I'm kind of shocked people keep putting Michigan in as a toss-up and suppose it has something to do with the primary.  Yeah the economy there is kind of going to hell and the state's run by Democrats (as disappointed as many of us are with Governor Kaine on some local issues like the Wise Power Plant, we have to acknowledge he's done a better job than most in terms of keeping the state on solid economic footing, we're feeling the crunch but not nearly as bad as many other states like Michigan and Nevada, where Vegas is being mauled by the mortgage crisis).  But it's the Republican economic policy engineered by GWB that's killed Detroit and the auto-industry; a little foresight and economic leadership in favor of better fuel efficiency wouldn't have left Toyota so far in the lead in terms of developing and marketing hybrid cars.

Then again, I'm not from Michigan and haven't spent a whole lot of time there, so I guess I shouldn't assume I know how they think.  Sabato almost certainly knows something I don't.  In any case, a glance at that map should reveal that as a region, Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania's blue collar areas will likely decide this election.  Having other states like Colorado and Virginia available as battlegrounds definitely gives Obama some breathing room, too, and forces John McCain to spread himself thin.

1. You did not mention that Sabato's analysis puts McCain ahead 227-212 in "at least leaning".
2. Silence Dogood, your comment clarifies some things. You are implying that the government is responsible to make strategic business decisions for companies. (Indeed, it far too often has.) You said that GM, et. al. are at a business disadvantage because the government didn't mandate that they make different business decisions. What's the next step? Nationalized industries? United Soviet States of America?

There are a lot of things in his article which I linked that I didn't mention.  I never implied that Obama was "leading" in the "at least leaning" category.  But I guess I could've pointed that out, as well as the fact that Obama is crushing McCain in the "Solid" category, meaning that more of McCain's "at least leaning" electoral votes are in precarious territory for him (83 for McCain v. 29 for Obama, and a close to even split on which Kerry/Bush states are toss-ups).  

In my opinion, it was very noteworthy because that was the first time in a while that I had seen an analysis with McCain winning. Mostly I've been seeing stuff with the same conclusions as Zogby. This added (in my mind) to the noteworthiness of McCain being ahead in the "at least leaning".

God forbid the leader of the free world actually try leading something.

Higher CAFE standards (just as one example) were not simply a matter of corporate stategy but a matter of national interests: reduced demand on foreign oil lowers our financial vulnerability to overseas tyrants like Ahmadinejad and Chavez who have literally built their governments on a foundation of anti-American militarism and brinkmanship.  It reduces the volatility of our domestic markets by reducing the link between oil prices and the prices of other goods.  It even would lead to putting less carbon into the atmosphere.

Don't like raising fuel efficiency standards?  How about tax breaks for developing and purchasing hybrid vehicles?  Accomplishes essentially the same thing with everyone's favoritest market lever--lower taxes.

Whether you prefer incentives or regulation, and for whatever reason (foreign security, international economics, domestic economics, environmental concerns) the only reason to believe that we should do nothing in the face of economic turmoil is that you hate America.  How come you hate America, mein herr?

You are missing the point. Driving hybrids helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil, yes. I was not arguing against that as you straw-man-ly propose.

However, what you decry is that GM does not have a larger share of the hybrid market vis a vis Toyota. It's called not analyzing market demands as effectively as your competitor. Don't blame Bush or the US gov for not forcing GM to adopt a certain business plan. They are behind and have lower profits because they didn't make a wise business move. In the same way, I can't blame the government if my business flags because I offer a product that people don't want to buy. Toyota is reaping the profits of accurately predicting the future market. I say bravo--maybe American companies will do better analysis next time.

He's not arguing that the government should be dictating business strategy.  He's saying that the government should be dictating environmental policy, and the side benefit of that policy here would've been to save GM from a poor business strategy.  

In fact, the Bush administration argued that these environmental policies would've been bad for business.  So, the people of Michigan can damn well blame the Bush administration for stopping environmental policies on the premise of being bad for business when in fact they would've been good for business.

I'm not so sure a middle-class family of four in Maine that's anticipating a $5,000 heating bill this winter would appreciate the sentiment that they should be the ones paying out the nose for the failed economic policy of our addiction to oil (as the President called it).  For that matter, I would wager that a fair number of Michigan residents--where they also have long winters and pay a lot to heat their homes--would find your applause for a failed economy at the very least distasteful, whether they work in the automotive industry or not.  Because if we're going to be charitable to Reagan and agree that a rising tide lifts all boats, we have to agree also that a tide rushing out would ground even the boats of people who don't drive gas-guzzling hummers or build cars for a living.

As a matter of fact I think they'd find your sentiment that we should all suffer financially to teach GM a lesson revolting.

He just disagrees with your premise.

I think we can all agree that better mileage is generally desirable, and while in a perfect world, competition would cause private capital to reach for these goals, experience demonstrates that it does not always happen that way. So I am not sure what is wrong with government stepping in and legislating clearly beneficial things when the private sector fails to do so.

