Dittman Research (R) Alaska Senatorial Survey

• Lisa Murkowski 37%
• Joe Miller 31%
• Scott McAdams 19%
• Unsure 13%

Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Lisa Murkowski, and is that very favorable/unfavorable or somewhat favorable/unfavorable?

• Very favorable 24%
• Somewhat favorable 40%
• Somewhat unfavorable 27%
• Very unfavorable 8%

Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Joe Miller, and is that very favorable/unfavorable or somewhat favorable/unfavorable?

• Very favorable 18%
• Somewhat favorable 23%
• Somewhat unfavorable 18%
• Very unfavorable 32%

Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Scott McAdams, and is that very favorable/unfavorable or somewhat favorable/unfavorable?

• Very favorable 4%
• Somewhat favorable 20%
• Somewhat unfavorable 13%
• Very unfavorable 2%

Survey of 383 Alaskan voters was conducted August 28 - September 1, 2010.

Speculation swirls about Murkowski Libertarian Senate run

The current Libertarian candidate, David Haase, says he's willing to sit down with Murkowski and talk with her about switching parties to stay in the race. Haase's platform, called the “People's Bailout,” is a financial plan he created -- and he wants to know what Murkowski thinks about it.

Just days ago, Murkowski conceded the Republican U.S. Senate primary to challenger Joe Miller. Last week she didn't have the votes, but have people's feelings changed? A new poll says yes.

“I have not talked with the Libertarians, but I know there have been discussions and they're not quite at no,” Halcro said. “I mean, they're interested in sitting down and talking with Lisa Murkowski, and the latest polls and -- she's considering all of her options.”

The current Libertarian candidate, Haase, says he's willing to talk with Murkowski. He'd like to know her thoughts on his top priorities.

“I've got nothing but respect for Lisa Murkowski; she's a smart lady,” Haase said. “If somebody would take up the banner and do a better job of getting the word out to the people, I would feel obligated to pass that banner to somebody.”

“I think, given the type of campaign Joe Miller ran -- I mean how arrogant and how brutally misleading it was -- I don't think Joe Miller has any room to stand on people keeping their word,” Halcro said. “This was a guy who won this election based on tons and tons of Outside cash, that was nothing but mudslinging, and so as far as I'm concerned, Lisa Murkowski is absolutely right to consider all of her options.”

Halcro says Murkowski told him she'll make a decision sooner rather than later.

The Libertarian Party’s chair, Scott Kohlhaas, says he doubts it's going to happen. Even if Haase drops out of the race, the party's executive board would have to approve Murkowski.

The party previously voted unanimously against allowing Murkowski on the ticket, saying she doesn't reflect the values of their party.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mitt Romney will be in the Chicago area on September 24. First on the agenda will be some campaigning with Mark Kirk, Republican Candidate for the U.S. Senate. Kirk is in a tough race with Obama favorite Democratic State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias:

Less noted in the discussion this year’s mid-term elections, preoccupied as it has been with party labels (and which party will be in control of the senate next January), have been signs of rejuvenation in the Democratic Party’s centrist wing. (This trend, I hasten to say, does not include President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress.)

As I have previously pointed out, the likely election of centrist Democrat Joe Manchin to succeed the aging Robert Byrd in West Virginia is a notable example of this. But the trend is present in other seats vacated by incumbent Democrats (by retirement, primary defeat or death) in 2010. Richard Blumenthal is ahead in Connecticut, and has a record more likely to be to the center of retiring Senator Chris Dodd. Kirsten Gillebrand was appointed to succeed Hillary Clinton in New York in 2009, so the seat is not technically an open one, but Senator Gillebrand is up for election for the first time and has a huge lead in the race. She used to be more centrist when a congresswoman, but she is certainly less liberal than Mrs. Clinton. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania may not win this year, but if he does, he will likely be to the center right of the man he defeated for the nomination, Arlen Spector, a party-switching former liberal Republican. It’s more opaque in Illinois where Democrat Roland Burris was appointed to finish the term of Barack Obama on his election as president. Liberal Burris chose not to run, but it is not clear if the Democratic nominee Alexi Giannoulis is much more than a Chicago machine politician, and how centrist he might be if elected. (His center-right GOP opponent seems now to have a slightly better chance of winning.)

Democratic centrists will lose a seat to the GOP in November since Evan Bayh is retiring, and will probably lose another when Arkansas incumbent Blanche Lincoln likely loses in November. Although appointed center-left Democrat Ted Kaufman (who replaced Vice President-elect Joe Biden) is not running in Delaware, likely GOP winner in that race Congressman Michael Castle is himself considered a GOP centrist.

But Castle is the exception this year on the Republican side where likely winning candidates have moved distinctly to the right. Conservative GOP nominee Joe Miller has defeated centrist Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Appointed Republican George LeMieux will likely be replaced by a more conservative Marco Rubio. Most other retiring Republicans will be replaced by those who are equally or more conservative than they are.

Thus, whether or not the Republicans win control of the U.S. senate in 2010, the upper house will almost certainly become distinctly more conservative. In fact, conservatives may control the senate regardless of their party affiliations.

______________________________________________________________

-Please visit Mr. Casselman's personal site, The Prairie Editor Blog.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Iraq War Survey

Overall, do you think the United States did the right thing or the wrong thing going to war in Iraq, removing Saddam Hussein from power and helping the Iraqis establish a new government?

• Right thing 58%
• Wrong thing 35%

Among Democrats

• Right thing 39%
• Wrong thing 54%

Among Republicans

• Right thing 81%
• Wrong thing 14%

Among Independents

• Right thing 52%
• Wrong thing 37%

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The Iraqi people are better off today because of the military action taken in Iraq by the U.S.-led coalition.

• Agree 71%
• Disagree 19%

Among Democrats

• Agree 58%
• Disagree 33%

Among Republicans

• Agree 91%
• Disagree 5%

Among Independents

• Agree 65%
• Disagree 21%

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The United States and the world are safer today because of the U.S. military action taken in Iraq.

• Agree 58%
• Disagree 37%

Among Democrats

• Agree 44%
• Disagree 52%

Among Republicans

• Agree 79%
• Disagree 18%

Among Independents

• Agree 47%
• Disagree 45%

If U.S. military action in Iraq is a success, who do you think deserves the most credit for that -- Barack Obama or George W. Bush?

