Brad Warthen's Blog

I didn't get a harrumph out of that guy...

Being an editor is often a thankless job, but you get these little rewards now and then. Such as this one, which probably wouldn't mean anything to anyone who doesn't love words as much as I do, but was a nice treat for me...

One of my colleagues had used "harrumphed" in an editorial I was editing, and I decided that I would check the spelling, on the off chance that it was actually in the Webster's New World College Dictionary, which is the one we use as an official arbiter in our style rules.

And it was! Which I thought was way cool. Also, I believe it's correct to call it an onomatopoeia, which doubles the fun, since that's a fun word to say.

Finally, it allowed me to use my favorite line from "Blazing Saddles" as a blog headline.

And who says editors don't have fun?

S.C. voters back increasing cigarette tax to national average -- more than ever

The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative released its new poll today showing support for increasing the state's lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax to the national average is higher than ever:

Overwhelming Majority of

South Carolina

Voters

Favor Increase in Cigarette Tax

 

New Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Cigarette Tax

To Reduce Youth Smoking and Address the State’s Healthcare Needs

 

Columbia (January 14, 2009) – Nearly three-quarters of South Carolinians (74 percent) favor a proposal to raise the state cigarette tax by 93 cents per pack to help fund programs to reduce tobacco use among kids as well as programs to increase access to health care for South Carolinians, according to a new poll released today. A majority of voters (60 percent strongly favor the 93-cent increase.

 

The poll found that there is no difference in support between a 93-cent and 50-cent increase. Support for both specific cigarette tax increases is broad-based, and cuts across party, regional and ideological lines.

Danny McGoldrick

, Vice President for

Research

at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids noted, “From a political standpoint, it’s clearly ‘in for a penny; in for a pound.’ This is because opposition to the cigarette tax is low and essentially identical at the two levels, while the revenue and other benefits dramatically increase with the higher tax.”

 

The survey of 500 registered

South Carolina

voters, who are likely to vote, was released today by the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative in conjunction with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the American Cancer Society. In announcing its results, the campaign declared the cigarette tax a win-win-win for

South Carolina

. An increase in the state’s cigarette tax is a win for public health because it will reduce smoking, particularly among kids; it’s a win for the state’s fiscal health because it will raise more than $175 million in new annual revenue for the state; and it’s a win for lawmakers who support it because of overwhelming voter support.

 

Strong voter support is evident among virtually every political and demographic subgroup of voters in the

Palmetto

State

, as large majorities of Democrats and Republicans, men and women, young and old, and residents of all parts of the state support the tax. “The cigarette tax is clearly not a partisan issue,” said McGoldrick. “The proposal has tremendous support across party lines and across the state.”

 

Tobacco-caused costs add more than $960 million per year to tax bills in the state – or more than $560 for each

South Carolina

household. “By increasing the cigarette tax,

South Carolina

will reduce smoking, save lives and help offset the health care costs caused by smoking,” said Dr. Anthony Alberg of the Medical University of South Carolina.

 

“Youth smoking is an epidemic, and increasing the cigarette tax is a proven strategy to protect thousands of

South Carolina

kids from tobacco addiction,” said Alberg. “

South Carolina

has the nation’s lowest cigarette tax rate at just 7 cents per pack and the lowest funding for prevention programs. We have failed to take this important step to fight the epidemic. Among the options that are on the table, increasing the cigarette tax is clearly a preferred solution to making sure the state can balance the budget while funding important priorities.”

 

 

In this difficult economic environment, there is no support for any type of tax increase in

South Carolina

, with one exception – an increase in the state cigarette tax. All other spending reductions or tax increases tested fall flat.

 

Support for a 93-cent increase in the state cigarette tax crosses party and ethnic lines, with 73 percent of base GOPers, 86 percent of white Democrats, and 72 percent of African Americans backing an increase in the state cigarette tax. Regionally, support for a 93-cent cigarette tax increase is also strong across the state. Support is stronger in the Lowcountry (80 percent favor) and Midlands (78 percent favor), but is also high in the Upstate (71 percent favor) and

Pee Dee

regions (67 percent favor). The “weakest” subgroups – African American women and

Pee Dee

voters, still back a cigarette tax increase by more than a 60 percent level.

