home

Polls Obama Likes . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:06:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ipsos/McClatchy (10/2-6) has Obama up 7, 47-40.

Gallup has Obama up 11, 52-41, the biggest lead he has had in the entire campaign in the Gallup poll.

I'll say it, Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< When Obama Agrees With McCain . . . | Biden Pushes Back >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Polls Obama Likes . . . | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The real 50 state strategy (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Melchizedek on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    was always to make the kind of inroads that we're going to see this October. McCain having to send Palin to Nebraska, suddenly panicking about Virginia, losing steady ground in Georgia and Mississippi, having to worry for a while about North Dakota, and even (before Palin) about ALASKA. As Al Giordano commented recently, now Arizona will be more interesting. Indiana? No one's scoffing about Obama's offices there now, are they?

    Yes, you can take the worst of the Obamabots ("We're going to win all 50 states!!") as the true representation of the strategy, but that was never the truth.

    You had a point here, BTD:
    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/2/15414/25156

    But things are a little more complicated now, and what people thought possible is a little different too.

    As much as some complained (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    about the 50 state strategy, you are correct in that it's purpose was a bottom up campaign to get more people involved at every level. The benefits will show not just in the Presidential race but also, as we are now seeing, in the Senate races in red states (KY, GA, MS, VA, AK)

    House races due to gerrymandered districts are a much tougher nut to crack but selective placement of campaign offices can help in that regard also. Write off no state before the campaign starts and your ground game is far superior come election day by having many more people involved and ultimately getting more Dems in office top to bottom.

    Parent

    I don't quite agree with what you say. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    The 50 state strategy is to build (through the DNC) the party by precinct.  This is the actual 50 state strategy:

    The Democratic Party is hiring organizers chosen by the state parties in every state -- experienced local activists who know their communities.
    We bring those organizers together for summits where they can learn from each other the best practices for getting organized to win elections.
    Armed with the knowledge they've shared with each other, Democratic organizers return to the states and recruit and train leaders at the local level.
    Those local leaders recruit more leaders and volunteers until every single precinct in their area has a trained, effective organization of Democrats dedicated to winning votes for Democrats.

    This effort is separate from any Presidential campaign.

    In late August, the Obama camp was saying "all we care about is these 18 states."  It is, all in all, good that they pulled out of Georgia, for instance.  PA, OH, FL and VA are still where the action's at.  The only state you wrote about that matters is VA.  

    I don't know why McCain is sending Palin to Nebraska.  Maybe the audience is receptive there.  

    I am glad that Obama has invested in many states.  I am glad he has more money than he knows what to do with.  I am glad he is inspiring people in all those states.  And I am glad that his canvassers promote downticket candidates too.

    But I still think it is important to consider the 50 state strategy as an independent thing, because to promote ground-up party growth, you've got to work from what is truly the ground up and local.  Helping local parties by the Presidential campaign is still a bit top-down, and certainly a transient method of partybuilding.

    I do think his GOTV efforts are awesome though.  We will have a lot of registrations to work with.

    Parent

    Nebraska (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:19:40 PM EST
    Is because its one of the states that selects electors by congressional district and Obama has a legitimate shot at NE-2 (which is only one EV, but would not only help, but also symobolically would be a great legitamizer for Obama- He'd win in the heart of the heartland, it'd be really hard to make the "Barack doesn't have the support of real Americans crack, when the center of the map has a dollop of blue.")

    Parent
    you make good sense (none / 0) (#53)
    by kenosharick on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 03:55:42 PM EST
    if the entire strategy is centered around Barack Obama, then it crumbles the next election when he is not on the ballot.

    Parent
    I don't think the 50 State Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:10:47 PM EST
    was initially set up around Obama but rather by Howard Dean and Rahm Emanuel in putting Dems in every contest on the map and then supporting them as much as possible through the DNC. I know there are some that didn't like their particular leanings in the Presidential primaries, but the strategy to contest every race has (Mark Foley & Tom DeLay) and will keep paying dividends.


    Parent
    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:16:09 PM EST
    More Dean than Emanuel. Rahm came around late but still deserves some credit for how far we have progressed..

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#60)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:40:41 PM EST
    it is something that predates Obama and doesn't really have anything to do with his presidential election.

    It is important to have organizations outside the presidential elections that can push to the left local issues and regional matters.  Take Prop 8 for instance.  Obama's people probably don't want to make a huge deal about Prop 8 (I could be wrong - anybody?) - but the local DNC, with grassroots effort, could do a good job of getting people in their areas to rally against it.  Although advocacy groups are probably playing a larger role in the fight against Prop 8 than the local party orgs are.

    Parent

    Doesn't the gallop poll reflect the overall (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    population preferences?  Doesn't this mean that the blue states are simply more blue?  Or does it reflect some purpling of the red states?