• Bush 54%
• Obama 19%

Among Democrats

• Bush 34%
• Obama 34%

Among Republicans

• Bush 81%
• Obama 4%

Among Independents

• Bush 46%
• Obama 14%

In President Obama’s speech declaring the U.S. war in Iraq over, do you think he gave former President George W. Bush too much credit or not enough credit for removing Saddam Hussein, helping Iraqis form a new government and creating the conditions that allowed for the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq?

• He gave Bush too much credit 15%
• He didn’t give Bush enough credit 38%

Among Democrats

• He gave Bush too much credit 26%
• He didn’t give Bush enough credit 23%

Among Republicans

• He gave Bush too much credit 4%
• He didn’t give Bush enough credit 58%

Among Independents

• He gave Bush too much credit 16%
• He didn’t give Bush enough credit 31%

How long do you think the United States should keep a military presence in Iraq?

• A year or less 36%
• Up to five years 14%
• As long as necessary 44%

Among Democrats

• A year or less 47%
• Up to five years 15%
• As long as necessary 32%

Among Republicans

• A year or less 25%
• Up to five years 12%
• As long as necessary 59%

Among Independents

• A year or less 37%
• Up to five years 15%
• As long as necessary 40%

Survey of 900 registered voters was conducted September 1-2, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- percentage points.  Party ID breakdown: 39% Democrat; 37% Republican; 20% Independent.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 48%

Among Independents

• Approve 40%
• Disapprove 50%

Do you think the Obama administration has made the economy better or worse?

• Better 36%
• Worse 47%
• No difference 12%

Do you feel confident in the Obama administration’s ability to handle the economy or are you concerned about the administration’s ability to handle the economy?

• Confident 32%
• Concerned 61%

Among Independents

• Confident 24%
• Concerned 64%

In general, do you believe that Barack Obama is in touch with the American people and understands how people are feeling these days, or not?

• Yes, he is in touch 52%
• No, he isn’t 46%

Do you think the federal government’s nearly $800 billion dollar economic stimulus plan has worked and helped the economy, or not?

• Yes, it has worked 37%
• No, it hasn’t worked 57%

Some people say the government’s nearly $800 billion dollar stimulus plan wasn’t large enough to give the economy the boost it needed and there should be another stimulus plan, while others say that was too much to spend on a stimulus plan. What about you -- would you favor or oppose additional government spending on a second stimulus plan?

• Favor 24%
• Oppose 70%

Among Independents

• Favor 17%
• Oppose 73%

If John McCain were president today, do you think the economy would be in better shape, worse shape, or about the same?

• Better 19%
• Worse 20%
• About the same 54%

Considering how President Obama has performed so far, do you think he deserves to be re-elected, or would the country probably be better off with someone else as president?

• Deserves to be re-elected 38%
• Better off with someone else 49%

Among Independents

• Deserves to be re-elected 24%
• Better off with someone else 48%

Hypothetically, if you had to make the choice, who would you prefer as president right now -- George W. Bush or Barack Obama?

• Barack Obama 49%
• George W. Bush 41%

Do you think President Obama has truly made an effort to work with Republican leaders in Washington, or hasn’t he?

• Yes, has truly made an effort 52%
• No, hasn’t made an effort 41%

Do you think Republican leaders in Washington have truly made an effort to work with President Obama, or haven’t they?

• Yes, has truly made an effort 33%
• No, hasn’t made an effort 58%

Would you rather the leaders of your political party compromise with others and find middle ground on key issues, or stand their ground and fight hard to put in place the ideas they believe in?

• Compromise 51%
• Fight hard 38%

Among Independents

• Compromise 56%
• Fight hard 24%

Which one of the following do you think would be the best job for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

• Staying in her current job as Secretary of State 36%
• Retiring and doing something out of politics 29%
• Running for President in 2012 to replace Barack Obama 12%
• Taking over as Vice President and replacing Joe Biden 11%
• Taking over as Secretary of Defense when Robert Gates leaves 4%
• Becoming a Supreme Court Justice 3%

Among Democrats

• Staying in her current job as Secretary of State 48%
• Running for President in 2012 to replace Barack Obama 16%
• Taking over as Vice President and replacing Joe Biden 15%
• Retiring and doing something out of politics 7%
• Taking over as Secretary of Defense when Robert Gates leaves 5%
• Becoming a Supreme Court Justice 5%

If the election for Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate in your district or the Republican candidate in your district?

• Republican candidate 46%
• Democratic candidate 37%

Among Independents

• Republican candidate 35%
• Democratic candidate 21%

Do you favor or oppose establishing term limits on the number of terms members of the U.S. Congress can serve, including your own senators and representatives?

• Favor 78%
• Oppose 16%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Barack Obama 50% / 46% {+4%}
• Republican Party 47% / 43% {+4%}
• The Tea Party Movement 39% / 35% {+4%}
• George W. Bush 46% / 50% {-4%}
• John Boehner 12% / 16% {-4%}
• Democratic Party 42% / 49% {-7%}|
• Nancy Pelosi 24% / 56% {-32%}

Survey of 900 registered voters was conducted September 1-2, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- percentage points.  Party ID breakdown: 39% Democrat; 37% Republican; 20% Independent.

PPP (D) Ohio Political Survey

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of John Boehner?

• Favorable 27%
• Unfavorable 31%

Among Republicans

• Favorable 51%
• Unfavorable 11%

If Republicans take control of Congress, would you like John Boehner to be Speaker of the House, or would you rather it was someone else?

• John Boehner 28%
• Someone else 44%

Among Republicans

• John Boehner 54%
• Someone else 15%

Do you think John Boehner spends too much, not enough, or about the right amount of time working on his tan?

• Too much 30%
• Not enough 4%
• About the right amount of time 14%

Among Republicans

• Too much 19%
• Not enough 2%
• About the right amount of time 21%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of John Boehner’s tan?

• Favorable 8%
• Unfavorable 27%

Do you approve or disapprove of the direction of the Republican Party?

• Approve 29%
• Disapprove 55%

Do you think the Republican Party is too liberal, too conservative, or about right?

• Too liberal 21%
• Too conservative 43%
• About right 29%

Among Republicans

• Too liberal 31%
• Too conservative 10%
• About right 55%

Will you vote Democratic or Republican for US House this fall?

• Republican 47%
• Democratic 41%

The candidates for Attorney General are Democrat Richard Cordray and Republican Mike DeWine. If the election was today, who would you vote for?

• Mike DeWine 44%
• Richard Cordray 40%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Mike DeWine?