Capitalism is great -- 100% of the time, it will provide people with what they want. The problem is that, individually, people do not always want what is best for them and, in a wider array of cases, their neighbors, and so it fails to provide people or the society at large with what it needs. In that area, government-imposed standards and regulations are desirable and necessary. They are good for the consumer. It is good for business. And if we sacrifice a small amount of  personal freedom in the process, I can live with that.

I'm happy to argue about where to draw the line, and when that sacrifice is too great. But I reject out of hand that the concept itself is invalid or inconsistent with a generally free society.

Aznew, my friend, I think you wandered in and thought this was an actual debate?  My premise was that leadership = good.  The initial premise he offered was that I must be a Soviet.  Anyone who's seriously going to enter a debate like that with me is going to get a taste of his own medicine.

Aznew summed up the entire issue quite well. There is a continuum of regulation from libertarian to nationalized economy. I think we would all agree that SD would like to take us a few steps in the nationalized economy direction.

The main thing that I was uncomfortable with was blaming bad business decisions on the government. That makes the government responsible for far more than they should be responsible for. That's the way of absurd Wall Street bailouts like we saw recently.

...can we expect some of your excellent reporting on the Metro to Dulles fiasco project?  Thanks.

Thank you, but I am only back temporarily. I am teaching English in Nazareth right now and will be teaching English in Ramallah over the next four months.

How's your lughat al arabiya?

Jayyid and Lughat I don't know. But I think you're asking how my Arabic is. In reply, Shwaye, shwaye. I know about 50 words, but insh'allah I will learn more shortly. I'll be attending Al-Quds (Arabic for Jerusalem) University for spoken Arabic. I'm putatively going to make an attempt to learn the Arabic script on my own.

"Lughat" means "language."  I studied Arabic for about 5 years and had gotten pretty proficient in it before I stopped.  Now, I'm really rusty...use it or lose it.  

I'm not sure Silence would go that far, but he can articulate his own views quite well.

As for your second paragraph, I 100% agree with that, although I would point out that Toyota's dominance in this area was not merely a case of business smarts, but also results from the fact that for its entire history the company operated under conditions of limited gasoline supply, among other privations.

Its engineering of fuel efficient cars, indeed, resulted in part from both legislative and practical requirements in Japan following WWII when the company we think of today as Toyota really was born (although I believe it officially became an automobile company in 1933).

Even the Toyota Production System can be traced to the company's response to conditions in Japan following the war, where everyone had to do more with less.

is a problem common to most American corporations.  And that's short term thinking.

Having worked with several of the top Japanese carmakers -- and this isn't revealing some big business secret, it's out there for everyone to see -- is they have a long range plan.  I mean, like really long range -- 20, 30 years out.  And then they work back from that.  What do we have to do in year one, year seventeen, to get to where we want to be in, say, 2025.  And the entire corporate executive structure is signed onto the plan and works towards it.  And, though it's changed somewhat recently, most Japanese executives will spend their entire business career at one car manufacturer.

In sharpest contrast, and this is not limited to Detroit, though it's more damaging there, given what they're producing and the long lead times for new products, is that CEO and COO and Exec. VP's make their big bucks not from salaries, but from stock options and bonuses tied to quarterly results.  There is absolutely no incentive for, say, the CEO to defer his own compensation for the greater good.  He ain't gonna be there 30 years out ... or even 7 years out.  So when you're a Detroit CEO and trucks and Hummers and SUV's are flying off the lots, it's good times and they wallow in the big bucks they're making.  It's not in their financial self-interest to reinvest those profits into stuff that's going to pay off big time for some other guy who is two or three CEO's down the line in terms of succession.    

Exactly. If we try to prop up Detroit in their mistakes, they will only perpetuate their mistakes increasing their inefficiency. I do say bravo for Toyota for not making those mistakes of short term thinking.

Efficiency by its very definition increases the standard of living. There is a limited amount of man hours per capita. (Duh!) Producing more with those man hours (efficiency) means that there are more goods to go around. Efficiency is doing more with less. If the auto industry is run with short term thinking, it means that there is less to go around. If Toyota is run with long-term thinking, that means there is more to go around. I do not care if they are Japanese or American, they are increasing the standard of living of Americans. Furthermore, they hold out an incentive and example for how Americans can improve.

McCain (Red): 160
Obama (Blue): 273
Too close to call (Purple): 105

Please stop posting this pr0n. You're giving my already over-active November imagination too much ammunition.

[BTW, Zogby does get verbally raked over the coals very often, but I think their starting point is correct -- the election right now is clearly Obama's, with holds of all Kerry states and definite flips of IA, NM, and CO. OH and VA are probably the next Obama strongholds. A good position to be in. Feels nice.]

I doubt SC or Ark would be competitive for Obama BEFORE Georgia. And what about Alaska?

I was just thinking about the blue map. In terms of purple, yeah, I think GA and AK and even MS flip before SC. And probably FL before AR.