under normal polling circumstances, there's a 55 billion to 1 chance IBB/TIPP poll chanced on that result. So there must be something with the methodology of the poll:
So, there is an 0.000000002% chance that IBD/TIPP just got really unlucky. Conversely, there is a 99.999999998% chance that one of the following things is true:
(i) They're massively undersampling the youth vote. If you only have, say, 30 young voters when you should have 100 or so in your sample, than the odds of a freak occurrence like this are significantly more likely.
or (ii) Something is dramatically wrong with their sampling or weighting procedures, or their likely voter model.
My guess is that it's some combination of the two -- that, for instance, IBD/TIPP is applying a very stringent likely voter model that removes you from the sample if you haven't voted in the past two elections, which would rule a great number of 18-24 year olds out.
Given the consistency of the Research 2000 polls to show an edge for McCain in the youth vote, or a very narrow lead for Obama, what's likely is that those polls had a methodology that was slightly prejudicial against young Obama voters.
Did the MSU-B poll have less stringent requirements to accept a response? I'd love to peek under the hood and see how the 18-24 vote did in this poll. Because if it's closer to national average, this one may be the most accurate...
The MSU-B poll is out and shows Obama leading McCain 44-40.
Wow, right. Well, hold your horses. This is good news, but a few observations:
While the MSU-B poll has a good track record of predicting winners, its margins are off. In '06, it pegged Tester up by 11. I don't think Tester was ever leading Burns by 11. In '04, it once gave Schweitzer a double digit lead over Bob Brown. That also wasn't a double digit race.
As in those races, part of the problem seems to be a high undecided rate. My guess is that if undecideds are pushed, they come home.
Major caveat: MSU-B got the numbers wrong, but the outcomes right, in both '04 and '06. So maybe Obama really is up. Damn.
Update -- Complete release of the poll is here (PDF).
(Dang, the collective memory of the Internet sure is a b*tch, isn't it, Erik? - promoted by Jay Stevens)
The day after the Montana Primary on June 3rd (not the much hyped GOP caucus, but the one where everyone was allowed to vote), Erik Iverson said this:
"I expect John McCain to win Montana by double digits, and he'll have coattails," Iverson said. "He's going to be a big help to Montana Republicans this fall, and I think, conversely, Barack Obama is going to be a big problem for Democrats."
Max Baucus hosted a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee today in Missoula on the subject of health care reform.
A few thoughts:
Max did an admirable job outlining the scope of the problem, the position of the U.S. relative to other countries, and the potential direction to take with regards to a fix. He at one point talked about building a solution that builds upon employer-provided health care. I'm a fan of that direction.
Several times, Max emphasized that he was interested in working with the next President, whether that is McCain or Obama. While Max's rhetoric on the question tracks much more closely with Obama's proposal, this is smart. It may also explain some progressive frustration. If McCain pulls this out, it doesn't doom health care reform if Max is able to cut a deal. McCain's health care plan is disastrous, but a condemnation from Max's lips doesn't improve the plan, it just destroys the chances of getting a decent bill signed next year if McCain wins the White House.
The President of St. Pat's who spoke was great -- talking a lot about realigning incentives to focus on health maintenance instead of on sick care. His name was Jeff Fee. I thought he was super sharp.
The guy from BCBS who spoke got a bit harsher reception from Max than I anticipated. He also was in a bit of a predicament, talking about BCBS's dominance of the health insurance market (apparently 50% of the consumer-based insurance market in Montana is insured by BCBS) while proclaiming his own company's powerlessness over the health care market. He did come out in favor of an insurance mandate. Surprise, surprise. Note: I also favor a mandate, but it's no surprise that insurance companies want to require that individuals purchase their products. He also admitted that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance from an administrative perspective, even with the rise of privatization of Medicare.
Before opening the room up to the public's comments, Max took a moment to ask folks to go Rawlsian, for lack of a better term. He specifically asked for people to step out of their own situation and address the system's needs. It was a nice calling for a higher good. More of that, please.