 

In terms of the specific cigarette tax increases tested by Public Opinion Strategies, intensity is stronger for the 93-cent tax increase (60 percent strongly favor) than for the 50-cent tax increase (54 percent strongly favor). Both proposed increases receive strong support across party and ideological lines.

 

The poll found that a 93-cent cigarette tax increase is politically safe for legislators. More than half (53 percent) of voters are more likely to support a candidate who supports a cigarette tax increase, while just 14 percent are less likely. Support remains high among base GOPers (50 percent more likely) as well as among very conservative voters (51 percent more likely). Opposition among these groups is low – just 12 percent of base GOPers are less likely, as are just 14 percent of very conservative voters.

 

When asked to choose, a significant majority of voters agree that revenue from a cigarette tax increase should be used to reduce tobacco use, especially among children, and to expand access to health care (62 percent), rather than to reduce other state taxes (34 percent). Fully 83 percent of the electorate say they are concerned about the problem of smoking and other tobacco use among young people in South Carolina, with more than half (55 percent) of the electorate very concerned about this issue.

 

Large bodies of economic research, numerous expert panels, experience in other states, and even reports from the tobacco industry have concluded decisively that price increases effectively reduce smoking, especially among youth. The U.S. Surgeon General, in the 2000 report, Reducing Tobacco Use, concluded that raising cigarette taxes is widely regarded as one of the most effective tobacco prevention strategies and that cigarette tax increases would lead to “substantial long-run improvements in health.”

 

According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a 93-cent increase in

South Carolina

’s cigarette tax would prevent more than 63,600

South Carolina

kids alive today from becoming smokers and prompt 33,500 adult smokers to quit, saving 29,200

South Carolinians

from a premature, smoking-caused death. The additional revenue from 93 cents per pack would provide the state with an immediate boost of more than $175 million in revenue in the first year alone.

 

“The evidence is clear that increasing the price of cigarettes is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking, especially among children and pregnant women,” said Jim Bowie, Executive Director of the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative. “Preliminary evidence confirms that every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax in recent years has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue, even while reducing cigarette sales.

South Carolina

has nothing to lose and everything to gain from raising its cigarette tax.”

 

The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative is a coalition of health, education, community, business and faith organizations dedicated to raising the state excise tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products to protect our kids. The Collaborative’s more than 30 member groups, including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association of South Carolina, South Carolina Cancer

Alliance

and American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, support the 93-cent increase in the cigarette tax to help prevent kids from starting to smoke and to fund healthcare programs.

 

The survey was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies. The statewide poll has a random sample of 500 registered likely

South Carolina

voters and was conducted December 9 and 11, 2008.  The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.38 percentage points.

So I guess I'm not the only one getting impatient on this.

Meanwhile, we had our lunch with the governor today. This subject came up, and basically he backs the idea of going a third of the way to the national average -- if it's offset with a tax cut he wants. If it's NOT offset by the tax cut, he'll veto it again. But you probably knew that without my telling you.

Lunch was nice, by the way. Joel saw to it I had a nice grilled fish fillet with salad, and that the dressing didn't do me in. I appreciate it.

More feedback on McCain endorsement

Just in case you didn't get enough with the comments on this post or this one or this one or this one, here are a few that I've received via e-mail. I didn't keep the attributions because some of these people probably wouldn't mind and some would, but I don't have time now to sort them out:

Hi,

Your recent Sunday column concerning John McCain neglects to mention that John McCain has lied about his military record on several occasions. I was eleven years old and watched the U.S.S. Forrestal as it arrived at Subic Bay in the Philippines -- minus John McCain. The writer of this article has performed a valuable public service, while you and the rest of the McCain worshippers continue to go AWOL.

_________________________________________

His pick of Sarah Palin--that kind of blows the doors off the "experience"
argument.

You also failed to mention that he graduated 4th from the bottom of his
class at Annapolis, which makes him dumber than George Bush, who you also
endorsed, twice.

Do you suppose he's also dumber than Mark Sanford, who you also endorsed?

