Kiwiblog

Real Clear Politics publish polls of polls, averaging all the different polls out there.

They report today, that for the very first time Obama’s negatives are greater than his positives in their average of the polls.

47.3% say they approve of the job he is doing and 47.8% disapprove.

If healthcare passes, I expect he will get a lift from that, even though it is controversial. Being ineffectual is worse than being unpopular, when you hold the most powerful job in the world.

A Paulus Telfer has applied to the Electoral Commission, to register the logo below as the official logo for a 51st state party:

Yes that is 51 stars on there. Six rows, with half having nine stars and half having eight stars. The current US flag has nine rows, with five rows of six, and four rows of five.

Mr Telfer incidentally stood for Mayor of Christchurch and got 289 votes. Bob Parker won with 46,104.

Anyway I thought I would see if I could come up with ten reasons why we should become the 51st state of the United States.

1. We would now get to bully Australia
2. No more royal tours
3. Cheaper gas
4. The SAS would get the much cooler name of Delta Force
5. We would now be the possessors of the Olympic Gold Medal for Rugby Union
6. We instantly have an effective free trade agreement with the US
7. The ANZUS Treaty would then become the A’n'US treaty.
8. Just as one has African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, we would be Kiwi-Americans
9. No longer would need to fund MFAT
10. Someone earning NZ$100,000 (US$70,000) would pay 19.5% federal income tax instead of the average 29.5% currently imposed.

The Herald reports:

Facing a sceptical public and an implacable opposition, United States President Barack Obama insisted the US$787 billion ($1.1 trillion) financial stimulus plan signed into US law a year ago had been worth the money.

Marking the anniversary with a renewed effort to show the everyday benefits of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the President predicted it would save or create 1.5 million US jobs this year on top of 2 million last year.

But what happened?

A nascent economic recovery is threatened by continuing high unemployment, which stands above 10 per cent, and the unpopularity of the first stimulus package is complicating efforts to pass a second “jobs bill” that is currently under negotiation in Congress.

Unemployment is around 2% higher than what Obama said it would be if the stimulus package was not passed. And they are surprised that a second borrow and spend package is not popular.

A recent poll found that only 6 per cent of Americans believe it has created jobs.

And they are insisting on a second package!

The couple on the right are South Florida trade-show executive Vanessa Alenier and her partner, Melanie Leon. They just won custody and the right to adopt a one year old girl who was born to a relative who was unable to provide good care.

So this was keeping the child in the extended family. But the decision got attacked by certain religious groups, including the Florida Family Policy Council.

But the Orlando Sentinel revealed, the photo distributed with their media release condemning the court’s decision used the photo on the left. The actual lesbian couple looked far too nice and wholesome, so they found the most scary lesbian couple photo they could and used that instead.

Isn’t that disgusting?

Hat Tip: unPC Lesbian

The NZ Herald calls for a temporary fix for Queens Wharf.

Three options released yesterday by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Murray McCully, provide alternatives for this. The cheapest, at $23.9 million, involves removing the ugly sheds from the wharf and creating a temporary village. The two others, at $27.2 million and $31.3 million, envisage the sheds being refurbished for the “party”. That represents no choice at all, given the sheds will remain an embarrassing eyesore no matter how much they are tarted up. They must go.

The Press is concerned about Iran. I doubt the feeling is mutual

This week the bellicose Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, defied a string of United Nations sanctions resolutions and ordered the firing up of dozens of centrifuges to greatly increase his country’s output of enriched uranium. Although the product these facilities will produce is only to a level needed to run nuclear power stations and is not of sufficiently high grade to create nuclear weapons, it is a crucial technical step up in Iran’s nuclear programme. Having mastered the techniques required to produce this material, the next step to create weapons-grade material is a relatively simple one. And almost no-one believes Iran’s repeated denials that it intends eventually to take that next step. …

Iran with nuclear weapons, or military action to prevent it getting them, are highly undesirable alternatives. But if the world wants to avert them diplomacy must not be allowed to fail.

I think it pretty much already has failed.