The owner of Le Petit did a nice job describing the issues his operation has faced. Forward Montana has insurance through a small group policy and we've faced similar difficulties -- double-digit premium increases every year and questions of whether to cut back on the benefit, raise the deductible, etc., etc.
The uninsured woman on stage had an unhappy, but thankfully not tragic, story. A local cosmetologist and mother, she's always made too little to pay for health insurance and too much to qualify for public assistance.
The question is where from here. We'll know a lot more after the election, but here's my prediction for now. No fight will be as intense next year as the fight over health care. Other issues may inflame more passion from different loud sectors of society, but health care is where we will watch the true knock-down drag-out in the Senate. On these sorts of economic questions, neither side is going to quiet down without a fight. So expect to see organized labor double-down and the organized, ideological right get entrenched and push for a filibuster of the plan at any cost. When the Democrats manage to fix our health care system, what will follow will be a restored faith in the ability of government to solve problems.
That said, the likely solution is neither a British-style NHS or a Canadian style single-payer insurance system. After we win this reform fight, Blue Cross Blue Shield will still exist. So will New West and Allegiance. They'll face public sector competition for non-poor, non-elderly, non-veteran Americans. But no industries are being eliminated at the stroke of a pen.
That's a cool 9-point swing from the last Research 2000 poll, and as Matt mentioned, it looks like they under-represented the state's youth vote. That, along with Paul's presence on the ballot, means anything goes here. I'd still list this thing as "leans McCain" in Montana, but it's probably closer to "tossup."
The gubernatorial race trends:
10/19 - Research 2000: Schweitzer 57 (62/33), Brown 40 (41/51)
10/2 - Rasmussen: Schweitzer 56 (65/35), Brown 41 (45/48)
9/22 - Mellman Group: Schweitzer 63, Brown 24
7/31 - Rassmussen: Schweitzer 56 (64/27), Brown 32 (37/41)
The Research 2000 poll confirms what the Rasmussen poll found earlier in the month: Brian Schweitzer is hanging on to support in the high 50s, which he's enjoyed all summer. His favorable ratings also hold steady, something that Roy Brown should envy, what with his unfavorable rating steadily mounting to a high of 51 percent in yesterday's poll.
You might find more volatile polling numbers with an incumbent that's polarizing -- with favorable/unfavorable ratings in the high 40s -- but Schweitzer is popular across the political spectrum, winning an 82 percent favorable rating from Democrats, a 66 rating with independents, and even a 42 percent rating with Republicans.
Brown, on the other hand, has a huge unfavorable rating to dig himself out of in just a few days. A fifty-one percent unfavorable rating? More than half the electorate dislikes the Republican candidate, including 56 percent of independents.
I harp on these ratings, because they show the potential of a candidate to move through the polls. Unfavorable ratings express voters' dislike; it's harder to win votes from people who dislike your candidate than it is from undecideds or from voters who like your candidate, but are voting for the other guy. In short, in order to win this race, Roy Brown not only has to win all of the remaining undecideds, he has to win votes from voters who actively dislike him. Schweitzer, on the other hand, has five or so percent of voters who view his administration favorably, but are either undecided or voting for Brown.
Given Obama's penchant for brining new and under-represented young voters into the fold, and given the favorability ratings of the gubernatorial candidates, if this race is going to move, it seems likely it'll move in Schweitzer's direction.
As for the Rehberg/Driscoll race, in which our Representative just cracked 50 (he's up 52-38) in a race in which his opponent has endorsed him...and after Rehberg cast his ballot against the bailout bill...well, the less said, the better. This was a golden opportunity for a populist progressive to really put a dent into Rehberg, if not unseat him. Imagine what might have happened if Driscoll actually campaigned.
'Nuff ced.
