<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Federal Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://federalreview.com/wp</link>
	<description>Solve the world&#039;s problems.  One beer at a time.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 22:28:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Landslide Scenario &#8211; Turnout Based</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=748&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=landslide-scenario-turnout-based</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=748#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 22:28:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electoral vote]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=748</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is a very real possibility that a serious of bad turnout models means that Obama&#8217;s support in the states is overestimated by as many as 5 points as explained here. If they are wrong across the board by 4 points, then here&#8217;s the landslide scenario that Michael Baron and Dick Morris (among others) must [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=748</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the Polls Might Be Wrong 2</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=745&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=how-the-polls-might-be-wrong-2</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=745#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 22:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=745</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If the polls are off by 2.5 pts in Obama&#8217;s favor -a very real possibility as explained here &#8211; then here&#8217;s the map &#8211; Romney wins with 285-253.  Here&#8217;s the map.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=745</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the Polls Might Be Wrong (R337-O221)</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=741&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=how-the-polls-might-be-wrong-r337-o221</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=741#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 22:06:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[composite poll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Everyone on the right is speculating that the polls must be wrong because many are predicting that the partisan turnout model to be similar to the 2008 election, when Democrats were energized and Republicans often stayed home.  This is an absolutely wrong assumption, they argue.  Besides, the polls &#8211; even in Ohio &#8211; regularly show [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=741</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Review Composite Poll, Election Projection and Simulation</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=733&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=federal-review-composite-poll-election-projection-and-simulation</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=733#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:29:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[composite poll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=733</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I&#8217;ve been doing since 2000 &#8211; before the RCP average was a glimmer in some political geek&#8217;s left brain &#8211; I present the Federal Review Composite Poll.  In 2000, 2004 and 2008 I kept a running update during the year, but just didn&#8217;t have the time to keep creating an electoral map, and my [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=733</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NPR Poll Agrees with Gallup &#8211; Romney may be up 6</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=724&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=npr-poll-agrees-with-gallup-romney-may-be-up-6</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=724#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:56:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polling. romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=724</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NPR released its latest 2012 Presidential Poll, showing Romney with a narrow lead, 48-47. Gallup, meanwhile has Romney up 51-46 as of the same date. Why the difference?  NPR estimates that Democratic turnout will exceed Republican turnout by 6%.  Gallup says that Republicans will exceed Democrats by 1%.  Here&#8217;s how it breaks down. So, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=724</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Newspaper Endorsements for President 2012</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=713&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=newspaper-endorsements-for-president-2012</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=713#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=713</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many newspapers tend to endorse the same party&#8217;s candidate election after election &#8211; so it is instructive to see where editorial boards have moved from one party to another.  It&#8217;s even more enlightening during a reelection campaign if a paper endorsed the current president in the last election, but is making the case for his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=713</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Did the Obama Administration Illegally Waive the Welfare Work Requirement? (Is the Romney ad a Lie?)</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=709&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=did-the-obama-administration-illegally-waive-the-welfare-work-requirement-is-the-romney-ad-a-lie</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=709#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TANF]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Welfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=709</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They may as well have, because they have solicited requests for waivers from the work requirement, but they do not have the statutory authority to grant waivers from the work requirement. Let me walk you through the law. Bear with me. The work requirement for welfare is laid out in Section 407 of the Social [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=709</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Did they think they were still working for Bill Clinton?</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=706&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=did-they-think-they-were-still-working-for-bill-clinton</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=706#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hank</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=706</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Post reports that a dozen Secret Service agents sent to Colombia to provide security for President Barack Obama were returned home amid allegations of misconduct involving soliciting prostitutes.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=706</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mike Wallace, RIP</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=704&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mike-wallace-rip</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=704#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:22:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hank</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I predict that, even as we speak, dozens of political cartoonists have started sketching out the obligatory cartoon of Mike Wallace conducting a hard hitting interview of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates: CBS newsman Mike Wallace, the dogged, merciless reporter and interviewer who took on politicians, celebrities and other public figures in a 60-year [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=704</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ObamaCare at the Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=698&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamacare-at-the-supreme-court</link>
		<comments>http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=698#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Winston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ObamaCare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://federalreview.com/wp/?p=698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let me try to put the primary issue in context. Everyone should have access to health care, and access to health care requires people be able to pay for health care. The determination is made that the best way to be sure that you have the ability to pay for health care is to purchase [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://federalreview.com/wp/?feed=rss2&#038;p=698</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