The Dominion Post rails against pokie machines:

Gamblers pump about $1 billion a year into machines in pubs, RSAs and sports clubs. Of that, about a third finds its way back to the community via gaming trusts. (The rest is consumed by the Government, in the form of taxes, as well as by pubs and clubs and the gaming machine trusts.)

The majority of machines are concentrated in lower socio-economic areas. Newtown, for example, has 72. Khandallah, Thorndon, Kelburn and Wadestown have none. However, the proceeds are distributed evenly across communities. That means the people who frequent gaming machines in poorer neighbourhoods are subsidising the sporting and cultural pursuits of their neighbours in wealthier parts of town.

For this reason, and many others, tentative Wellington City Council proposals to gradually lower the number of machines in five “areas of concern” – Tawa, Johnsonville, Miramar, Karori and Newtown – are welcome.

I disagree. Gambling is effectively a tax on stupidity. the left always go on about how we should tax bad things more. Well stupidity is a bad thing, and if the taxpayer and community groups can make money from stupid people, then that is fine with me – so long as there is total transparency about odds – ie people know that over time they are almost certain to lose money.

The ODT looks at Sarah Palin:

Her popularity is as baffling as it is perhaps frightening to liberal intellectuals, Democrats – and, some suggest – to old-school Republicans whose most fervent wish is to retake the White House in 2012 and who fear her potentially divisive influence on the party. …

She may embody all the colourful hyperbole and grammatical integrity of a hastily penned country and western anthem, but down-home, emotive, illogical, God-fearing and at times disturbingly ignorant, she epitomises a certain cross-section of the electorate.

As such Mrs Palin is a potentially powerful influence on the future course of US politics.

Mainstream political forces will continue to dismiss her at their peril.

She may of course self-destruct at some stage. What will be interesting is how many GOP candidates ask her to appear with them in the mid-terms in November.

Up until her speech to the Tea Party Convention, I was certain Sarah Palin would not run for President. Almost without exception, the senior Republicans I talk to dismiss her chances. She has little support from the Republican hierarchy.

But a friend viewed live (via TV) her speech to the convention, and their conclusion half way through was that she will probably run for President. Her speech dominated the headlines that day.

Palin in 2008 was not ready to be President. Her lack of both domestic and foreign policy knowledge showed. If she had become VP, and McCain had died, it would have ratehr interesting. Of course if Obama died, and Biden became President that same arguably applies – Biden may have experience, but my God he far exceeds Quayle for gaffes. Even Obama has joked about it.

The story that Palin had some notes written on her hand will not harm her. People prefer notes on a hand to a teleprompter.

I still can’t see Palin as the Republican nominee. She does deliver some good speeches, and is talented at mocking the left. But I’ve yet to see any independent policy agenda of her own.She also have no experienced political staff.

However even if she does not stand for President, she may become the kingmaker. Her endorsement will be highly sought.

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams writes in the Herald:

A former Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, was asked for his views on the re-election chances of the incumbent Republican President. He smiled and said: “Fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me.”

That summed up what so many people were thinking over a myriad issues affecting the political future of the President. Cuomo delivered a powerful call to action to the millions disaffected with the Administration’s policies and performance.

Oh dear, Andrew wants this to be a story about how upset he is that his job has been abolished. But he should think about his political history better.

The Republican President Cuomo was commenting on was almost certainly Ronald Reagan in 1984. Reagan went on to win the election in the biggest landslide for many decades. In fact he was the second President since George Washington to win all but one state or better (Nixon did the same in 1972).

These two photos from the Drudge Report show the extent of the blizzard that hit Washington DC.

I love this ad, especially the demon sheep that appears at 2:20 through. A classic attack ad. This one is not aimed at a Democrat, but at a Republican from another Republican as they are both seeking the GOP nomination for a California seat in the Senate.

Too early to know if he will follow the rhetoric up with substance, but it is pleasing to see this language from Obama:

Mr Obama said he welcomed all suggestions on cutting spending.

“It’s time to hold Washington to the same standards families and businesses hold themselves,” he said.

“It’s time to save what we can, spend what we must, and live within our means once again.”

He added that spending could not continue “as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money”.