    I would have more confidence in these polls (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by patriotgames on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    if I knew they were not skewed by polling more Democrats than Republicans...

    We would all have more confidence. . . (1.00 / 0) (#61)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:18:39 PM EST
    in your posts if

    1. you weren't a troll and

    2. you understood how the party preference question on political surveys works.


    Parent
    That reflects reality (none / 0) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:22:13 PM EST
    There are more Dems than Republicans, 2004,1994, 1984 were the only elections in recent times where it was even close in party preference otherwise Dems have at least 4% edge (in 2006 it was 6% I believe).

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#1)
    by zvs888 on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    That Gallup poll number is absolutely insane.

    +11 is mindboggling at this point in the race; I can't recall a lead that big in October since perhaps Bill Clinton over Bob Dole...

    (Apologies about the language in the other thread).

    Since Gallup in not Party ID weighted, (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:09:00 PM EST
    it seems to pick up party ID shifts faster, or is just more volatile in general.
    I believe that is correct (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:16:57 PM EST
    And I think not weighting by party is exactly the right way to go. But I've been round and round about this with people before.

    Parent
    If history is any guide (none / 0) (#3)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:09:42 PM EST
    this is going to get really really ugly for McCain.

    If the polls get out of hand he faces a real risk of demoralized voters skipping the election.

    If that happens a high 300 EV for Obama could occur.

    I predicted 312 for Obama on the Washington Post (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:37:09 PM EST
    contest page.  This was a few days ago but I still stand by my prediction.

    Parent
    I think it's either 318 or 338 (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    Because I think Florida is a better be than Ohio.

    Parent
    I'm thinking my number is low because of what (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    has happened in VA since I put my prediction out there.  But we never know what shenanigans will take place with the vote counting.  Seems the R's always find a way to steal some away.

    Parent
    And my entry is at .. (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    354

    About twenty times saying "my friends" and that awkward smile has me seeing McCain as Jack Nicholson in The Shining.

    Could it go as high as 381?

    Parent

    not sure about 381 (none / 0) (#46)
    by wystler on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    but 376 seems doable

    Parent
    I'm thinking (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:53:59 PM EST
    We are looking at the same map. Would love to see a recent poll out of West Virginia. The last one was before the first debate. Whether there was an Obama bounce there also is still unknown at this point.

    Parent
    if WVa flips ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by wystler on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    ... i'd expect that 400+ is a possibility. AR, MT, LA and SC could also show up

    Parent
    I am trying to recall (none / 0) (#5)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM EST
    the reasons why Dole closed the gap with Clinton so much in the closing weeks, and whether they have any applicability to this year.

    Parent
    Undecideds break against the incumbent (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:14:51 PM EST
    Turnout was low as the election was in the bag.

    Parent
    Will McCain=Bush (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Faust on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    give McCain an "incumbent effect?"

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    2004 kind of debunked the "incumbent effect," so it may or may not exist any longer.

    Parent
    I think the "party identity" effect (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:04:57 PM EST
    outranks the incumbent effect. The preception is:

    Dems are good in economic crises
    GOP are good when foreign policy is the main deal

    Even Kerryy, with all his metals and combat experience, could not change that, and IMccain is not going to change it either, even though he has some Maverick left in him.

    Parent

    I blame Kerry for that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:26:03 PM EST
    I think it still exists.

    Parent
    Not Osama bin Laden? (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:33:08 PM EST


    Parent
    I sort of remember (none / 0) (#25)
    by Lil on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    Kerry looking ashen after the Bin Laden tape and didn't offer a lot of comfort for folks who needed to see bravery on his face.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#16)
    by Faust on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    I think the "incumbent effect" seems like something that could crop up at any time. I'm sort of talking out of you know where here, but it seems to me that if an incumbent effect is going to arise, it will be at the end of the most unpopular presidency in American history. Now as to whether or not it sticks to McCain when the undecideds break I dunno. Once could argue that in a sense what we are seeing with the massive recent shift to Obama IS a kind of incumbent effect coupled with the traditional strength of the dem brand on the issue of the economy.

    Parent
    I think so (none / 0) (#31)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    party identity is a powerful thing.

    Parent
    Just standard poll ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    tightening.

    It was still a big win for Clinton.  Clinton 379, Dole 159.  And almost a 9% lead in the popular vote.

    Parent

    It was a strong reelection (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:21:51 PM EST
    but all we heard from the Republicans (and, annoyingly, from Obama supporters during this year's primary) was that Clinton never hit 50%, so I guess he didn't have a mandate.

    If Obama achieves a Clinton-like result in this election I wonder what the GOP spin will be.  In 1992 it was Perot, in 1996 it was the failure to hit 50%, in 2006 it was the notion that we only won by running a bunch of conservative Democrats...

