I object to the use of the term “defectors.” mjh

McCain voters defecting to Obama are older white males – Yahoo! News By Gabriel Debenedetti | Reuters

Roughly 5 percent of respondents in Reuters/Ipsos polls said they chose the Republican contender in 2008 and will switch to Obama in 2012. This number peaked at around 9 percent two separate times over the summer, according to data collected since January. …

The McCain-to-Obama switchers are 55 percent male, and 34 percent of them are 55 or older. (Overall, Obama trails Romney 34 percent to 52 percent among white men over 50.) About 72 percent of them are white.

They are largely from the East Coast; nearly 4 in 10 live in the mid- or South Atlantic. Nearly 3 in 10 finished their education after high school, and nearly 2 in 10 have a bachelor’s degree.

Two-thirds say they are absolutely going to vote, choosing "10" on a 1-10 scale for likelihood of voting.

Even though 38 percent of all voters believe the economy is the election’s most prominent issue, just one-third of the McCain defectors agree. Character matters more. …

The defectors to Obama remain a smaller subset of respondents than those who voted for him in 2008 and now support Romney. The Reuters/Ipsos polling shows 10 percent of voters plan to cross the aisle in that direction.

(The Reuters/Ipsos database is now public and searchable here: tinyurl.com/reuterspoll)

(Editing by Prudence Crowther)

McCain voters defecting to Obama are older white males – Yahoo! News

Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts | The Salt Lake Tribune

Obama has earned another term

First Published Oct 19 2012 12:13 pm • Updated 6 minutes ago

Nowhere has Mitt Romney’s pursuit of the presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in Utah. …

From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?"

The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear. …

In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney’s domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.

Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.

Tribune Endorsement: Too Many Mitts | The Salt Lake Tribune

Winners and losers from the second presidential debate

Debates are about moments — the moments that get replayed again and again in the after-action analysis — and President Obama had three: 1) his line about how his pension wasn’t as big as Romney’s 2) winning, against all odds, the scrap about the Benghazi attack (with an assist from moderator Candy Crowley) and 3) his strong close in which he used Romney’s “47 percent” comments as a cudgel to beat up his rival. Obama’s performance wasn’t flawless and he didn’t score a clean win as Romney did in the first debate. But, he was the better performer this time around.

Winners and losers from the second presidential debate

[Pet peeve: Obama’s line wasn’t “about how his pension wasn’t as big as Romney’s” it was “about how his pension isn’t as big as Romney’s.” I hate this convention of making something past tense that wasn’t and still isn’t past. It’s lazy, at best.]

From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack – The Washington Post

“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts…No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”

— President Obama, Rose Garden statement, Sept. 12

From video to terrorist attack: a definitive timeline of administration statements on the Libya attack – The Washington Post

Mitt Romney’s Pork Barrel Olympics | Mother Jones

What Romney doesn’t talk about is how he succeeded in Utah with government help—lots of it—and how millions in assistance that he pried out of the feds ended up bankrolling subsidies, sweetheart deals, and giveaways for land developers and other well-connected Utahns. …

Romney is simultaneously touting an Olympic effort that, more than any other in American history, succeeded thanks to public investment—some of it sunk into questionable projects of marginal value to the Salt Lake games. "The $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars that Congress is pouring into Utah is 1.5 times the amount spent by lawmakers to support all seven Olympic Games held in the U.S. since 1904—combined," Donald Barlett and James Steele reported for Sports Illustrated in 2001. Those numbers were adjusted for inflation.

How the Salt Lake Games came to receive more money than any games in American history isn’t much of a mystery. The organizers, including Romney, asked for it.

Mitt Romney’s Pork Barrel Olympics | Mother Jones

The candidates enter two soundproof rooms simultaneous with nothing more than blank paper and a pen. Cameras record every moment from entry to exit. A panel of journalists selected by their peers asks questions voted on by the public. The candidates don’t know which questions are coming. The same people ask the same questions of each candidate. A clock starts running at the end of the question. The candidate has whatever amount of time – say 5 minutes – to say anything he or she chooses. At the end of the time, the cameras stop recording. Next question.

Third party candidates could go through the same process. Voters could compare Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to Obama and Romney, if we so choose. Candidates and other citizens could post continuations, clarifications, elaborations, and counter-points on their own websites at their own expense. Granted, this would be ripe for parody, but that might get people more interested in the election.