• Favorable 35%
• Unfavorable 33%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of LeBron James?

• Favorable 19%
• Unfavorable 34%

Among Whites

• Favorable 15%
• Unfavorable 37%

Among Blacks

• Favorable 58%
• Unfavorable 16%

Do you consider yourself to be a Cleveland Cavaliers fan?

• Yes 37%
• No 63%

Survey of 475 likely voters was conducted August 27-29, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.  Party ID breakdown: 40% Democrat; 40% Republican; 20% Independent/Other.  Political ideology: 44% Moderate; 40% Conservative; 16% Liberal.

PPP (D) North Carolina Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 43%
• Disapprove 54%

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 40%
• Oppose 55%

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Bev Perdue’s job performance?

• Approve 30%
• Disapprove 52%

Do you approve or disapprove of Democratic Senator Kay Hagan's job performance?

• Approve 35%
• Disapprove 50%

Do you support or oppose drilling for oil off the coast of North Carolina?

• Support 50%
• Oppose 35%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Andy Griffith?

• Favorable 44%
• Unfavorable 22%

Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by Barack Obama?

• More likely 32%
• Less likely 55%
• Makes no difference 13%

Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin?

• More likely 41%
• Less likely 46%
• Makes no difference 13%

Among Conservatives

• More likely 72%
• Less likely 15%
• Makes no difference 13%

Among Moderates

• More likely 21%
• Less likely 64%
• Makes no difference 15%

Among Men

• More likely 44%
• Less likely 44%
• Makes no difference 12%

Among Women

• More likely 38%
• Less likely 48%
• Makes no difference 14%

Survey of 724 North Carolina voters was conducted August 27-29, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 3.6 percentage point.  Party ID breakdown: 45% Democrat; 40% Republican; 16% Independent/Other.  Political ideology: 43% Conservative; 41% Moderate; 16% Liberal.

PPP (D) Alaska Survey on Sarah Palin

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Sarah Palin?

• Favorable 37%
• Unfavorable 55%

Among Independents

• Favorable 30%
• Unfavorable 61%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Levi Johnston?

• Favorable 6%
• Unfavorable 72%

Do you support or oppose the goals of the ‘Tea Party’ movement?

• Support 38%
• Oppose 45%

Can you see Russia from your house?

• Yes 11%
• No 83%

Survey of 1,306 likely voters was conducted August 27-28, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 2.7 percentage points.  Party ID breakdown: 42% Independent/Other; 38% Republican; 20% Democrat.  Political ideology: 44% Moderate; 42% Conservative; 14% Liberal.

Inside the numbers:

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Democrats have a negative opinion of Palin while only 62% of Republicans like her.

Politico reports that the Obama administration may once again dip its collective hand into the Keynesian cookie jar, in yet another misguided attempt to generate a centrally planned, short-term boost to the economy.  With growing frustration at seeing our "leaders" in Washington (and yes, that includes the Bush administration, too) revert to the same failed, yet politically expedient, prescriptions for our economy, I decided to do a point-by-point rebuttal of the Politico article.

You want to aid the private sector without adding to the deficit?  Try forgetting about cap-and-trade and making a final decision on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts.

On a side note, Glenn Thrush, the author of this article, fell victim to one of the most widespread semantic errors in the media (also promulgated constantly by Obama and other Dems): the equating of tax credits with tax cuts.  Tax cuts involve broad-based reductions in actual tax rates - the percentages of a sum of money that goes to the government.  Tax credits amount to the government essentially writing an individual or business a check to offset their overall tax obligation, after the government has subjected them to a certain tax rate.

To use an analogy from the marketplace, Walmart's price Rollbacks - reductions in the actual prices of products - resemble tax cuts.  On the other hand, Kmart giving out coupons to promote purchases of merchandise the company wants to clear out of its stores mirrors the effect of tax credits.  We must internalize this distinction, because tax credits allow politicians a means to favor certain individuals or groups and pass themselves off as "tax cutters" without actually reducing tax rates.

Apparently, controlling both houses of Congress and the White House doesn't give you enough power to pass your agenda.

Yet another favorite tactic of Democrats: demonize a group of individuals but then turn to them when it benefits the party's cause.  President Obama did it to doctors - chastized them for getting too greedy with their compensation and thorough examining procedures but then enlisted their presence when it came time to ram through Obamacare.  And now it looks like he'll do it again with business - rail against corporate greed and create conditions hospitable to the private sector but then trumpet their support when it helps him.  And why should it suprise us that "business groups" support a tax credit for research and development?  Why wouldn't a rational person acting in their self-interest (this is not a bad thing!) want to get some money back for all of the dollars they funnel toward Washington?

Magellan Strategies (R) New Hampshire Republican Senatorial Primary

• Kelly Ayotte 34% (38%)
• Ovide Lamontagne 21% (9%)
• Bill Binnie 17% (29%)
• Jim Bender 13% (4%)
• Other 4% (4%)
• Undecided 11% (16%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Kelly Ayotte 54% (57%) / 34% (16%) {+20%}
• Ovide Lamontagne 38% (20%) / 18% (17%) {+20%}
• Jim Bender 38% (20%) / 24% (15%) {+14%}
• Bill Binnie 30% (52%) / 54% (14%) {-24%}

Survey of 887 likely Republican primary voters was conducted September 1, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 3.3 percentage points.   Party ID breakdown: 67% (66%) Republican; 33% (34%) Independent.  Results from the poll conducted May 25, 2010 are in parentheses.

Rasmussen Idaho Gubernatorial Survey

• Butch Otter (R) 52% {53%} [54%] (60%)
• Keith Allred (D) 36% {36%} [32%] (28%)
• Other 7% {4%} [5%] (3%)
• Not sure 5% {7%} [9%] (9%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Butch Otter 54% {55%} [56%] (62%) / 40% {40%} [36%] (35%) {+14%}
• Keith Allred 42% {39%} [37%] (34%) / 31% {32%} [32%] (34%) {+11%}

In political terms, do you consider Butch Otter to be very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate somewhat liberal or very liberal?

• Very conservative 33%
• Somewhat conservative 39%
• Moderate 12%
• Somewhat liberal 4%
• Very liberal 5%

In political terms, do you consider Keith Allred to be very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate somewhat liberal or very liberal?

• Very conservative 2%
• Somewhat conservative 13%
• Moderate 36%
• Somewhat liberal 15%
• Very liberal 8%

Would it be more accurate to describe Butch Otter's views as mainstream or extreme?