This is in great contrast to NZ Labour which seems to think borrowing $240 million a week is not enough, and constantly calls for more spending.

It would be great to hear Phil Goff or David Cunliffe talk about protecting the hard-earned tax dollars of New Zealanders.

Public Policy Polling has surveyed Americans on their most trusted television news source. They were asked for each source whether they trusted it or not. Below are the net (yes minus no) responses:

1. Fox News +12%
2. CNN -2%
3. NBC News -9%
4. CBS News -14%
5. ABC News -15%

So Fox News is the only TV broadcaster that more Americans trust than distrust.

Now some may say this is only because Republicans men don’t trust the other media sources. But look at the ratings for firstly women

1. Fox News +11%
2. CNN +9%
3. NBC News -1%
4. CBS News -3%
5. ABC News -7%

So women only trust Fox and CNN.

But most damning is the ratings of Independents

1. Fox News -3%
2. CNN -8%
3. CBS News -29%
4. NBC News -30%
5. ABC News -32%

Fox News is close to even, CNN a bit behind, and the three main networks are absolutely distrusted by Independents.

White Americans are also clear in their views:

1. Fox News +14%
2. CNN -14%
3. NBC News -22%
4. CBS News -25%
5. ABC News -25%

And in case people wonder Hispanics give Fox +13% and African-Americans are balanced with 38% trusting and untrusting equally.

The age group most alienated from the other broadcasters are aged 46 to 65. They say:

1. Fox News +19%
2. CNN -13%
3. NBC News -17%
4. CBS News -22%
5. ABC News -24%

This shows what a blunder it was for the Obama Administration to declare war on Fox and try to freeze them out. Not only do more Americans trust Fox than any other network, many Americans only trust Fox, and what do you think they think of a Government that tries to freeze out the only new source they trust?

Some on the left will no doubt insult Americans and say they are all dumb. I think it shows that people prefer it when a network is honest about whether it has a conservative or liberal bent.

It is very rare for politicians to win battles with the media.

It is no surprise that it took a Kansas jury just 37 minutes to find Scott Roeder guilty of the murder of George Tiller. Dr Tiller was a provider of legal abortion services, and Roeder is a religious fanatic who thought it was okay to kill him because he disapproved of what Dr Tiller did.

Troy Newman, president of Wichita-based Operation Rescue, which organised protests against Tiller’s clinic, said “pro-life was not on trial. An insane man doing an insane thing was on trial”.

All religions have their fanatics. The good thing with Christianity is the religious leaders always condemn people who murder people in the name of God. In Islam, you often get shall we say a mixed message at best.

Roeder could be considered for parole after 25 years. But prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would seek to ensure that he serve at least 50 years before being eligible for parole. Sentencing was set for March 9.

I don’t think he can ever be let out, as someone convinced they have a right to kill people is always going to be dangerous.

Roeder, the sole defence witness, testified on Thursday that he considered elaborate schemes to stop the doctor, including chopping off his hands, crashing a car into him or sneaking into his home to kill him.

But in the end, Roeder told jurors, the easiest way was to walk into Tiller’s church, put a gun to the doctor’s forehead and pull the trigger.

Tiller was wearing body armour, due to the threats against him – that in itself is a sad reality.

Politico report:

President Obama plans to announce a three-year freeze on discretionary, “non-security” spending in the lead-up Wednesday’s State of the Union address, Hill Democratic sources familiar with the plan tell POLITICO.

The move, intended to blunt the populist backlash against Obama’s $787 billion stimulus and an era of trillion-dollar deficits — and to quell Democratic anxiety over last Tuesday’s Massachusetts Senate election — is projected to save $250 billion, the Democrats said.

This is a massive move to the centre, if true. It would also be a very good thing economically.

So in the UK Labour are talking spending cuts. In the US, Obama is talking a spending freeze. But in NZ, Labour’s only response to every issue is to demand more spending and more borrowing.

I’ve been saying for months and months that NZ Labour do not realise the world has changed. People understand that with huge deficits, there can’t be massive spending increases, big pay increases for public servants etc.

The Daily Telegraph reports:

A new assessment by the non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report has moved a dozen more Democratic seats in the House into the vulnerable column. Now, 58 Democratic-held seats are “in play” compared to just 14 Republican-held seats.