Why don't you just say, "At The State, we endorse dumbasses, and McCain's
pick of Palin as well as his graduating 4th from the bottom of his class at
Annapolis leaves him as the only candidate that we can endorse."

You did good back in the poker machine days, and I still like reading your
stuff some times--some great sentences you can come up with at times--in
fact, i'd even say kind of incredible, and i even quote the stuff from time
to time, giving you the attribution, of course.  The problem is you have
quite a few loose screws that find expression in the endorsement of
candidates who have trashed this state and this country.  yes, you have a
track record.

Fortunately, I'm not going to be able to rub it in your face a few years
from now when you're writing about what an idiot McCain is, that you
endorsed him (like I have done with Bush and Sanford) because McCain is not
going to win.  Hopefully, you'll never endorse another winner.  For the good
of this country, let's hope not.

_________________________________________

Brad

You are a barrel of laughs.  It is truly funny how you are trying to convince yourself and others that you are open minded and not a closed minded, dyed in the wool, Republican.  The Republicans could literally run this country into the ground and you would still endorse a Republican.  (Oh, I guess that has already happened.)

The rationale for your endorsement was pitiful.  It wouldn't get a B from a friendly 10th grade Social Studies teacher.  I can imagine the red pencil comment "To endorse McCain because he supported the Surge is not a very deep analysis of the Iraq situation."

__________________________________________________

Mr Warthen,
I'm sitting here typing, deleting & retyping all the reasons why I find it incredulous that you've endorsed McCain for president.
I finally realized that I need not struggle to put it into words - Warren Bolton has already done that, very succinctly.
I will just say that I am extremely disappointed in your decision.  And the reasons given to support it do not resonate with me. 
Your, in my opinion, fool hearty endorsement is one that will remain in the back of my mind & forever color my perceptions of future positions presented by The State.

__________________________________________

Mr. Warthen,

I am an Obama supporter and I was disappointed that The State endorsed Sen. McCain. We are all entitled to our opinions, however, and I attempt to be open to views that are different from mine.  I must say, though, that your written justification for the endorsement of Sen. McCain in this morning's edition was as weak as water.
Thank goodness for Mr. Bolton's very thoughtful editorial this morning, it was proof to me that there continue to be people on your staff that reason and think independently. That piece and my husband's insistence on reading every comic strip everyday is the only reason that I did not cancel my subscription to your paper on the spot. 

_______________________________________________

After reading your editorial and the editorial page this morning, I called your paper and terminated my subscription, even though I have been a subscriber since I moved to South Carolina in 1977.  Through the years, I have agreed and disagreed with your editorials, but I have never considered the disagreements as serious as I do today.  I cannot disagree more with your conclusion that John McCain is better qualified.  I can't believe that you truly see John McCain as "exhibiting fierce integrity, principled independence and awe-inspiring courage as he has put his country first." 

I have seen nothing but a self-centered, spoiled man who is very angry and who has over and over put himself first.  For you to say that choosing Palin is not a factor for making a decision astounds me since it is such a clear example of McCain's lack of judgement. I thank Kathleen Parker for giving me the first reasonable explanation of why McCain made such a choice.

I know that one subscriber will not break your newspaper, I just wish I could get everyone in the state who is supporting Senator Obama to also cancel their subscriptions and then maybe you would wake up!

____________________________________________

To quote John McEnroe “are you serious!!!” I guess I really shouldn’t be that surprised.

Even though, like John McCain’s support of 90% of George Bush’s policies, I generally agree with The State’s editorial positions and the issues so eloquently addressed by Cindi and Warren and Brad (heck I even got the paper’s endorsement when I ran for Columbia City Council in 2000); I must say I was very disappointed at the endorsement of John McCain.

I realize we all see the world and life through our own “lenses,” but, come on, you folks have blindfolds, or at best blinders, on for this one. I do compliment you on putting the best possible spin on your choice by limiting your reasons and the issues discussed. Especially interesting was your total avoidance of other issues like temperament, and judgment in the choice of Sarah Palin. Guess you don’t see any concerns/negatives in a McCain administration. I could go on. You and most informed citizens/voters know the litany on both sides.