• Mainstream 58%
• Extreme 25%

Would it be more accurate to describe Keith Allred's views as mainstream or extreme?

• Mainstream 32%
• Extreme 25%

How would you rate the job Butch Otter has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 15% {17%} [12%] (23%)
• Somewhat approve 42% {39%} [43%] (37%)
• Somewhat disapprove 23% {21%} [25%] (20%)
• Strongly disapprove 18% {20%} [17%] (17%)

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 18% {18%} [20%] (22%)
• Somewhat approve 11% {14%} [10%] (8%)
• Somewhat disapprove 10% {7%} [9%] (9%)
• Strongly disapprove 61% {61%} [60%] (61%)

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted August 31, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted July 15, 2010 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted May 11, 2010 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 23, 2010 are in parentheses.

Governor Romney's 'squeaky clean' image took a major hit today after Carl Cameron posted an article on the Fox News web site, highlighting some questionable ties to dictator Hugo Chavez and a MA Congressional candidate with a shady past. 

When presented the opportunity to battle his political rival Mayor Rudy Giuliani, it appears as Governor Romney is willing to set aside ethical issues for a chance to upstage one of America's great leaders.

Highlights:

You may remember the name Ron Kaufman from the 2008 campaign.  Kaufman was the lobbyist supposedly leading the Romney campaign, the campaign in which Governor Romney claimed that he did not employ lobbyists on his staff.

After having read an article on FrumForum (hat tip to Pablo) regarding the upcoming election in Sweden, september 19th, I figured maybe I should write my own analysis and set the record straight.

Here's the situation:

Opinion polls two years ago showed the Red-green coalition (constisting of the Social Democrat, Left and Green party - currently in opposition) leading with 20 % in the polls. Political pundits counted out the government (which consists of the Moderate, Christian Democrats, Liberal people's and centre party), and the Red-Greens believed them. They had to learn the hard way that you should never trust pundits.

Swedish politics is kind of special. The Social Democrats, which I usually refer to as the Socialists for short, have never in the history of Sweden governed with anyone else. They have had passive support from the Communist/Left party, but never allowed them to influence policy and never given them any positions in the cabinet. In later years, they've had to seek support from the Greens as well and the Greens have influenced their policies in later years. But in 2006, after having ruled Sweden since 1994, they lost the election to the new-formed Alliance for Sweden, consisting of the other parties I mentioned above. Up until quite recently, they seemed doomed to take it back in this year's election.

Everything looked so good. The Alliance had cut unemployment benefits and made it harder to collect disability, resulting in the media digging up more and more cases of desperate jobless people who didn't know how to pay the bills, and disabled people who were now forced to go to work despite being too sick for it. Despite heavy tax cuts (income taxes have been slashed severely, giving an average swede about $250 dollars more per month), the polls clearly indicated that the Swedes suffered from Buyer's remorse and wanted the good ol' socialists to come back.

Up until the socialists made one mistake that might very well cost them the election: The Red-Green coalition. For the first time, they made an official coalition with the Left and Green parties, promising them that they would be represented in the cabinet if they were to together win the election. The problem is that this goes against the basic self-image of the socialist party, which says that "We own Sweden, we're the only ones capable of governing it, and the voters ought to be thankful we are taking the time to do it". In short, the socialist party and most of its voters are arrogant and have never accepted that voters have the right to vote them away (when they were voted out in 1976, a leading socialist described the event as a "coup d'etat"). They just couldn't accept that they would have to accept help and give influence (and positions in the cabinet!) to the other left-winged parties. The leftist voters were just too proud to do that.

And they had reason to be suspicious; the leader of the Left Party used to call himself a communist and has in the past defended both Fidel Castro and the Soviet union. Many of the more regular Socialist party voters are scared of him and would rather give their votes to the Alliance than effectively voting him into the government. And the Green party, like most green parties around the world, aren't very bright: They've alienated practically every voter outside of Stockholm by suggesting that the petroleum tax be raised by 2 crowns (30 cents), which would strike badly against those on the countryside where there are no buses or trains. Also, they say that Europe must cut its carbon dioxide emissions by 80 %. When asked how this was going to be possible, they said that Sweden should cut our emissions by 40 %, and the rest of Europe by 40 % as well, which together is 80 %... at least according to "green mathematics". If we cut our emissions by 40 %, and the rest of the EU by the same amount, then EU as a whole will have cut its emissions by 40 % - any 12-year old could tell you that. But when a reporter confronted the Green Party with this very simple math, they replied that you could SAY that emissions had been cut by 80 % if we and the rest cut it by 40 % each, even if in reality they hadn't.

Naturally, some Socialist Party voters are kind of scared of having the Greens in the cabinet as well. And therefore, they've abandoned their party in droves. The Socialists traditionally captures 40-45 % of the vote, but in the last election they only got 35 %. Now, opinion polls suggest that they have only 27-31 %! And also that the Moderate party is now bigger than them, something that hasn't happened since 1914!

The Red-Green coalition was announced in Oktober 2008, around the same time as the financial meltdown, and that together with an excellent crisis management by the government (we have not wasted hundreds of billions on bailouts - take a lesson, America!) made their lead shrink, and in April 2009, there was a tie! Soon however, the leftists were leading again, mostly because of a bad handling  by the government of the health insurance reform which would make it harder to collect disability. Many people feared that those genuinely ill people would have to go back to work, and in Sweden, such cold-hearted reforms are sure to make you a one-termer. The reform was made, although the government had to clarify that people who had been struck by cancer should be exempted and not have to try out working (other people collecting disability would have to at least try to work to some extent). But going into the election year, things were still looking good for the Left-winged parties who in April 2010 had a comfortable 6 % average lead in the polls.

But in May, they had to present their alternative budget - every year, the government proposes a budget, and the opposition comes up with a counter-proposal, an alternative budget to show voters how they would have made things differently. Up until May 2010, the Red-greens had done well by just complaining about everything the government did. Now, they had to actually come up with something themselves. And what they did come up with, the voters didn't like (I guess you're not surprised if I reveal they proposed some tax hikes). About a week ago, they presented the rest of their election manifesto, and so far we don't know exactly how this will affect the outcome of the election. Most people however seem to be disappointed by the manifesto.