And in the latest blow to President Barack Obama’s Democrats, Beau Biden, attorney general of Delaware, abandoned plans to run for the Senate seat that his father Vice-President Joe Biden occupied for 36 years until 2008.

The younger Mr Biden, 40, who recently served in Iraq as a US army lawyer, was until recently thought to be certain to run. But with the Obama-Biden administration’s popularity plummeting, his name could have been a liability rather than an asset in November.

His decision makes Representative Mike Castle, a Republican, the overwhelming favourite to take the seat. …

Republicans need to win 10 Democratic-held seats out of the 16 up for grabs in November to win a majority of 51 to 49 votes in the Senate. For the first time, Republican strategists are beginning to believe it might be possible.

Until the primaries are done, it is too difficult to predict House seats. But could they retake the Senate? They now have 41 seats. What does Five Thirty Eight say are the chances of GOP pickups for various seats:

1. North Dakota 99%
2. Nevada 76%
3. Delaware 75%
4. Arkansas 73%
5. Pennsylvania 72%
6. Colorado 70%
7. Illinois 51%
8. Indiana 48%
9. California 21%
10. Wisconsin 16%
11. New York 13%

So there is a pretty decent chance the Republicans could gain eight seats and get to 49 seats (assuming they lose none, and it is probably they won’t). But gaining a 50th and 51st seat looks hard on the surface. If Joe Lieberman decided to give his support to the GOP instead of the Democrats, then they only need 50 seats. So can they do it?

Well yes, depending on the primaries. The averages quoted above are based on an average of how polls show various candidates doing in match ups. If the GOP go with the most popular candidates, their chances are better in the last three seats.

California is hard to win, regardless of GOP candidates – Carly Fiorina is assessed with a 19% chance and Tom Campbell with 28%.

But in Wisconsion, former Governor Tommy Thompson is given a 45% chance of winning against the Democrat’s Feingold.

And in New York, former Governor George Pataki is given odds ranging from 50% to 74% depending on who the Democratic candidate is.

So if Thompson and Pataki win the primaries, then a GOP majority in the Senate is possible. However there is a long way to go, and possible does not mean probable.

Former US Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards has finally admitted he is the father of Rielle Hunter’s child. This is not surpise as it has been obvious he was for a while, but what is interesting is how long he kept lying and lying and lying about it.

This was no one off “I did not have sexual relations” comment. He did not just lie to his staff, family and the public over first the affair, and then the child. He actually got one of his friends to claim he was in fact the father, and also tried to fake a paternity test.

The only reason Edwards has finally admitted it, is the friend is about to have his book published detailing the cover-up. Edwards has flown to Haiti to show how much he cares about poor people, and avoid questions.

I’ve always detested Edwards as a phony – he seemed so fake, and was.

Reuters reports:

China has attacked Washington’s call to lift internet censorship and warned the Obama administration to heed alarm bells over trade, Taiwan and Tibet.

China said that US calls for greater internet freedom were harmful to bilateral ties and that the Chinese government banned any form of hacking, in response to a speech by the US Secretary of State.

The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for China and other authoritarian governments to lift their curbs on citizens’ use of the internet in a speech on Thursday (Friday NZ time).

It was a good speech which is in full here.Also an interesting Q&A.

This is not just about what China do behind their own borders, but the threat they may pose to the greater Internet with state sanctioned cyber attacks.

“A new information curtain is descending across much of the world,” said Clinton, calling growing internet curbs the present-day equivalent of the Berlin Wall, contravening international commitments to free expression.

Clinton also urged Beijing to investigate the complaint about cyber spying from China that Google said targeted it and dozens of other companies, as well as Chinese dissidents.

One of the best parts of the speech was:

As I speak to you today, government censors somewhere are working furiously to erase my words from the records of history. But history itself has already condemned these tactics. Two months ago, I was in Germany to celebrate the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The leaders gathered at that ceremony paid tribute to the courageous men and women on the far side of that barrier who made the case against oppression by circulating small pamphlets called samizdat. Now, these leaflets questioned the claims and intentions of dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc and many people paid dearly for distributing them. But their words helped pierce the concrete and concertina wire of the Iron Curtain.