I can’t cancel my subscription over something like this. I am grateful to even get The State delivered out at Lake Wateree. I did have to express my disappointment. You coulda/shoulda picked the best candidate, and likely winner, as have over 200 other publications, four times the number who agree with you/The State.

I’ll still respect you after the election.

__________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: to Mr. Warthen

Dear Mr. Warthen:

I am disappointed in your endorsement of Sen. McCain. Not surprised, as you observed. Rather, I am dismayed at the rationale you used in choosing an endorsement for our next president. In a state thirsty for demonstrable fruits of education, we need leaders (including newspaper editors) who apply sound reasoning in decisions. Most of your reasons were poorly grounded - most notably, that the economic crisis and vice presidential selections are irrelevant to your endorsement. Many of us could not disagree more.

A sound economy is one essential key to our collective future. Each political party has a long record of economic policy - these candidates represent those parties ( I remind you that Sen. McCain may have resisted some foolish decisions by his party but he is not an Independent), so the positions on the economic condition are not a wash. Can you give us a deeper foundation for this opinion?

And as Gen. Powell recently observed, THE job of the vice president is to stand ready to be president. Our American tradition is to have two candidates running rather than a solo presidential candidate so the people can choose who the v.p. will be. Using your logic, we should just elect a president and let that person choose a successor after the election. Essentially you have endorsed Gov. Palin to be our executive, commander-in-chief, and strategist in leading us out of this economic crisis. You owe us an explanation for why you support putting our future in her hands.

_______________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: The State's Endorsement

I was so disappointed when I read the headline that you are endorsing McCain/Palin in the Presidential race.  I thought after your endorsement published in January of Obama, you were on the right track to unification for the state of South Carolina.  My husband and I have been very involved with this election process and have done much research and study in making our decision for our Presidential Vote.  I would think that with the resources afforded to a large newspaper, you would have come tot the same conclusion that we did.  Obama is our choice, no question.  We have struggled with job loss, student loans for our children in college and our sons service in the military.  McCain will only continue the policies that have made living and working for middle class American families so difficult these past few years.
Your opinion in January about Obama was spot on:

"Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership," the endorsement continued. "In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself.": The State,  January22, 2008

We are so disappointed in your change of heart, and in our service with home delivery over the past year, that we will be canceling our subscription. 

____________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: (no subject)

Good morning to you Mr. Warthen-

Not knowing how to work this "blog" thing, I have to e-mail you my thoughts after reading the McCain endorsement which was no surprise at all.  What else could you people do in a state like
South Carolina?  Your paper, which from what I hear , is losing subscribers due to over-emphasis on sports, particularly football, diminishing Book Review section, less arts, less and less in-depth coverage of national and international news (no wonder people don't know about the Colombian Free Trade Agreement) loss of the Saturday Editorial Page and having to go to the internet to finish many stories.  Can you imagine the loss of subscribers you would suffer if you endorsed Obama?  Yes, you did once but not for the finish. 

You state in your personal remarks that people know your mind so well.  I disagree.  You always seem to be self-searching, trying to put across that you are neither this or that, so how can anyone know you when you don't yet seem to know yourself? 

As for knowing McCain, the remarks in the endorsement and yours show that you only know the surface of the man and haven't really studied him in depth.  His recent acceptance of some of the most vile ads against Obama and his shameless pilfering of Obama's campaign slogan of Change and many of Obama's ideas show this as a man who stops at nothing to get what he wants.  During rallies when folks said ugly things about Obama, he made a half-hearted attempt to stop it but later defended his audiences (note that when he tried to stop it, he was booed or given very sparce applause).  He and Palin unleashed some very, very frightening elements during their campaign and this is not the kind of man who should be a leader of all the people.  He has always been a panderer and will always be.  He also has a nasty streak that is also frightening.  Even your favorite columnist, Charles Krathammer, a former psychiatrist or something of the sort, while bashing Obama last week, stated that McCain launched a volcanic missive to Obama when he did not go along with some proposal of McCain's.  Krathammer should have spent a little more time analyzing McCain.