As late as last night, however, things took another turn: The government-owned television, SVT, was doing an interview with Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. SVT is famous for their leftist bias, and it really showed in the interview, in which PM Reinfeldt got very little time from the interviewers (there were two of them) to actually explain his ideas. The worst part was when they presented him with a case of a doctor, who had had a stroke and who couldn't work full-time anymore. He had asked the National insurance office if he could go back to his work as a doctor and work 75 % instead, but they refused and allegedly told him to look for another job which he could do full time. Strange story, isn't it? And it gets even stranger: Newspapers later on found out that the doctor is a Socialist campaign worker, and that the story got many gaps. We still don't know who this will strike against; whether people will identify this as a dirty trick from the left-winged parties or whether the sole effect will be that the issue of health insurance and who should be able to collect disability moves up on the agenda. Health care is the one area where people trust the Red-greens more than they trust Reinfeldt and his Alliance, so the latter scenario would definitely not be good for the government's re-election chances.

There is another cloud on the sky as well: The Sweden Democrats. This party, which is falsely being labeled "right-extremist" in the article I linked to, is actually a populist party which is left-of-the centre in economic policies. Their main issue however is immigration, and though I certainly agree that immigration is too high and that islamization poses a threat to Sweden (read my article on this), I don't think SD can solve the problems. Their view of immigration is far too simplified (they make no distinction between those that immigrate to work in Sweden, and those that immigrate to collect welfare), and they overestimate it's costs. Also, except for immigration, they pretty much lacks any principles whatsoever and will take whatever positions makes them popular. The Swedish parliamentary system works to the advantage of these small parties. The Sweden Democrats do not currently have any seats in the parliament, but if they were to get 4 % of the votes, they would. And, they would then likely be able to decide the winner of the election, since whoever they choose to co-operate with is likely to have a majority. For instance, if the government were to receive 49 %, the Red-greens 47 % and the Sweden Democrats 4 %, they could co-operate with the Red-greens which would result in a left-winged majority even though the Alliance would be bigger than the original Red-green coalition.

The election is the 19th of september. I'm leaving Sweden one week earlier to go back to Ireland, where I am currently studying finance and economics. I intend to absentee vote, but I still don't know for which party. I'm leaning towards the Liberal people's party (who are not liberal in the american sense of the word, but rather market liberal), who are strong supporters of the war on terror and have made some good school reforms, but I'm yet not sure.

My prediction is that the Alliance will be re-elected, or at least they will receive more votes than the Red-greens. SD is likely to enter the parliament, but many polls indicate now that the Alliance will get an outright majority of the votes, rendering SD without influence.

Why will the Alliance be re-elected? Well, first, their politicians are more popular: Anders Borg, Minister of Finance, is one of the most efficient most loved ministers in Europe. He has done an excellent job and has extremely high approval ratings. No-one really wants to trade him for the Red-green candidate for the office, Thomas Östros. Mona Sahlin, leader of the socialist party, has an approval rating between 20-25 %, which in any other country would render her inelectable, but in Sweden the focus on individuals is much smaller than in for example the US. Thus, we may hate a politician but still vote for him or her because we like their politics. Polls have shown that about 70 % of voters think Reinfeldt makes a better PM than Sahlin would be, but yet in the national polls the difference their alliances is typically less than 5 %.

Though most of the tax cuts have today officially been accepted by the Swedish left, who has promised not to raise taxes for anyone except the rich (hm... where have I heard that before?), people know deep inside that Mona Sahlin and her colleagues are likely to try and take the money back as soon as they are back in power.

Finally, turnout is likely to be lower among the left-winged voters, because they don't know what they get. Can they really trust the Left Party? What about the Greens? How much influence will they have, and what positions in the cabinet will they get? Those are things that typically makes people stay home, as I think many of them will.

Please leave a comment; these articles takes a long time to write and feedback is very appreciated

John Gustavsson

Daniel Henninger penned an excellent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal looking back at the possible consequences if we did not remove the terrorist dictator Saddam Hussain from power. 

Based on the Obama administrations weak-kneed approach to foreign policy (a softened diplomatic approach towards the North Korean and Iranian niclear programs), Henninger rightly concludes that Saddam would have become a significant threat to the United States and the Middle Eastern community of nations.  While the radical left argues that Iraq was an important military and political balance to the regional threat imposed by Iran, Henninger correctly writes that a nuclear domino effect would have occured if Saddam remained in power, thus intensifying the already dangerous arms race that is escallating in the Middle East. 

From the vantage point of history, Barack Obama's prime-time speech announcing the Iraq war's end is less important than the speech he gave eight years ago as a state senator in Illinois. This was the October 2002 "dumb war" speech to an anti-Iraq war rally in Chicago's Federal Plaza. Back then, Mr. Obama had a more complex view of the stakes in Iraq than he does now.

Today, the Iraq war has been reduced to not much more than a long, bloody and honorable gunfight between U.S. troops and various homicidal jihadists and insurgents inside Iraq, a war sustained by George Bush, Dick Cheney and some neocon advisers mainly to "impose" democracy on the Iraqis.

I think it is a profound mistake to confine the war's significance to the borders of Iraq. Mr. Obama himself raised the central question about Iraq in that 2002 speech: Did Saddam Hussein pose a danger beyond his borders, or not?

"Let me be clear," State Senator Obama told the Federal Plaza crowd, "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. . . . He has repeatedly thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear capacity. . . . But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States. . . [H]e can be contained."

Daniel Henninger asks what the world look like today if Saddam Hussein had remained in power in Iraq.

This is a widely held view. The Economist's editors this week said Mr. Obama was largely right that Iraq was a dumb war. What the war did, they say, was "rid the Middle East of a bloodstained dictator."

It did a lot more than that.

Let us assume that Mr. Obama's "smarter" view had prevailed, that we had left Saddam in power in Iraq. What would the world look like today?

Mr. Obama and others believe that Saddam and his nuclear ambitions could have been contained. I think exactly the opposite was likely.

At the time of Mr. Obama's 2002 antiwar speech, three other significant, non-Iraqi events were occurring: Iran and North Korea were commencing toward a nuclear break-out, and A.Q. Khan was on the move.

In March 2002, Mr. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear materials dealer, moved his production facilities from Pakistan to Malaysia.

In August, an Iranian exile group revealed the existence of a centrifuge factory in Natanz, Iran.

A month later, U.S. intelligence concluded that North Korea had almost completed a "production-scale" centrifuge facility.