The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided and it defined an entire era. Today, remnants of that wall sit inside this museum where they belong, and the new iconic infrastructure of our age is the internet. Instead of division, it stands for connection. But even as networks spread to nations around the globe, virtual walls are cropping up in place of visible walls.Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

A speech by itself won’t change anything, but the focus of the US Government at the highest levels is a good thing.

The US Supreme Court has struck down part of the law which restricts private organisations from spending their money on election campaigns.

Cnet explains why:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s sweeping ruling on Thursday that invalidated large chunks of campaign finance law arose in part from an unlikely source: the emergence of Facebook, YouTube, and blogs, and the decline of traditional media outlets.

A 5-4 majority concluded that technological changes have chipped away at the justification for a law that allows individuals to create a blog with opinions about a political candidate–but threatens the ACLU, the National Rifle Association, a labor union, or a corporation with felony charges if they do the same.

The now-invalidated law “would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion (PDF). “The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.”

In NZ we don’t have a court that can strike down laws that breach the Bill of Rights. To get rid of the Electoral Finance Act, we had to sack the Government.

The court pointed out that the now-invalidated laws are more sweeping than the term “campaign finance” might imply–and amount to simple censorship. It listed these acts of political speech that previously would have been criminalized: the Sierra Club running an ad (close to the time of an election) disapproving of a congressman who favors logging in national forests; the NRA publishing a book urging a vote against an incumbent U.S. senator who supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creating a Web site telling the public to vote for a presidential candidate because of that candidate’s defense of free speech.

This law was even worse than the EFA!

Joel Gora, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and ACLU lawyer who argued a landmark 1976 Supreme Court case, wrote at The New York Times’ Web site today that the justices “dismantled the First Amendment ‘caste system’ in election speech. Before today, the right to speak depended on who was doing the speaking: business corporations, no, unless they were media corporations; nonprofit corporations, maybe, depending on where they got their funding; labor unions, no.”

What happened of course was these groups formed PACs instead, and just donated to the PACs.

The left in the US are calling this an awful decision. This is ironic as the Obama campaign was the highest spending of all time – the first oen to turn down federal funding and an associated cap. They are not against big money in politics – just against other people’s big money!

Losing Massachusetts the day before his first anniversary as President makes it somewhat bitter for President Obama. But how has his first year gone?

Personally I don’t think Obama has done an awful job. I think his biggest mistake was the size of the fiscal stimulus, leading to a a truly horrible fiscal deficit. In his defence, Bush left him a huge deficit as it was – but he has made it worse.

On foreign issues, I don’t have huge gripes. He is not bolting out of Iraq, but decreasing troop numbers at much the same rate Bush would have. His surge in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Like most of his predecessors he has made little progress on the Palestinian issue, but he has not become an Israel basher (I suspect his Chief of Staff moderates him here. Emanuel actually did volunteer service with the IDF duing the first gulf war).

He is showing some rationality with trade issues, as opposed to his pre-election rhetoric. And again Bush often went protectionist also.

His healthcare legislation has been a disaster. Even with massive compromises and watering down, it may not pass, and if it does pass it won’t solve the real problems.

I think Obama’s problems come down to three major things:

1. Expectations. On TV yesterday that had a live focus group of 40 Massachusetts voters. They asked them to raise their hands if Obama has met or exceeded their expectations, and not a single one did. And this is in a blue state.
2. Priorities. Obama’s fiscal stimulus did little bar increase the deficit massively, and turn the country into deficit hawks. Unemployment went well beyond his worst forecasts, and Obama was seen as too focused on other issues such as healthcare, cap and trade, foreign policy etc.
3. Experience. I said before the election that Obama was inexperienced as he basically had just two years of experience as a legislator, and no executive experience at all, and it is showing. Bush left him a mess, and the credit crisis occurred, but regardless the presidency of the US is always going to be pretty much the toughest job in the world, and Obama is coping about as well as any first time Senator would – not that well.