His military career and his time as a POW was not the glorious, self-giving time that has become an urban legend of sorts.  There are many places one can go to find out who this little man really is - and I just don't mean little in stature.  He is a bellicose, uneven tempered man with a lot that he is still trying to prove and we are in danger of being his proving grounds.

Further, I would like to see a little more balance on the Editorial Page with your syndicated columnists.  It is discouraging to open the paper and see either Krathammer, Will, Parker.  Once in a while we get Freidman and when it snows in July, Dowd.  Broder is even a change.  Surely there could be a better mix and your letters more balanced. 

__________________________________________________

Morning,
I just called and canceled my annual subscription(paid in advance)  to The State Newspaper after 17 years and 8 months. You ask Why?  Let me start by paraphrasing W.C. Fields When the world ends I want to be in SC. He was asked WHY? Because they are Fifty (50) years behind.
I do  not take issue with The State/Brad's endorsing Sen John McCain.  This was expected.  What I take issue is with the reasons and lack thereof.
1  "Surge"  The war did not start with a "surge"  The war started before the surge and Sen Barack Obama stated before the war and before the surge started that we SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR.  The "surge works" not in isolation.  We are paying  many $$$$$$$$$, Have you heard about the "Awakening" No one on itself would be success.  Please tell me now who had the better judgment and foresight from the start? Sen McCain or Sen Obama?

2.  You have lost sight of what the rest of America is mainly concerned about THE ECONOMY  THE ECONOMY THE ECONOMY. "Iran to North Korea"? Who cares RIGHT NOW? What most people care about is feeding their families, I guess we do not have to, My household income is over $250,000.00 per year. 

3.  "Columbia Free Trade Agreement"?  Take a poll of your readers and I bet my re-subscription that no more than 10% knows what you are talking about. Is this the new way of not saying "BLACK"? You yourself had to ask your own guestion  "WHY so many words about the CFTA.  Trying to justified putting the square peg in the round hole.

4.  "Judicial appointment"?  If you believe what both men said about litmus test, I have a bridge to nowhere I can sell you for the price of your subscription. 

5 "immigration reform" how many times did he flip flop on this issue.  What about voting against a MLK holiday?  You have the audacity to mentioned Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid BUT totally ignore Sen McCain's first decision Gov. Sarah Palin Oh so now you are worried about the majority in Congress?  What happen to the last six years? 

6. Is Country first involve KEATING FIVE, wrecking three planes, jumped out of one that was destroyed, shot down at 3,000 feet when he should have been flying at 4,000 - 10,000 feet?

7.  "Why didn't ( I prefer  "did not")  mention Sarah Palin"?  You are still trying those pegs.  How could you consider  one without the other ?  All thing been equal Sen McCain should die before Sen Obama.  Are you telling me that is the former is elected president and dies 4 months in his term Gov. Palin is suited to run the country and the world for the next 3 years and 8 months?  What are you drinking?  I do not want even a tea spoon of that, and if you are sneaking some in your paper I do not want to touch same again. 

8. "We could go on and on, and we will"  I will not. If I want to read you paper I can go to Refdesk like I do every day. Where I read at least 3-5 national, and 3-5 international newspaper seven day per week.

________________________________________________

To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: McCain endorsement

I gave all my information upfront because I mean this when I say the editorial board has two straight-up wimps, Brad Warthen and Cindi Scoppe. How can you not know who to endorse at this point in time? I realize Ms Scoppe has the right to make her decision anytime she feels like but as educated and bright as Ms Scoppe is, it just seems like she's afraid to endorse Obama in South Carolina and I say the same thing about Warthen. Please, the reason people assumed the editorial board would endorse McCain is because they knew you would come up with some wimpy reason to endorse the republican candidate.  I do believe that the publisher and owner of the state is not a wimp and I feel like Warren Bolton is not a wimp and the reason I feel that way about those two is that they're consistent, especially Bolton but endorsing John McCain in South Carolina is not progressive and saying you're not sure as an educated person when the election is less than 10 days away is not courageous and it's patronizing to your readers because both candidates have had websites up and running with information on their plans. My issue is not that the State endorses a republican candidate but that they put their circulation ahead of any real effort to change the country or be progressive and after reading Warthen's commentary over the past year I don't think he's very progressive when it comes to race at all. You see when it's time to do something courageous don't complain all year long then do the opposite or say I don't know. 