It was also believed in 2002 that al Qaeda was shopping for nuclear materials. In The Wall Street Journal this week, Jay Solomon described how two North Korean operatives through this period developed a network to acquire nuclear technologies.

In short, the nuclear bad boys club was on the move in 2002. Can anyone seriously believe that amidst all this Saddam Hussein would have contented himself with administering his torture chambers? This is fanciful.

Saddam was centrifugal. He moved outward, into war with Iran in 1980 and into Kuwait 10 years later. Saddam was a player, and from 2002 onward the biggest game in his orbit was acquiring nuclear capability.

The definitive account of Saddam's WMD ambitions is the Duelfer Report, issued by the Iraq Survey Group in 2005. Yes, the Duelfer Report concluded that Saddam didn't have active WMD. But at numerous points in the 1,000-page document, it asserted (with quotes from Iraqi politicians and scientists) that Saddam's goal was to free himself of U.N. sanctions and restart his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other WMD.

The report: "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability. . . . Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability." The Survey Group described Iraqi plans to develop three long-range ballistic missiles.

Saddam was obsessed with Iran. Imagine the effect on the jolly Iraqi's thinking come 2005 and the rise to stardom of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publicly mocking the West's efforts to shut his nuclear program and threatening enemies with annihilation. That year Ahmadinejad broke the U.N. seals at the Isfahan uranium enrichment plant. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il was flouting the civilized world, conducting nuclear-weapon tests and test-firing missiles into the Sea of Japan. In such a world, Saddam would have aspired to play in the same league as Iran and NoKo. Would we have "contained" him?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq simultaneously would have incentivized Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan to enter the nuclear marketplace. Pakistan and India would be increasing their nuke-tinged tensions, not trying as now to ease them.

We ought to be a lot prouder of our troops coming home from Iraq than we are showing this week. They deserve a monument. That war wasn't just about helping Iraq. It was about us. The march across the nuclear threshold by lunatic regimes is a clear and present danger. The sacrifice made by the United States in Iraq took one of these nuclear-obsessed madmen off the table and gave the world more margin to deal with the threat that remains, if the world's leadership is up to it. A big if.

Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV Illinois Senatorial Survey

• Mark Kirk (R) 34%
• Alexi Giannoulias (D) 34%
• LeAlan Jones (G) 6%
• Mike Labno (L) 3%
• Undecided 22%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Mark Kirk 25% / 19% {+6%}
• Alexi Giannoulias 22% / 28% {-6%}

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted August 28 - September 1, 2010. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

Giannoulias trailed Kirk, 34 percent to 23 percent, among voters who call themselves independent and not aligned with a political party. He also was viewed unfavorably by 36 percent of those self-identified independent voters. And while two-thirds of voters who said they were Democrats backed Giannoulias, Kirk had the support of nearly three-fourths of voters who said they were Republicans.

Giannoulias had an overwhelming edge over Kirk among African-American voters, 58 percent to 3 percent, with 26 percent undecided, providing one avenue to gain support. But collar-county voters gave Kirk a 44 percent to 34 percent edge in support, while downstate voters backed the Republican 41 percent to 25 percent over the Democrat.

Nearly four in 10 collar-county voters still had no opinion on whether to view Kirk favorably or unfavorably, despite near universal name recognition. A similar share of conservative voters, 36 percent, have no opinion on whether they like the GOP candidate, and one in five are undecided in the Senate contest. That could leave an opening for the Libertarian candidate to pick up support.

With Republicans likely to pour in enough money to reshape public opinion, the tie game between Giannoulias and Kirk could be temporary.

Rasmussen Massachusetts Gubernatorial Survey

• Deval Patrick (D) 39% {38%} (41%) [45%] {35%} (35%) [33%]
• Charlie Baker (R) 34% {32%} (34%) [31%] {27%} (32%) [28%]
• Tim Cahill (I) 18% {17%} (16%) [14%] {23%} (19%) [25%]

With Leaners

• Deval Patrick (D) 44% 
• Charlie Baker (R) 42% 
• Tim Cahill (I) 8%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Charlie Baker 48% {36%} (46%) [41%] {43%} (46%) [42%] / 36% {46%} (35%) [34%] {32%} (26%) [29%] {+12%}
• Deval Patrick 48% {51%} (52%) [53%] {49%} (43%) [42%] / 50% {48%} (47%) [47%] {48%} (55%) [56%] {-2%}
• Tim Cahill 40% {44%} / 44% {38%} {-4%}

In political terms, do you consider Charlie Baker to be very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate somewhat liberal or very liberal?

• Very conservative 19%
• Somewhat conservative 43%
• Moderate 23%
• Somewhat liberal 3%
• Very liberal 1%

In political terms, do you consider Deval Patrick to be very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate somewhat liberal or very liberal?

• Very conservative 3%
• Somewhat conservative 8%
• Moderate 21%
• Somewhat liberal 38%
• Very liberal 26%

In political terms, do you consider Tim Cahill to be very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate somewhat liberal or very liberal?

• Very conservative 6%
• Somewhat conservative 27%
• Moderate 38%
• Somewhat liberal 14%
• Very liberal 4%

Would it be more accurate to describe Charlie Baker's views as mainstream or extreme?

• Mainstream 56%
• Extreme 20%

Would it be more accurate to describe Deval Patrick's views as mainstream or extreme?

• Mainstream 48%
• Extreme 36%

Would it be more accurate to describe Tim Cahill's views as mainstream or extreme?

• Mainstream 53%
• Extreme 18%

How would you rate the job Deval Patrick has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 21% {18%} (14%) [12%] {12%} (14%) [11%]
• Somewhat approve 25% {32%} (34%) [36%] {34%} (25%) [23%]
• Somewhat disapprove 19% {13%} (20%) [19%] {20%} (24%) [27%]
• Strongly disapprove 33% {36%} (30%) [31%] {33%} (37%) [37%]

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 33% {37%} (33%) [42%] {37%} (34%) [31%]
• Somewhat approve 23% {19%} (23%) [21%] {19%} (20%) [24%]
• Somewhat disapprove 9% {10%} (11%) [11%] {11%} (11%) [9%]
• Strongly disapprove 34% {35%} (32%) [26%] {33%} (35%) [35%]

The health care plan passed by Congress would require every American to buy or obtain health insurance. Do you Strongly Favor, Somewhat Favor, Somewhat Oppose, or Strongly Oppose a federal law that requires every American to buy or obtain health insurance?