Now there is some good news for him. His poll ratings are averaging 50% approval to 44% disapproval, which is up from a month ago. They are still historically very low – the only ones lower were Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan on their one year anniversaries.

He is still personally liked, if not respected, as AP reports:

But while nearly nine in 10 people like President Barack Obama personally, he earns decidedly mixed reviews in a new Associated Press-GfK poll judging his first year in office, a verdict darkened by a stunning repudiation of his party in the Massachusetts Senate race yesterday. …

Even three-quarters of Republicans say they personally like Obama.

The AP poll gives us net approval ratings for Obama on various issues:

• The economy -1%
• Iraq +10%
• Healthcare 0%
• Terrorism +15%
• Environment +22%
• Federal Deficit -16%
• Energy +23%
• Taxes -4%
• Immigration -6%
• Afghanistan +7%
• Foreign Relationships +26%
• Unemployment -1%
• Gas prices -4%

The mid terms are looking to be focused on the economy, the deficit and jobs. It is quite possible now that the GOP could retake the House. The Senate is most unlikely though.

Too early to speculate much on 2012. Obama may be a one term President, but these are in his favour:

• The economy should pick up
• He has three years
• The Republicans have to find an electable candidate
• Now they no longer have 60 votes in the Senate, they can blame Republican blocking tactics for lack of progress on some issues
• He may do a Clinton and head towards the centre more

What are the chances of the GOP taking the House in 2010? In August Nate Silver said it was a one in four chance, so probably more than that now. The Republicans lead in the generic ballot by 1%. However history has taught us that the party not in the majority normally does significantly better than its poll ratings a year out – so I’d say the chance of GOP taking the House is at least 50% now.

The US Embassy has e-mailed:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver a major policy address on Internet freedom live from the Newseum in Washington, D.C. January 21, 2010, 9.30am EST, Friday 3.30AM NZ time.  Secretary Clinton will lay-out the Administration’s strategy for protecting freedom in the networked age of the 21st Century.

Following her speech, there will be a panel discussion on this issue. To participate, either by watching a high quality video stream of the speech and panel discussion or by submitting questions and comments while viewing go to: http://netfreedom.state.gov. From here, you may choose the high quality video option or the interactive CO.NX room. As always, no password is necessary. Enter as a guest and type the username of your choice.

For further information please visit http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/01/135379.htm

Information is also available at America.gov’s feature page on Internet Freedom. You can also follow the speech on Twitter: http://twitter.com/us_mission_nz

When released, a transcript of Secretary Clinton’s remarks will be available at http://newzealand.usembassy.gov/

I will be very very interested to watch this. Not quite enough, to be up at 3.30 am, but once I get up.

Hat Tip: Clare Curran

It looks like the polls were right. With 63% of precincts counted, Scott Brown is leading 53% to 46%.

This is going to make it very hard for Obama to pass his healthcare legislation. His options are:

1. Try and get it passed before Brown is sworn in. That may be seen as somewhat undemocratic.
2. Renegotiate the package to get a liberal Republican in the Senate to support it, while not losing any Democrat votes.
3. Use a Senate process called reconciliation to pass it with 51 votes – however this means parts of it will be dropped.
4. Have the House pass the Senate version without amendment (avoiding the need for a new Senate vote)
5. Accept failure

The Democrats started the fnger pointing before the polls closed. As with most situations, the blame is both local and national. Coakley ran a bad campaign and was a bad candidate. But the healthcare legislation was also an issue, and Obama no longer had the clout to rescue the campaign.

UPDATE: Coakley has conceded. All over.

Tomorrow Massachusetts votes for a new Senator, and it may be a Republican – a scenario almost unthinkable three months ago.

The last four polls have a lead for Scott Brown of 0% (a tie), 5%, 7% and 10%. They were all taken between 15 and 17 January so are recent.

What do the two main polling sites say. Here’s Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight:

Under its original assumptions, the model now projects a very slight Brown edge, 49.3-48.7, which maps to a 55 percent chance of winning. Earlier today, it had given Coakley a 57 percent chance of winning. However, because the odds are under 60 percent, we still call this race a “toss-up” per our nomenclature, as we did before.

