The Polls - 10/15

Yesterday, Sarah Palin said:

Our opponents spend so much time pretending they are running against the current president. I think it's wearing pretty thin . . . The American people are really waking up and saying no, the status quo is not one of the boxes to check.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, today's look at the polls. DKos/R2000 has Obama up 11, 52-41. NYT/CBS has Obama up 14, 53-39. Battleground has Obama up 13, 53-40. The LATimes has Obama up 9, 50-41. Gallup (NVModel) has Obama up 10, 53-43. Ipsos/McClatchey has it 51-42 Obama. McCain's "good news" comes from Zogby, which has McCain down 4 and IBD/TIPP, which has McCain down 3. There are some polls that have Obama's lead in the 5-7 point range. There is no good news at all for McCain in the state polling where he basically trails every where remotely competitive and is in tossup races now in West Virginia, Indiana and Arkansas.

The Presidential race is over and after tonight's debate - the focus should shift to the Congressional races and what a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President need to do to get the country moving in the right direction. The correct answer is we need a new New Deal.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain's Last Stand | The Obama Chronicles: Coming To A Right Wing Blog Near You >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not over til it's over (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by joanneleon on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:25:30 AM EST
    I usually like to err on the side of caution, and say it's not over til it's over, but this time I think it's different.  After the economic catastrophe, and the campaign screw ups, McCain and Palin are toast, and there's no way he can reinvent their campaign again.  They had that chance when they chose Palin, and they blew it.

    I'm still concerned about some last ditch effort at a smear, but the media seems to be standing up for Obama, and knocking down the smears pretty well.

    The last thing, and the thing that makes me feel most confident that this time it's different, is that the conservative pundits are not defending McCain.  They have conceded already.  I think the Republicans have thoroughly worn themselves out with eight years of crime and corruption.  It's hard work, stealing everything in sight and destroying a country.  If only they were more worried about staying out of jail -- that would be the icing on the cake.

    Yes, about those "Zionists" in Florida (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:48:55 AM EST
    could shift, after the Jesse Jackson Sr. comment about Israel.  RCP's electoral map projections moved Florida back into the toss-up column today, anyway, and Jackson's comment could have an impact in coming days there (remember what "Hymietown" did to him).  

    And not just there, of course -- but Obama has a healthy margin, say the prognosticators here, so he can afford to lose a point nationwide because of Jesse's latest comments.


    Yep. . . (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    Jackson's comment could have an impact in coming days there (remember what "Hymietown" did to him)

    Jackson is finished in Florida after that remark.  Bet he doesn't even get 0.0001 percent of the vote in November.


    Ha. We'll see . . . (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:46:36 PM EST
    as in my very orthodox neighborhood even here, far from Florida, it's the talk of this part of town.

    Makes Sense (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    After all they're both Black and we all know those people think alike (just like the Jews), and hey its not like Jackson was recorded earlier this year talking about how he wanted to castrate Obama or anything!

    Uh, Jesse Jackson backs Obama. (2.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:33:03 PM EST
    and his son with the same name is, after all, co-chair of Obama's campaign -- lots of Chicago ties, etc., going back decades.  

    But maybe you didn't know that, and you really do think that all AAs think alike.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:43:38 PM EST
    Your childish crusade is veering into dangerous territory. Maybe you should dial it back?

    I think (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    your reply is odd -- we're discussing prospects in swing states such as Florida, and events that could affect them.  You think his comments could have no impact there?  Why?  That's how to contribute here.

    uh-huh (none / 0) (#74)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 04:32:22 PM EST
    Ah, your usual shtick. Do you really believe that you arent completely transparent?  

    Of course not. I'm not trying to be (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:52:31 PM EST
    but you clearly are trying to be clever.

    Wasted effort, Yank.


    Who knew... (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 11:27:00 AM EST
    ...that Chicago was a swing state.  

    Maybe its like how they are the source of your poor air quality?  


    He backs him sure (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CST on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    But he certainly doesn't speak for him.  And it is very clear that he often disagrees with him.  I do think the fact that he said he wanted to castrate Obama on tv means people will take anything he says (with respect to Obama) with a grain of salt.

    I just don't see this carrying a lot of weight with the average voter.  If people were concerned about this, they would be concerned b/c of Rev. Wright and his statements/associates more than Jesse Jackson.  I am not saying no one cares, just that Jesse Jackson running his mouth probably won't change too many minds that weren't already changed.


    Agreed, little impact on "average voter" (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 04:27:35 PM EST
    but I was discussing a group of identity voters.

    Even among the identity voters (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 04:53:50 PM EST
    Are they really concerned with Jesse Jackson?  I'd think they would be more concerned with Rev. Wright and his associations with Farrakhan, etc...

    Well, I think it's one more reason (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:51:33 PM EST
    or reminder that could have impact on some who may had come aboard.  But you're correct that it's not clear how many were lost already because of the earlier religiosity, even before Rev. Wright, the Christian faith tour, etc.

    This is so confusing and worrying to many of my orthodox neighbors, as it's a huge immigrant community here -- new voters, and some seem to be saying that they can't quite correlate what they were taught in citizenship classes about what we promise in this country vs. the way it really is.


    A few points. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:39:05 AM EST
    1. Looks like a ten point popular vote victory is well within reach (although certainly not assured based on the current polling).

    2. Those states which we were supposed to have lost any chance of winning due to the primary kerfluffle are now safe or leaning Democratic.

    3. Recent polling shows that the biggest factors turning people off to McCain are his nasty attacks (an aspect of his fundamental personality) and his selection of Palin.

    Palin (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by mpBBagain on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:31:12 AM EST
    Palin  the gift that keeps on giving

    to me,  I think the SNL skit killed her dead.

    track Mc Cains numbers since that skit


    I still highly highly (none / 0) (#11)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:51:51 AM EST
    doubt it will be 10 pts on election day, I still say 4-6 pts after the actual votes are cast.

    And if he's still ahead (none / 0) (#66)
    by rdandrea on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    after they're actually counted, he's in business

    I see your 10 (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:11:48 AM EST

    Looks like a ten point popular vote victory is well within reach

    Have you checked state by state polling closely lately?

    I see the possibility of your ten point popular vote margin of victory and raise you a 200 Electoral vote margin of victory. With 10 Bush states possibly flipping and none headed the other way, and the states to be watched closely for their next polling are West Virginia, Arkansas, and Indiana...there is the whiff of landslide in the air.


    It's over after Obama wins (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Zeno on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:45:29 AM EST
    I agree that things look great for the Obama-Biden ticket right now. Still, I get nervous every time someone says "The Presidential race is over." Perhaps it's just an excess of caution, but I won't relax until Obama's electoral college victory is signed, sealed, and delivered. Let's not forget 2000 and 2004. Eternal vigilance is the price of cleaning out the GOP cesspool.

    Tell me when Obama has Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:15:58 AM EST
    locked in.

    I'm still waiting.  Should talk to my neighbors down the road - they have a Democrat For McCain and Women For McCain signs up.  I think they keep getting swiped though because the signage keeps changing. (Not me - I'm a free speech advocate.)  

    There's another story about possible (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sallywally on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM EST
    election day meltdowns, esp in Ohio and Florida, on Yahoo News.

    So I second you. I voted early yesterday but I guess there are problems with absentee ballots cast in non-central places like the big one where I voted. The optical scan machines seem to be less accurate in that situation, but they also leave a paper trail (if they don't get "lost").

    But we can realistically hope that Obama's margin, which keeps growing, will be so large that the usual Repub voter suppression tactics won't work.

    I do expect litigation from the Repubs after Obama wins Ohio, though.

    They've gotten the major local media to broadcast their BS about "voter fraud," which is such a crock, but it lays groundwork for litigation here and across the country. All that hooey about ACORN, too. Ugh!!

    I still think we're going to make it I'm sure that if anything "funny" happens, this time the Dems will fight it tooth and nail.


    Tell me when he has Ohio, Florida (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by OldCity on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:33:51 AM EST
    and Virginia.

    There's simply too much time left to make broad assumptions.  The race has been so dynamic, with so many short-term turnarounds, that I think it ill-advised to do more than hope.

    If he does win, wow is he going to have a challenge.  He will have a mandate to effect change, for sure.  Unfortunately for us Democrats, our Achilles heel will alomost immediately cause discomfort.

    To wit:  the diversified interest groups within the party are probably not going to give him the time to get his feet under himself and assess the most instant problems; they will agitate for speedy attention to their pet issues.

    The problem is money.  The government does not have it and tax increases to raise it could result in a repeat of 1994 in short order.  Democrats will have to be realistic and allow an Obama administration to prioritize and to place some issues on the back burner. the "bailout" will be costly and affect the government's liquidity.  Even if we were looking to have jobs programs similar to the New Deal programs designed to create and shore up infrastructure, we'd still have to wait for all sorts of legislation to get passed to make it possible, and deal with myriad federal/state hegemony issues.  

    So, my advice is to hold your horses and temper your epectations.

    Weren't Tax Increases That Creased Clinton (none / 0) (#60)
    by wystler on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    The government does not have it and tax increases to raise it could result in a repeat of 1994 in short order.

    Bill Clinton's problems were not caused by a tax increase. Our side lost Capitol Hill due to overall momentum. The redrawn congressional districts (1991) were extremely favorable to the GOP. A promise by GHWB, broken to address budget problems caused by an underfinanced war footing, left the door open for a kitchen-table campaign for the presidency.

    The handwriting was on the wall, though. The GOP advantages in many legislatures, along with the VRA's majority minority district requirement, allowed reapportionment to portend the Republican majority that was finally elected in 1994.

    And, btw, the battle ain't over. There's a new census in 2 years. The make-up of the state legislatures after the midterms will determine the make-up of Congress for the next decade.


    Yes, and thus the Electoral College (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:06:46 PM EST
    will be different in 2012 -- if redistricting is done by then, at least in some states . . . and more in 2014, and certainly many by 2016.

    "It's Over" - but, what about ...? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by vector on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:43:00 AM EST
    I just visited www.electoral-vote.com, and it shows "Obama: 357, McCain: 181" - with NO ties or toss-ups.

    If this is the outcome on November 4, with no one reaching 370 -- sheesh, then what?

    I'm sure we will hear Repubs screaming about vote fraud, and there will be lawsuits galore
    (probably from both sides).  

    I don't even want to picture it in my mind.

    Also, one other thing.  

    I voted yesterday in a special Democratic primary election here in Ohio, to fill the seat of the late Congressperson Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

    We used the M-100 electronic voting system manufactured by Election Systems & Software (formerly Diebold).

    I personally found this voting method to be incredibly annoying to use, especially the need to tear off a small tab from the bottom of the ballot.  

    Whoever printed the ballots did a really lousy job with the perforation for the tab.  It was very hard to tear off, unless you were extremely careful.  Otherwise, you would probably end up with a big rip in your ballot, and then have to fill it out again.

    The voter is then supposed to put the paper ballot into a scanner, which electronically logs and calculates your vote.

    Poll workers are supposed to be at least 20 feet away from the scanner, to prevent them from seeing how a person votes.  This was not possible at my polling place, due to location of electrical outlets and no extension cords. Poll workers were about 2 feet away from the scanner (ballots need to be submitted face up).

    Not that it matters, because there is a good chance of a poll worker seeing your ballot anyway, while you try to remove the poorly perforated tab from the bottom.  (This is required to be done at the poll workers' table).

    A friend of mine was a booth worker, and he said that the whole thing was a nightmare, because the coordinator for this location did not show up, so the other poll workers had to figure everything out by the seat of their pants.

    Nevertheless, election went basically smoothly, due to very low turn-out.

    But, I am DEFINITELY worried about November, because this voting system could make voting be EXTREMELY slow in Ohio (especially if it causes long lines or other frustrations).  People could get discouraged and just leave. This could easily effect the outcome, if the election is close in Ohio.  I am nervous as hell.

    fortunately we only need 270 (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Lil on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    In Minnesota (none / 0) (#39)
    by eric on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM EST
    we have used the optical scanner method for my entire life, and it works great.  I don't understand the perforated tab?  What is that all about?  There is nothing like that on our ballots.

    the perferated tab (none / 0) (#48)
    by vector on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:45:47 AM EST
    At the very  bottom of the ballot, there is a half-inch perforated strip, which runs across the entire width of the ballot.

    The poll workers referred to this strip as "the tab".

    Each tab is numbered.  I guess the idea is to make sure that the number of paper ballot tabs match the number of votes computed on the scanner.


    BTD (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    are you going to post your thoughts on what we can expect from tonights debate?  I have tried to figure out what to expect and have been coming up empty and always appreciate your insight prior to the debates.


    Interesting local race (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:10:10 AM EST
    Looks like the Dem challenger Suzanne Kosmas has a good chance of knocking off Tom Feeney in my Orlando area district.  Can't tell you how happy that would make me. She is getting my donations in the next 3 weeks.

    I do not get the idea that she is a new dealer though. I doubt the next New Deal leader is going to come from Florida. On the other hand, many Florida residents actually remember Roosevelt, so I could be wrong!

    "Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Finis Terrae on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:37:34 AM EST

    Well, my absentee ballot (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    is banked as of today.

    Oh, and this debate (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:44:15 AM EST
    isn't even relevant in the Philly DMA: too many people will be watching the Phillies!

    Hey, I wanted to ask you (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:00:16 AM EST
    what you know about the methodology of Zogby polls.  I hear their results a lot on the XM POTUS channel, and their main show host is puzzled at why they show such a closer race (Obama up 3.8 in the latest 3 day tracking).  I haven't been listening during the times they actually talk to Zogby though, to hear what he has to say for himself.

    Dart board. ;-) (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:06:25 AM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:09:36 AM EST
    But wrong. The Zogby method is this - what result will provide him the most publicity.

    If he were 20 years younger. . . (none / 0) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:13:36 AM EST
    The Zogby method is this - what result will provide him the most publicity.

    he'd be in blogging instead of polling.


    He missed his calling (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:15:22 AM EST
    But he's doing the next best thing (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:18:58 AM EST
    Media Talking Head pseudo-expert

    Oh, I think that would be (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:58:28 AM EST
    way more fun than blogging.

    The day before the election (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:14:44 AM EST
    He'll have it 41/40 or something. I frankly don't know why anybody listens to him.

    This morningI was thinking (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:17:56 AM EST
    that I was going to pay attention and see when the point came when he was miraculously saying the same thing as all of the other polls, the ones that have probably been right all along. He keeps saying he has been accurate for the last 3 elections.  I think he is probably accurate on the very last day, and not a day before.

    Why I listen to him.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:25:04 AM EST
    It's too hard to change the channel when I am in the middle of drying my hair. The roar of the dryer does provide some cover, however.

    He was (none / 0) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    closest in the final polls in '96, Clinton vs Dole.

    I wonder if that wasn't luck, setting a lower spread just in case.  At that time he had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

    I used to be a participant in his online polling.  Haven't been polled in nearly a year.


    That certainly fits all of the evidence (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:15:02 AM EST
    If it's over (none / 0) (#6)
    by lizpolaris on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:40:27 AM EST
    then we all have just lost.  Because neither Obama nor the Dem leadership is going anywhere near a New Deal.  And as soon as they are elected, we've lost any pressure to ask them to do anything.

    To a certain extent (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by joanneleon on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:09:38 AM EST
    this is true, and a huge disappointment, considering what we could have accomplished with policies this year.  But it all comes down to this: What other choice do we have?

    As for pressuring, most presidents care about their popularity ratings.  And more people are engaged in presidential politics than I can recall since Nixon.  And there is change in the air in this country.  People are stopping the out of control spending, they are concerned about global warming and fuel consumption more than ever before.  Congress is hearing from constituents in record numbers, both at their offices and at home.  Congr. hearings are jam packed and always have some protesters in attendance.  The heat is on, and even though it hasn't seem to have made much difference, maybe it will in the near future.

    Republicans are going to morph into an entirely different party, some genuinely, and some phoney as heck.  But they will be pressuring, and the Obama admin. will need support from people in their party.

    So, in my mind, electing Obama is far from a cure all -- it's a stop gap.

    Let's see what the Dem Congress does when they have no excuses about not having "the votes".  

    I understand exactly what you are saying, but I can't say that we've lost.  If McCain were to be elected, we would truly be lost.  With Obama, we have a chance, but no guarantees.  There is still a lot of work to be done with this party, if it is to remain a viable party and not just become the thing it loathes.


    You are speaking much sense today. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Lil on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    I wouldn't be too sure about that (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:44:40 AM EST
    Watch our numbers in the Senate.

    Other "traitors" you want to call out? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:48:08 AM EST
    And what happened to the original Salsero? Banned, perhaps?

    I have high hopes for Al Franken (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:22:18 AM EST
    After hearing his show on Air America while it was on, I am convinced he is the closest to a New Dealer we will get. I have not heard much about how he is campaigning though - what themes he is stressing. I'll have to look into that in the next couple of weeks.

    Mostly (none / 0) (#38)
    by eric on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:55:12 AM EST
    the campaign is about Norm's hockey record, Al's articles in Playboy magazine, Al's workers comp taxes, unhinged comedy skits, free suits for Norm, blah blah blah.

    So we haven't heard much from Al on issues because there are about 10 Trillion dollars pouring into Minnesota television stations for smear ads.  But I agree that Al would be a great addition to the Senate and his policies, on the economy anyway, are inspired by the legacy of Paul Wellstone.

    BTW, Minnesota is easily the most expensive Senate race this year.  LINK  $29,860,520 raised so far.  INSANITY.


    Wow. thanks for the update (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    I had heard some of those, but did not know it was basically the whole campaign. Hope Al emerges victorious and gets to concentrate on the issues after he takes office.  He should benefit from the 6 year term - more time to dig into the work and show his smarts.

    A robocall to my office voice mail last night (none / 0) (#9)
    by CCinNC on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 08:45:22 AM EST
    A smarmy male voice said:  "... Obama and his fellow Democrats got caught putting HOLLYWOOD before America ... Obama spent just 20 minutes w/economic advisors but HOURS at a Celebrity. Hollywood. Fundraiser.  WHERE are the Democratic priorities?"

    Will this change anyone's mind?  Silly.

    Maybe they're just upset... (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:08:00 AM EST
    ...that their stinker of a movie, American Carol, is bombing so badly at the box office.  

    Darn free market and its Hollywood liberal bias!


    W: The Movie (none / 0) (#53)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    Released at the only conceivable time - late enough in his term that it can't really hurt him [that's a straight line if I ever saw one] yet ahead of the Inauguration so interest in the incumbent will still be high.

    In other news, a interviewee on NPR who is voting for "Older, More Experienced" McCain said that Obama hasn't been through real tough times citing his experience of the good Reagan years.

    Since I'm about the same age as Obama - the Reagan years fall on late high school and college.  The years that Obama was working and in grad school would have been the Clinton years.  It's not hard to figure out the interviewee's various biases if "the Reagan years" were good times and the Clinton years weren't worth mentioning.


    That one... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:39:40 AM EST
    ...I did add to my Netflix queue.  Hopefully, by the time I get it, Bush will be on trial somewhere so it will still be relevant.

    Pollster and RCP Electoral Maps (none / 0) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:30:54 AM EST
    This morning's electoral vote matchup from each site:

    Pollster Obama 320-155 with 7 tossup states (all Bush states in 2004)

    RCP Obama 313-158 with 6 tossup states (all Bush states in 2004)

    To have a New Deal... (none / 0) (#30)
    by marian evans on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:32:36 AM EST
    you need a New Dealer...and Sen Obama ,the DNC-preferred candidate, doesn't package himself as a Democrat, let alone a New Dealer.

    Where is the political will to push the New Deal agenda going to come from?

    The Obama campaign always seemed to me to have a little sign on the underside that said (in small print),"brought to you by the Bureau of the Single Idea" - the election of Sen Obama IS the central idea of the campaign.

    Now unless you're Nancy Pelosi, and think Sen Obama has been sent by God (maybe those of you in the reason-based end of the Dem community could ask Richard Dawkins to pop into the legislature for a little visit - I'm sure he'd be delighted to help out), then you're going to want something a little more substantial in the policy department.

    Clinton, Franken (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    and I'm not sure who else.

    Fat lady and fat chance (none / 0) (#34)
    by koshembos on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:44:48 AM EST
    Obama leads and will probably win. Yet, three weeks is a very long time in politics, so stating the elections are over is not recommended. We can afford to wait.

    The likelihood of Obama starting something a keen  to a new deal is slim and none. He'll take the safe, outrageous and unhelpful middle the road.

    It's over (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    WE think we need a New Deal-what does Obama think? (none / 0) (#40)
    by jawbone on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:04:19 AM EST
    We see a need to reinforce and complete the programs of the New Deal and even LBJ--adding Carter's alternative energy initiative. What does Obama really think about that?

    Obama talks part of a good game--then undercuts it with comments to private fundraisers by saying he won't be able to enact some expensive programs, like healthcare and some education spending.

    Who knows what Obama thinks about a new New Deal? And how will he do that given that he thinks SocSec needs "fixing"? Medicare?

    Who will get him to see we need a New Deal? According to a post by Lambert, Obama's taken time to call the Blue Dog Dems--what about the Democratic wing of the Democractic Party?

    Voters, it's 20 days until you vote: Do you really know where your candidate stands?

    Here's the comment about the HuffPo report that (none / 0) (#46)
    by jawbone on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    Obama said he would have to forego some programs. Partial quote:

    As 250 major donors ate beet salad and mahi-mahi under a huge tent, Obama seemed to look ahead to his first term as president.

    He may have made actual news about actual policy:

    "We're going to have to make some priorities, we're going to have to cut some things out," he said, referring to expensive goals such as improving health care, schools and college affordability.

    But, on a happier note (heh), he did mention the Democratic Party! Even said it was his own party! A breakthrough, as he did not use the words "Democrat" or "Democratic Party" at all in the second debate!

    "I'm going to be in some fights with my own Democratic Party in getting some of that done," he said.

    So, he speaks of increased education loans--then he says he may have to fight his own party to make sure there isn't such a program.

    Will the real Obama please stand up?


    Florida (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:14:10 AM EST
    Two new polls released this morning in Florida.

    InsAdv/PollPos Obama +4
    DataMar         Obama +5

    That makes 8 consecutive polls out of the Sunshine State giving Obama a lead.

    Somebody (none / 0) (#47)
    by OldCity on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    want to realistically define New Deal?  It is, after all, 2008.

    I'm not being insulting either.  What do you mean?  What kind of New Deal?  What sort of inititives should the government be part of?  

    Let's also not forget that the rather large war we were in had a role to play in recovery, too.

    So, what, really, do you mean?  More importantly, what do you think is possible?

    Here is an important SUSA poll: (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 10:49:51 AM EST
    SUSA NC: Hagan v. Dole

    North Carolina Democrat Hagan in Fierce Fight to Take-Away Republican Dole's US Senate Seat: In an election for US Senator from North Carolina today, incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole and Democratic challenger Kay Hagan finish effectively even, 44% Dole, 43% Hagan, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WTVD-TV Raleigh. Libertarian Chris Cole, gets 7% today, which, when combined with 5% of voters who tell SurveyUSA they are undecided in the US Senate contest, means that 1 in 8 voters today vote for neither Dole nor Hagan.
    Dole leads among men, among whites, among middle-aged voters and in Southern and Coastal NC. The contest is effectively even in greater Charlotte, greater Greensboro and greater Raleigh. Hagan leads among women, among seniors, among blacks, among pro-choice voters, among Moderates and among Independents. SurveyUSA models black turnout at 20% in this poll. If black turnout is higher, Hagan will outperform these numbers.

    And the Presidential Race:

    100K NC Blacks May Determine the Next President, the Governor of NC, and whether Democrats Have a Filibuster-Proof Senate: Black turnout is key to forecasting not just who gets North Carolina's 15 electoral votes, but also whether the state elects a Democratic Governor and whether the state contributes a critical take-away to the Democratic effort to get to 60 Senators in Washington DC. McCain today leads 2:1 among whites. Obama leads 17:1 among blacks. In SurveyUSA's model, blacks are 20% of the North Carolina electorate. However: If black turnout increases, with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket, from approximately 750,000 NC black voters to 850,000 NC black voters, it is possible that Obama wins North Carolina's 15 electoral votes, that Kay Hagan defeats Elizabeth Dole in the US Senate contest, and that Beverly Perdue defeats Pat McCrory in the North Carolina Governor's race. See the SurveyDNA<sup>TM</sup> brand hypothetical data set that gives you an exclusive window into how things change with slightly larger black turnout.

    Fortunately, I agree with many that if Obama wins NC, he's got a landslide, and it's not a necessary state.  But I think it will be an interesting state in terms of the Senate and in terms of turnout and possibly voter issues (will some people be working overtime to shutdown black turnout?  probably).  Andgarden, maybe you have some comment on the black turnout issue (IIRC, you have said SUSA consistently underestimates black turnout this year).

    Today's rumor... (none / 0) (#51)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    ...is that the NRSC is pulling out of the Senatorial race in Colorado.  

    "With party strategists fearing a bloodbath at the polls, GOP officials are shifting to triage mode, determining who can be saved and where to best spend their money."

    Good for us (fewer TV ads to be annoyed with/effectively putting Schaffer out of the race), but bad for the more competative races around the country.  

    "Among the challenges for Schaffer is that the roiling political landscape is also forcing Republican backers to triage resources, scurrying to protect vulnerable incumbents at the cost of open seats like Colorado's.
    After together spending nearly $2 million in Colorado Senate ads in the last two weeks of September, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Freedom's Watch - two of Schaffer's biggest backers - suddenly pulled out.

    Those two groups are now spending millions in Senate races in Oregon and North Carolina, where Republican incumbents are at risk..."
    --Denver Post

    Is this another rendition of the (none / 0) (#54)
    by WS on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:30:11 AM EST
    "firewall" strategy from 2006?  I hope it works as "well" for the Repubs as it did in 2006.  

    I really want Alaska put away in the D camp but so much is riding on a conviction.  Can Begich still win with a Stevens acquittal?  


    Certainly seems that way. (none / 0) (#58)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:44:45 AM EST
    I wouldn't mind if the NRSC continued to throw good money after bad here though.  

    But, I guess even they know what a lousy candidate they are running--and what a complete tool Dick Wadhams is as the State GOP chair/Schaffer campaign manager.  


    Ohio isn't GOP-friendly either. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    Zach Space won because the GOP ex-incumbent had a term to serve in prison.

    This year, the GOP thought OH-18 would be up for grabs, but it doesn't look likely.

    Note:  Partly due to a corruption problem in state government, Ohio swung Democratic in 2006.  The state legislature is still Republican, but Democrats made significant gains.  It looks as though those gains may be long term.


    New CNN polls: (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    A new CNN/Time Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation survey in Virginia released Wednesday indicates that Barack Obama holds a 10 point lead over McCain, 53 percent to 43 percent among likely voters.

    [. . .]

    It's a similar story in Colorado, a state that hasn't voted for a Democrat in the race for the White House in 16 years. The new poll indicates Senator Obama, D-Illinois, holds a 4 point edge over McCain, 51 percent to 47 percent.

    And in Georgia, a state that President Bush won by 17 points over Kerry 4 years ago and that hasn't voted for the Democrats in a presidential contest in 16 years, the poll suggests a much narrower single digit lead for Senator McCain, R-Arizona, 53 percent to 45 percent.

    [. . .]

    The poll also indicates Obama has a five point advantage over McCain in Florida, 51 percent to 46 percent. Twenty-seven electoral votes are up for grabs in Florida. President Bush took the state by five points in the last election.

    In Missouri, which President Bush won in the past two presidential contests, the new poll suggests it's basically a dead heat, with McCain holding a slim one point advantage over Obama, 49 percent to 48 percent.

    Then Florida will move out of the tossups (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    again tomorrow on RCP -- back to "leans blue."  It will be interesting to see if it remains so volatile (or as volatile as polls suggest).

    The Canadian election should serve (none / 0) (#70)
    by BrianJ on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    As a warning for Obama backers-  the Conservatives performed right at the top of their range due to the lowest ever turnout.  This is the scenario I envision for a confused and dismayed American electorate-  and this race is not over yet.

    So, what's your leverage, Armando? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Caro on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 05:33:32 AM EST
    We can't get a new New Deal without leverage.

    You've already said you won't withhold your vote.  What else is there?

    Carolyn Kay