_______________________________________________

I am so very glad that McCain has been endorsed.  I supported him in 2000.  I feel his loyalty and dedication to the welfare of the United States is  far above his opponent.  McCain actually cares about this great country and what he can do to protect it.  Obama is more concerned over his "Kingship" of the country.

He is the most arrogant and elitist person who has ever ran for president.  He refuses to answer the "tough" questions and has ran a most negative and dishonest political race.   He is guilty of what he accuses his opponent of.  I feel so much better knowing that The State Paper and you have endorsed the best candidate we have.  Bless You.

So there you have it.

I haven't had time to respond to more than one or two of these folks, and need to turn to putting out tomorrow's page now. But at least I could give their views a wider airing by posting them here.

Do you believe the AP poll saying it's a dead heat?

The AP has reported a poll putting McCain in a dead heat with Obama:

WASHINGTON -- The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.
    The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.
    Three weeks ago, an AP-GfK survey found that Obama had surged to a seven-point lead over McCain, lifted by voters who thought the Democrat was better suited to lead the nation through its sudden economic crisis.
    The contest is still volatile, and the split among voters is apparent less than two weeks before Election Day....

Do you believe that? I don't think I do. Other polls, such as this one, show tightening, but nothing THAT close.

Just yesterday, The Wall Street Journal found Obama opening up a double-digit lead, which seemed more consistent with what my gut was telling me.

But who knows? What do y'all think?

No change in 4 battleground states

Some of you have quite rightly cried "irrelevant!" when I have passed on national polls, seeing as how the POTUS is not chosen by a national popular vote. I have said I would pass on info on battleground states as I run across it. The WashPost today brings the following to my attention:

A new poll by Washington Post, Quinnipiac University and the Wall Street Journal shows that the presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama in four key battleground states remains remarkably stable despite a month of politically significant developments, with the Illinois senator running ahead of or even with his Republican rival.

In Colorado, Obama takes 49 percent to 45 percent for McCain while in Michigan Obama stands at 48 percent as compared to 44 percent for McCain. The contest in Minnesota, once considered a lock for Obama, is also quite close with Obama at 47 percent and McCain 45 percent. Only in Wisconsin does Obama have an edge -- 49 percent to 42 percent -- outside the statistical margin of error for the poll.

Those results are remarkably similar to data from July Quinnipiac polls in each of the four states and suggest that despite the massive media coverage surrounding the two parties' national nominating conventions as well as the vice presidential selections -- especially that of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, which many presumed would alter the campaign's dynamic -- little has changed in the race for the White House.

Here's a link to the story in the Post. And here's the Wall Street Journal version.

I have only two things to say about this:

1. So much for Sarahmania, which has boosted traffic on this blog significantly, but apparently has left voters in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin unmoved.
2. I'm pretty sure that this is the first time I've ever heard of Quinnipiac University.

How are we feeling about the Electoral College?

Back on my post about recent polls, I agreed with Phillip that what matters is NOT these national popular-vote numbers we're seeing, but how the candidates are stacking up in the battleground states. Then, I asked:

Taking that to another level -- while Phillip and I agree that the state-by-state is what matters, can we agree that the state-by-state is what SHOULD matter?

That one was a tough question to get folks to agree on in November 2000, but right now, when we don't know how this one is going to come out, how are we feeling about that old Electoral College?

So how about it. Without knowing yet how the popular vote comes out -- and it could go either way at this point -- how do YOU feel about the Electoral College? Good? Bad? Indifferent?

Personally, I think it's a fine thing. It forces a candidate to have appeal across the country, rather than just in a few population centers. At least, it's fine in the abstract.

Gallup shows McCain leading

This morning I see that, while Nielsen sees Obama and McCain tied in "buzz" (whatever that means), Gallup sees McCain leading by 5 points. A week ago, after the Democratic Convention and before the Republican, Obama had led by 7 points in the same poll.

From the USAToday story:

WASHINGTON — The Republican National Convention has given John McCain and his party a significant boost, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend shows, as running mate Sarah Palin helps close an "enthusiasm gap" that has dogged the GOP all year.