Update (by Matt) -- Just to clarify something and make an observation. First, I don't think R2K undersamples the youth vote, I think it understates how pro-Obama the youth vote in Montana will be. National numbers regarding the white youth vote are more favorable than the Montana numbers in this poll. That is surprising since white Montanans tend to vote more Democratic than white Americans as a whole and given that 10-12% of the youth in Montana aren't white.
Second, it is now pretty clear that the Mellman poll that cause so much furor in this state was an outlier. This isn't to say that Mellman is a bad pollster. Even good pollsters produce weird polls relatively often. It's SCIENCE! But it validates the conservative complaints about it a bit. That said, it is still pretty clear that Schweitzer is looking at a blowout unless something significant changes.
Good news for Montana Democrats in a new Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos:
McCain (R) 49 (52)
Obama (D) 45 (39)
Trendlines are from late September. So we're seeing a 9 point swing a month.
The crosstabs are both believable and, if anything, hint at a slight bias toward Democratic undersampling and a too pessimistic prediction of the youth vote for Obama (from my read).
I've probably been one of the more pessimistic voices in the state regarding Obama's chances. But with this poll coming on the heels of a similar ARG poll -- and with the strength of Obama's volunteer base -- this race is suddenly looking winnable to me in Montana.
Of course, as Markos notes, it is still unlikely to be a tipping point state. It's more like a victory lap state for Obama. But in play it is.
The more interesting news in the poll comes in with numbers in the U.S. House race:
Rehberg (R) 52%
Driscoll (D) 38%
Surprisingly low numbers for Rep. Rehberg given the lack of a race. A poll like this is likely to have a number of people taking a real close look at that race for 2010.
The poll also has Schweitzer with a solid 18 point lead.
One last note -- the R2K polling method doesn't name third party candidates during the questioning. I think this is sound, but someone trying to find another way to improve Obama's numbers might note that Ron Paul's name is on the ballot here. While I think Paul detracts a bit from both Obama and McCain, it seems likely he hurts McCain more than Obama.
This gap narrows a couple points on strength of Obama's field operation and a point or two because of Ron Paul and we have ourselves a nail-biter.
I understand that it's a rough year to be a Republican. I understand that it's rough having conservative ideals, and watching them fail, spectacularly. Conservative foreign policy gave us Iraq. Conservative governance gave us the prosecutor purge, deficeits, collapsing bridges, torture, and the banking crisis. I also understand it's human nature to retract and get defensive rather than fess up and change your way.
Still, the rhetoric emanating from the right over the Obama campaign is, frankly, reprehensible.
Kevin Drum posted a compiliation of some recent examples a couple of weeks ago:
One: Bill Ayers really wrote Obama's book, Dreams From My Father. Two: Obama had an underage, gay affair with a pedophile. (That, by the way, is called "molestation," folks. -- Jay) Three: It's entirely possible that Obama was involved with bombing the South African rugby team while he was at Columbia in the 80s. Four: Obama, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright (via a chain of associations too Rube Goldbergesque to summarize) were engaged in a conspiracy to teach Pan-African "cultural nationalism" to Chicago schoolkids during the 90s. Five: Obama was having an affair with one of his fundraiser babes in 2004 until Michelle found out and banished the woman to a "little Caribbean island."
And then there was serious discussion about whether Obama is a Maoist or a Stalinist...and this was at the Corner, the blog for the National Review, a "reputable" magazine. This week's hooplah is that Obama was accused of altering a United States flag to put an "O" in the field of stars and standing it alongside US flags during a speech in Toledo. Turns out it was an Ohio state flag. To sum it up, apparently Obama is a "black Muslim, anti-Christian socialist plotting with an evil Jewish billionaire."
And let's not ignore the fact that a lot of this is encouraged, if not abetted by the McCain/Palin ticket. It's McCain and Palin, for example, who are pushing the Bill Ayers line of attack. It's McCain/Palin who are pushing the ACORN story. It's Sarah Palin who's identifying certain areas of the country as "pro-America."