So Brown marginally more likely to win, but too close to call. Further Silver calculates that if you remove a controversial poll that had Brown 15% ahead, then he calculates Coakley has a 68% chance of victory.

At Pollster, Charles Franklin calculates:

But no matter how you slice the data, the only reasonable conclusion is that Scott Brown has moved from well behind to a lead somewhere between 4 and 11 points.

The Daily Telegraph has had its US staff prepare a list of the 100 most influential people on the right and left of US politics. Their top ten for each are:

Liberals

1. Barack Obama, President
2. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
3. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
4. Bill Clinton, former President
5. Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff
6. Al Gore, former VP
7. Oprah Winfrey, TV Talk Show Host
8. Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary
9. David Axelrod, White House Senior Advisor
10. Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader

Five current politicians, two retired politicians, two staffers and one media person.

Conservatives

1. Dick Cheney, former VP
2. Rush Limbaugh, Talk Radio Host
3. Matt Drudge, Drudge Report
4. Sarah Palin, former Governor
5. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defence
6. Glenn Beck, For News presenter
7. Roger Ailes, Fox News President
8. David Petraeus, Head US Central Command
9. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Congressman
10. Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota

A much more varied list, perhaps reflecting not being in office. Four of the ten from the media, and almost no one at all from the mainstream Republican hierarchy – Pawlenty is probably the only one in that mould.

In four days the voters will go to the polls in Massachusetts to elect a new US Senator. This is to effectively replace Ted Kennedy.

Massachusetts is one of the most liberal Democrat-voting states in the US. Recent Senate results for Democratic candidates have been:

1. 2008 65.8%
2. 2006 69.3%
3. 2002 80.0%
4. 2000 72.6%
5. 1996 52.2%
6. 1994 58.1%
7. 1990 57.1%
8. 1988 65.0%
9. 1984 55.0%
10. 1982 60.8%
11. 1978 55.1%
12. 1976 69.3%

Not exactly marginal results.

And for Presidential elections

1. 2008 61.8%
2. 2004 61.9%
3. 2000 59.9%
4. 1996 68.0%

I believe no Republican has won even a single county or congressional district in a presidential election since 1988.

So what is happening in the current election for the US Senate in Massachusetts in this safest of safe seats? And bear in mind the loss of this seat would remove the ability of the Democrats to prevent a filibuster.

So what have the polls said. Here are the seven latest:

1. 8 Nov Dem +31%
2. 4 Jan Dem +9%
3. 6 Jan Dem +15%
4. 9 Jan Rep +1%
5. 11 Jan Dem +2%
6. 13 Jan Rep +4%
7. 14 Jan Rep +15%

This could be one of the major upsets in US politics. I wouldn’t put too much weight on the last poll, but nevertheless it shows how much the tide has turned in recent weeks. Obama is now going to go in himself and campaign to try and rescue the candidate.

The first quote is:

A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee

The second quote is:

a “light-skinned” black man “with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

So was this Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin? Dick Cheney and Bill O’Reilly?

No, according to a new book called Game Change, the first quote was made by Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy, and the second by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Clinton’s quote is of course incorrect. If it involved serving himself and Ted Kennedy, there is no way they would have been getting served coffee – whiskey is far more likely.

Audrey Young writes:

The United States is poised to drop its ban on military exercises with New Zealand.

The move will be a significant step in a thaw in the NZ-US relationship that has accelerated since Barack Obama became President a little over a year ago.

The Weekend Herald understands it is likely to be announced next week when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, Kurt Campbell, visit New Zealand.

That is basically the end of the “hostilities” which has existed since 1985. It took 25 years, but common sense has prevailed. It has been silly to ban exercises between our military forces, yet have them fighting together in places like Afghanistan.

Presumably this means we are allies again, and not just very very very good friends

Mrs Clinton announced last year that intelligence-sharing co-operation between the two countries had also resumed.

In a further sign of the fast-track thaw, it is understood that President Obama has twice informally invited Prime Minister John Key to Washington.

The visit is likely to take place within six months.

Add on the progress on the free trade front, and you have to say very successful diplomacy from New Zealand.