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

More on that "enthusiasm gap:"

Before the convention, Republicans by 47%-39% were less enthusiastic than usual about voting. Now, they are more enthusiastic by 60%-24%, a sweeping change that narrows a key Democratic advantage. Democrats report being more enthusiastic by 67%-19%

Discuss amongst yourselves.

To bounce or not to bounce

My Dad does something I don't do -- he watches the 24/7 cable TV "news" channels -- so he's usually much more up on the latest spin than I am. Yesterday, while I was pulling nails from a large pile of lumber in my driveway so I could reuse it, he mentioned having seen that Obama didn't get a "bounce" in the polls from the convention.

My reaction: Well, of course not -- that was not a convention designed to appeal to independents. It was aimed at the hearts and minds of the already committed. Even Obama's speech, which I had expected to go well beyond that, was (for him) pretty much party boilerplate. If you want a bump up in the polls, you have to appeal to people who aren't already for you, and the Obama campaign didn't do that last week. Hence my Sunday column.

Of course, there are different schools of thought as to whether Obama got a bounce or not. CNN says not. Gallup says he did. The WSJ today handled it about right, saying merely that "Early polls gave mixed readings on how much of a bounce Sen. Barack Obama got from the Democratic convention."

Then of course there's the usual silly back-and-forth over expectations.

The bottom line is, this is what it was before the Democratic convention -- a close race. And the only poll that counts is the one in November.

Had you heard McCain had taken the lead (according to Zogby)?

Well, I had seen the WSJ/NBC poll showing a dead heat, and the Winthrop/ETV poll showing McCain with a big lead in the South (big surprise, huh?), but having fallen behind in my e-mail, I had missed this until Kathleen Parker's latest column brought it to my attention:

Reuters/Zogby Poll: McCain Makes a Move, Takes 5-Point Lead Over Obama - Video Commentary By John Zogby Available Now

Obama loses ground among Dems, women, Catholics & even younger voters

UTICA, New York – As Russian tanks rolled into the Republic of Georgia and the presidential candidates met over the weekend in the first joint issues forum of the fall campaign, the latest polling includes drama almost as compelling - Republican John McCain has taken a five-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama in the race for President, the latest Reuters/Zogby telephone survey shows.

McCain leads Obama by a 46% to 41% margin.

And McCain not only enjoys a five-point edge in a two-way race against Obama, but also in a four-way contest including liberal independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, the poll reveals. In the four-way contest, McCain wins 44% support, Obama 39%, Barr 3% and Nader 2%.

This latest Reuters/Zogby poll is a dramatic reversal from the identical survey taken last month – in the July 9-13 Reuters/Zogby survey, Obama led McCain, 47% to 40%. In the four-way race last month, Obama held a 10-point lead over McCain.

That's according to Zogby.

Do you find this surprising? I did.

Name that test (nice words only, now...)

Ohboyohboyohboy, but that Jim Rex is a glutton for punishment. The day after he and Jim Foster came to see us, I got this release from Jim (Foster, that is):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, August 19, 2008

South Carolinians to select name of state’s new  testing system; deadline to vote is Labor Day

EDITOR’S NOTE - The direct link to the online ballot is
http://ed.sc.gov/tools/NameThatTest/

COLUMBIA - State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex announced today that South Carolinians will name the state’s new standardized testing system, which will replace PACT  tests that have been administered statewide since 1999.

Voters can visit the South Carolina Department of Education’s web site and cast their ballots on line.  The deadline to vote is Labor Day, Sept. 1, at 5 p.m., and Rex will announce the winning name on Wednesday, Sept. 3.

I replied to Jim (Foster, that is) with three words: Don't tempt me!

Given the wild unpopularity of this test, offering the public the chance to name it seemed to me like what Huck Finn said about telling the truth:

... it does seem most like setting down on a kag of powder and touching it off just to see where you'll go to.

But then I followed the link, and saw that Jim (Rex) wasn't taking near the chance that I thought. It's multiple choice, not essay. The public won't get to express itself fully with this "choice," to say the least.