    Parent

    The national popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    for the 2006 House election was

    Democrats 52%
    Republicans 44%

    If Obama matches that, he'll be golden.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:29:13 PM EST
    but I'm talking about the spin war, not whether you or I agree that he has a mandate.

    More important than what the GOP says is whether the Democrats are willing to act aggressively to claim a mandate this time.  Remember Bush in 2004?  "I earned political capital in this campaign, and now I intend to spend it."  Claim a mandate, spend it on something more intelligent than privatizing Social Security, and you may actually get some good things out of the deal.

    Parent

    Well, Democrats DID claim a mandate (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    in 2006, and everyone accepted it.

    Then Bush resisted a tiny bit on ending the war, and the Democrats folded.

    Parent

    ignore tactical fact at your peril (none / 0) (#47)
    by wystler on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:33:45 PM EST
    the GOP had two weapons left after the last mid-term: control of the executive branch, and the ability to lock down the Senate through filibuster.

    they used it. strongly.

    neither could have worked if they didn't have back-up from the other.

    Parent

    Having followed the whole thing very closely (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    I take offense at your suggestion that I am ignoring "tactical fact."

    The Dems always had the trump card of controlling appropriations.

    Parent

    good point. (none / 0) (#50)
    by coigue on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:50:57 PM EST
    Some of those strong tactics I wish OUR side would use for OUR causes.

    Parent
    The spin war in 2000 (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:46:33 PM EST
    by the Republicans was that mandates are unimportant, just 50 percent plus one is all that is necessary to govern "correctly", and shortly thereafter, it all began--more arsenic in the drinking water, goodbye Kyoto......

    Parent
    Perot ran in '96 as ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    well, and got 8.4% of the vote.

    Parent
    I think they'll argue. . . (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    that he only won because he's black.

    Parent
    Immaterial (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    Obama won't claim a mandate even if he hits 60%, not for any policy anyway.  He may claim a mandate for "a new kind of politics", whatever that means anymore.

    Parent
    Or a Sally Field mandate: (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    "You like me!  You really like me!"

    Parent
    SPin gets even harder (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:24:13 PM EST
    If Obama picks up NE-2, its only one EV but given its location its like a stake through "heartland" of GOP spin.

    Parent
    The top number of 52% ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    is very important too.

    This is the peak I was looking for.  Since these numbers are bound to slide down in the next few weeks.

    I'll guess that McCain will go in the 30's (none / 0) (#13)
    by magster on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    given the demoralization evident in the right-wing blogs last night.

    I love how those snap polls have sucked all the post-debate BS from the McCainiacs.

    Parent

    That Gallup poll is awesome (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:15:48 PM EST
    Combined with PPP's confirmation of the significant lead in Virginia, this race is looking more over than ever.

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#24)
    by Lahdee on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    in the latter case the statement was made by a blithering idiot who has no basis in reality.

    I said it months ago. (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:57:17 PM EST
    I'll say it, Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
    And it only took a once ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    in a century financial crisis to do it.


    Parent
    Oh come on, (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:15:41 PM EST
    aren't you impressed by my obvious intellectual might when I say "I told you so?"

    If you say no, my ego will conclude that you're not being truthful.

    Parent

    Heh ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    points for self-deprecation.

    ;)

    Parent

    It's over (none / 0) (#34)
    by wurman on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    Big Tent is absolutely correct & there's a good corollary: McCain will run out of money & he's stuck with what's in the public funding trough.  The rethuglican fat cats will not pony up (via the RNC & the 527s) for an obviously losing ticket.

    The RNC will play other games such as the current voter registration & voter fraud & voter identification schemes that seems to entertain their "audiences."

    McCain/Palin is as whupped as Goldwater/Miller.

    Requiem æternam dona eis

    GOP has already moved on (none / 0) (#48)
    by wystler on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 02:38:17 PM EST
    the new game: focus on capturing control of the 2011 reapportionment process by taking a firm grip on state-level politics.

    don't think so? check the legislatures' make-up in 1981, 1991 & 2001 again.

    when y'all are done with that, find a state legislative race where your help can make a difference between now and the next mid-term. (of course, if you're in a purple state, no problem working a higher agenda for Nov. 4)

    Parent

    Reading BTD's posts and listening to McCain now (none / 0) (#38)
    by magster on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    I think McCain is going to go Huckabee on us (economic populism + cultural warrior).  Might have worked if McCain had voted against bailout. This might be the new GOP formula after they get their butts kicked next month, letting the Dems become the new home for corporate sleaze.

    Enough lead for a "conscience vote"? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jawbone on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    Are we at the point where, in Congress, leadership would free the members to "vote their consciences?"

    Polls Obama Likes . . . | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment