The Likely Voter sample is 44% Evangelical,  which is apparently about double what you would expect.

on the second day of campaigning, my pollster gave to me, a 6 point spread among white, female, bisexual lesbians! and a 5 point lead!

on the third day of campaigning, my pollster gave to me, a 7 point margin among african american males, 5' tall or shorter! a 6 point spread among white, female, bisexual lesbians, and a 5 point lead!

feel free to jump in with your own verse! lol

They ignore all the "bad" polls but are using this poll as proof that the race is a lot tighter than people think.

They are also using an alleged leaked email from the Obama campaign stating that PA is closer than the public polls are letting on, as proof that PA is in play.  Apparently an anonymously "leaked" email with no actual data is better evidence than a sea of polls.  Of course all these polling outfits are part of the Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy so, you know, they can't be trusted at all.

Anecdotally, I don't know that he's getting much traction.  There is a certain element that won't vote for a black man...they're in every state.  However, there are also those who simply misunderstand Obama's tax plan and are convinced that it will have ramifications for them, in the sense that their jobs might be in jeopardy if their employers are affected.

Phila has an extraordinary talk radio presence.  Even though the city is solidly Democratic, the same is not true of the suburbs.  A quick listen to the spin on right-wing radio makes that clear.  What I find interesting is that the meme seems to be that employers, or the wealthy, are just going to STOP if they are taxed more heavily.  That's patently unrealistic.  But it's an argument that gets traction is some quarters.

Then I look at Gallup's 3 different polls, the traditional shrinking to 4 for obama.  I know the pollsters are all figuring in those new registrations for democrats but I watched the primaries and remember republicans registering as democrats to tinker with the primaries.  And I also think a lot of those new registrations were hillary supporters, who are probably mostly now supporting obama, but I'm sure a large bloc is going to actually vote mccain.  So when I see those "Registered Voters" polls figuring in those registrations to give Obama all these big leads it genuinely makes me nervous.

Another gallup poll today shows no increase in first time voter proportion from 4 years ago...  And there's a new article today saying most people expect the economy to improve.  That doesn't figure well for Obama either.  More angst about the economy helps him, optimism would seem to help mccain?

and not to leave out the Kerry state that will get a financial benefit from an influx of GOP this week:

Pennsylvania Obama +10
Pennsylvania Obama +13

The crux of the current economic situation is the housing crisis, which in effect crippled the credit markets which is crippling businesses because noone will lend money.  We pledged 750bn to the bailout plan to restore confidence in the banking system and irrespective of what the returns are, it is what it is.

What if the 750 bn looked like this...

The average american mortgage is 1700 per month (2006) let's say it is 2k.  I know that in rural areas it is lower and big cities much higher.  

What if the US gov't offered a 12 month loan based on their current mortgage and tax bill and paid that money directly to the bank so that for one year the bank had the mortgage secure from that lender.  Since they are paying up front the bank has a direct and immediate cash infusion and is capitalized.  In return, the bank will reassess the value of the house and provide the homeowner with a loan at 6% locked in to start one year later.  The homeowner in the meantime has to pay 40% of the loan amount over the course of that year back to the gov't.  At 24k, that is less than 1k a month for the avg homeowner.  In years 2-10 the homeowner pays the balance to the gov't with a 2% interest rate or if the house sells they have to pay the balance upon sale.  the monthly payment drops significantly over the next 8 years because you are financing 14k over 9 years which is about 100/month.

The 2% nets us no money because 10% of the people will default because at least that many people will spend the extra money in their pocket and not try to save during the year the gov't has picked up their loan so I would expect the taxpayer would lose 50-75 bn in this deal.  Of course the gov't can put a lien on wages if they play hardball putting us at near break even at the end of the deal.

This plan based on a 24k loan would help 31 million americans and we have about 2 million at risk right now.  It would infuse capital into the banks immediately, create jobs, increase spending, and create real live capital in the banks.

With the housing crisis stabilized banks will start lending again and write down the old earnings based on ARM's and it would be sort of clean.  

Of course this is very rudimentary and overly simplistic because trying to coordinate this in 60 days from start to finish would be a daunting task and determining who would qualify would be challenging but what are we paying our representatives for?  For flag burning amendments?

The banks need cash.  People need relief.  Our service economy needs cash flow.  Our state and federal gov'ts need spending to collect taxes.