• Strongly favor 35%
• Somewhat favor 20%
• Somewhat oppose 11%
• Strongly oppose 31%

Some people believe a federal law requiring every American to buy or obtain health insurance is unconstitutional. Some states have announced that they will sue the federal government to fight that requirement. Would you favor or oppose having your state sue the federal government to prevent it from becoming law?

• Favor 35%
• Oppose 48%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted September 1, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted July 22, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 21, 2010 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted May 10, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted April 5, 2010 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted March 8, 2010 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted November 23, 2009 are in square brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Just 64% of Patrick’s supporters are certain that they will vote for him and won’t change their mind. Only 58% of Baker’s supporters are that certain. Not surprisingly, the level of certainty is lowest for the third party candidate—28% of Cahill’s supporters are sure they will end up voting for him.

Rasmussen Nevada Senatorial Survey

• Harry Reid (D) 45% {47%} [45%] (43%) {41%} [39%] (40%) {40%} [38%] (40%) {40%} [43%]
• Sharron Angle (R) 45% {47%} [43%] (46%) {48%} [50%] (48%) {51%} [46%] (44%) {44%} [47%]

With Leaners

• Harry Reid (D) 50% {48%}
• Sharron Angle (R) 47% {50%}

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Harry Reid 46% {44%} [44%] (43%) {48%} [46%] (43%) {37%} [39%] (44%) {41%} [40%] (45%) / 51% {55%} [55%] (55%) {49%} [54%] (56%) {62%} [58%] (55%) {55%} [57%] (54%) {-5%}
• Sharron Angle 42% {43%} [43%] (47%) {48%} [48%] (48%) {48%} [40%] (37%) {39%} [40%] / 51% {56%} [56%] (49%) {47%} [45%] (32%) {33%} [36%] (30%) {33%} [37%] {-13%}

How would you rate the job Jim Gibbons has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 12% {9%} [9%] (8%) {7%} [12%] (8%) {7%} [9%] (9%) {9%} [7%]
• Somewhat approve 26% {27%} [28%] (25%) {26%} [23%] (27%) {35%} [28%] (30%) {26%} [28%]
• Somewhat disapprove 20% {17%} [21%] (20%) {17%} [24%] (21%) {20%} [24%] (17%) {27%} [24%]
• Strongly disapprove 39% {46%} [41%] (44%) {46%} [40%] (42%) {37%} [37%] (42%) {36%} [37%]

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 33% {24%} [26%] (30%) {27%} [32%] (31%) {33%} [27%] (27%) {29%} [29%] (37%)
• Somewhat approve 15% {21%} [17%] (18%) {21%} [16%] (17%) {9%} [17%] (19%) {20%} [17%] (9%)
• Somewhat disapprove 7% {7%} [6%] (7%) {7%} [8%] (6%) {9%} [10%] (9%) {9%} [11%] (8%)
• Strongly disapprove 43% {48%} [49%] (45%) {45%} [43%] (45%) {49%} [47%] (45%) {41%} [44%] (45%)

Survey of 750 Likely Voters was conducted September 1, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.  Results from the poll conducted August 16, 2010 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 27, 2010 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 12, 2010 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted June 22, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 9, 2010 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted April 27, 2010 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted March 31, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted March 3, 2010 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted February 2, 2010 are in parentheses.  Results from the poll conducted January 11, 2010 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted December 9, 2009 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 14, 2009 are in parentheses.

Inside the numbers:

Angle is backed by 83% of Republicans while Reid is supported by 78% of Democrats in the state. The candidates are in a virtual tie among voters not affiliated with either major political party.

Ninety-two percent (92%) of Angle’s supporters now say they are certain of their vote this November, up seven points over the past two weeks. Eighty-five percent (85%) of voters who back Reid say they are certain of their vote.

Huck-PAC announced yesterday that they and Mike Huckabee were endorsing Tom Marino for PA-10 and Justin Ready for MD-StDel.  This is some of what Mike had to say about Marino in Pennsylvania:

Huck PAC and I are proud to endorse Tom Marino for Congress from Pennsylvania’s 10th. Tom was first elected as a District Attorney in 1991 and served in the post for 10 years. In 2002 Tom was selected to serve as United States Attorney, and in that capacity Tom served the citizens of Central and Northeast Pennsylvania with distinction.

Tom shares our conservative values, like the sanctity of life, lower taxes, and the right to keep and bear arms. Tom will fight for lowering taxes on job creators, because he knows that’s the best way to jumpstart our economy. In addition, Tom will not support any legislation that puts government between patients and their doctors.

Here is an excerpt of what Mike said about Ready in Maryland:

Huck PAC and I are proud to endorse Justin Ready for Maryland State Delegate from District 5A. Justin has the right kind of experience needed to represent the people and he is ready to serve. Justin has legislative experience from working in the Maryland General Assembly for two conservative Republican legislators; he’s also served as the Executive Director of the Maryland Republican Party.

A small business owner, Justin understands firsthand how excessive spending and high taxes wreak havoc on a business and he will fight to reduce taxes and eliminate wasteful spending. Electing Justin Ready will help bring real positive change to Maryland.

Segment begins at the 11:45 mark.

Braun Research/cn|2 Kentucky Senatorial Survey

• Rand Paul (R) 42.1% {41.2%} [40.6%] (41%)
• Jack Conway (D) 37.4% {41.7%} [31.4%] (38%)
• Undecided 19.5% {16.4%} [27.0%] (19%)

Among Men

• Rand Paul (R) 46.8% {50.4%} [47.9%] (47%)
• Jack Conway (D) 35.8% {35.3%} [29.5%] (33%)
• Undecided 16.0% {14.2%} [22.1%] (19%)

Among Women

• Jack Conway (D) 38.9% {47.5%} [33.1%] (43%)
• Rand Paul (R) 37.9% {33.1%} [34.0%] (36%)
• Undecided 22.6% {18.3%} [31.5%] (19%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Jack Conway 49.6% {54.4%} [43.9%] (50%) / 22.7% {22.9%} [21.1%] (19%) {+26.9%}
• Rand Paul 48.7% {46.8%} [49.8%] (48%) / 33.4% {36.4%} [25.7%] (33%) {+15.3%}

The issue of how best to fight the problem of drug addiction recently has been discussed by both candidates in the U.S. Senate race. Do you favor using federal funds to help with drug enforcement and treatment?

• Yes 60.4%
• No 25.9%

Both U.S. Senate candidates have weighed in on the issue. Jack Conway favors using federal tax dollars to help pay for law enforcement and treatment efforts. Rand Paul opposes using federal tax dollars and favors...

• Using federal funding 47.6%
• Relying on local taxes and donations 34.6%

What is your opinion of the job President Obama is doing?

• Strongly approve 15.8% {13.3%}
• Somewhat approve 26.9% {26.9%}
• Somewhat disapprove 15.9% {18.4%}
• Strongly disapprove 38.3% {39.2%}

Which party would you rather see in control of Congress after the November election, the Democrats or the Republicans?

• Republicans 45.4% {47.7%}
• Democrats 36.5% {36.0%}

Survey of 802 likely voters was conducted August 30 - September 1, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 3.46 percentage points.  Party registration breakdown: 54.0% {54.2%} [54.2%] (54%) Democrat; 37.8% {37.5%} [37.6%] (38%) Republican; 8.0% {8.2%} [8.1%] (8%) Independent.  Political ideology: 47.2% {53.5%} [53.5%] (50%) Conservative; 25.6% {24.2%} [23.3%] (25%) Moderate; 23.0% {19.7%} [19.9%] (20%) Liberal.  Results from the poll conducted August 16-18, 2010 are in curly brackets.  Results from the poll conducted August 2-4, 2010 are in square brackets.  Results from the poll conducted July 19-21, 2010 are in parentheses.

New York Times NYC Survey on Mosque Near Ground Zero

Do you favor or oppose the building of a mosque and Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero?  Do you favor/oppose strongly, or not that strongly?

• Favor - strongly 19%
• Favor - not that strongly 17%
• Oppose - not that strongly 13%
• Oppose - strongly 37%

(If oppose) What if the mosque and Islamic community center were built farther away from Ground Zero? Then, would you favor or oppose the building of a mosque and Islamic community center? IF YES: How far from Ground Zero would you want the mosque and Islamic community center to be built -- 5 to 10 blocks away, 10 to 20 blocks away or more than 20 blocks away?

• 5-10 blocks: 7%
• 10-20 blocks: 18%
• More than 20 blocks: 20%
• Still oppose: 9%

Do you think people have the right to build a house of worship near Ground Zero, or don't they have that right?

• Yes, have right 72%
• No, don't have right 21%

Do you think people have the right to build a mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero, or don't they have that right?

• Yes, have right 62%
• No, don't have right 28%

Which of the following statements comes closest to your opinion? 1. The mosque and Islamic community center should be built near Ground Zero because moving it would compromise American values, OR 2. The mosque and Islamic community center should NOT be built because while Muslims have the right to build the mosque at the site near Ground Zero, they should find a less controversial location.

• Should be built 27%
• Should not be built 67%

Is the proposed construction of a mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero the kind of issue that New York politicians should take a public stand on or isn't it that kind of issue?

• Should take stand 52%
• Should not take stand 41%

Is the proposed construction of a mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero the kind of issue that politicians from outside the New York area should take a public stand on or isn't it that kind of issue?

• Should take stand 32%
• Should not take stand 64%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Michael Bloomberg is handling his job as Mayor?

• Approve 59%
• Disapprove 29%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Michael Bloomberg has handled the issue of the mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero or don't you know enough to say?

• Approve 26%
• Disapprove 26%
• Don't know enough to say 44%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way David Paterson is handling his job as Governor?

• Approve 29%
• Disapprove 52%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way David Paterson has handled the issue of the mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero or don't you know enough to say?

• Approve 22%
• Disapprove 18%
• Don't know enough to say 54%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barak Obama is handling his job as President?

• Approve 69%
• Disapprove 24%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama has handled the issue of the mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero or don't you know enough to say?

• Approve 32%
• Disapprove 27%
• Don't know enough to say 37%

Will the issue of the mosque and Islamic community center near Ground Zero affect the way you will vote for Governor in November, or not? IF YES: Will it make you more likely to vote for a candidate who supports the mosque and Islamic community center or more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes the mosque and Islamic community center?

• Candidate who supports mosque 5%
• Candidate who opposes mosque 20%
• No effect 65%

How likely do you think it is now that Arab Americans, Muslims and immigrants from the Middle East will be singled out unfairly by people in this country?

• Very likely 39%
• Somewhat likely 30%
• Not too likely 13%
• Not at all likely 12%

These days, do people you know have negative feelings toward Muslims because of the attack on the World Trade Center, or not?

• Yes 59%
• No 38%

Do you ever have any negative feelings toward Muslims because of the attack on the World Trade Center, or don't you?

• Yes 21%
• No 76%

Compared with other American citizens, do you think Muslim Americans are more sympathetic to terrorists, or not?

• More sympathetic 33%
• Not more sympathetic 48%

Do you or any of your friends or relatives know someone who was hurt or killed in the terrorist attack?

• Yes 59%
• No 41%

IF YES: Do you personally have a close friend or relative who was hurt or killed in the terrorist attack?

• Yes 20%
• No 39%

Do you personally know anyone who is Muslim? IF YES: Would you say they are a close friend or not?

• Know Muslim - close friend 28%
• Know Muslim - not close 39%
• Don't know anyone who is Muslim 31%

Have you ever visited a mosque?

• Yes 22%
• No 75%

Survey of 892 New York City residents, including 723 registered voters, was conducted August 27-31, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points.  Party ID breakdown: 58% Democrat; 11% Republican; 21% Independent.  Political ideology: 37% Moderate; 30% Liberal; 25% Conservative.

Frederick Polls Florida Senatorial Survey

• Charlie Crist (I) 35%
• Marco Rubio (R) 34%
• Kendrick Meek (D) 17%
• Undecided 14%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted August 28-31, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 4.4 percentage points. Client: Crist for Senate Campaign.

Inside the numbers:

• Crist (37%) and Meek (37%) split the Democratic vote.
• Rubio (66%) dominates the Republican vote, but Crist holds a solid 21% chunk.
• Independents/unaffiliated voters break to Crist by 55% versus 24% for Rubio.
• Charlie Crist remains by far the most popular candidate in race.  The incumbent Governor is rated 60% positive, 34% negative.
• Marco Rubio is rated more positive (45%) than negative (30%) but has little popularity outside Republican ranks.
• Kendrick Meek is rated just 38% positive vs. 30% negative with modest 52% to 21% ratings among Democrats after his bruising Primary.