Gallup Daily Tracking Poll: Statistical Dead Heat

Barack Obama and John McCain are in a statistical dead heat according to the Daily Gallup tracking poll. Why? Seems to me to be the high number of undecideds combined with those who won't vote for either.

Although the margin between Obama and McCain is now similar to what it was in the last few weeks of the Democratic primary race, the structure of the race looks slightly different than at any other time this year as a result of the relatively high percentage of voters -- 15% -- not favoring either major-party candidate. This includes 7% of voters who say they are undecided and 8% who say they will not vote for either candidate (including 1% who volunteer they will vote for another specific candidate).

....As a result, the percentages of Americans now supporting Obama and McCain are near the lowest seen for either candidate since Gallup Poll Daily tracking on the Obama-McCain matchup started in early March, and well below the high of 48% achieved by each at them at various times.

< Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | Reasons to Fear Increasing Taser Abuse in NYC >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, that was some bounce. (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:06:31 PM EST
    By the way, Kerry and Edwards have not ruled out the VP spot.  Sad.

    I thought I read that Edwards said no to VP (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:12:58 PM EST
    Has he said something since then to change this?

    Selecting Kerry for VP would be a sure way for Obama to quash the elitist meme.


    The Yahoo Headline says: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:17:43 PM EST
    "Edwards won't rule out run as VP"

    Kerry wouldn't rule it out a couple of days ago.  Pathetic.


    Kerry as VP choice would be hilarious. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:21:30 PM EST
    The original swiftboat smearers are still out there.
    Ya know, I was kind of hoping he would sue their pants off for libel after the election, but no, he's left their smears accepted as fact by millions.

    Edwards would also be hysterical. (4.50 / 2) (#15)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    I won't say why.  I'll just say there I see a smililarity between Edwards and Obama.

    well, (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by sancho on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    edwards did finish in second place in the primary--second place man, that is. same as last time so why wouldnt he be vp choice again?

    if they pick edwards, i'd think many hillary supporters would be furious.


    Not me (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    I'd be laughing my a** off.

    No disrespect to Edwards, of course!


    Something you won't say, or something (none / 0) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    you can't articulate?
    I'm curious---I don't see them as particularly similar.

    Oh, I can articulate it. (none / 0) (#20)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:25:08 PM EST
    I bet you can! (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    Very well, I feel sure. ;-)

    Hmm.. I guess you won't say. (none / 0) (#24)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:26:27 PM EST
    I'm really curious.

    me too, mums the word n/t (none / 0) (#25)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    soem sort fo gay thing? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    Is that teh point you are making?  They look a bit glamourous together.  I'd advise Edwards to keep away from this ticket though. It's pure madness to run Obama after all the revalations.  Edwards would also have to turninto a vicious pitbull in the campaign. They are both compatrable message wise though.

    They could go very aggressively into the south this time round

    You could create a black and southern white reconcilliation.  The media would eat that up.


    Gay thing? (none / 0) (#155)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST

    Are You... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:10:11 PM EST
    really Ann Coulter?

    When you see people titter (none / 0) (#202)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    off in a corner about something vague you have to wonder what the hell they mean.

    Personally I'd like to see Obama get a southern guy on the ticket--and make sure he's unleashed to campaign in that region.  I personally think Edwards would have been the best nominee.

    BTD's attempt to unify with Clinton on the ticket? I read that as an attempt to cool off the anger he was seeing among the Clinton supporters here.

    Unless BTD was thinking have Bill run around in the south for him and have Cliton stake out teh rust belt while Obama full presses into Colorado and Iowa, I didn't see it as all that sincere or reality based (given the very real HATE that Obama's main backers have for Clinton.)

    It's best not to smirk about why Edwards would be a bad pick and simply say why.  Then there is no speculation about meaning.


    Obama/Edwards ticket (none / 0) (#72)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:57:42 PM EST
    would get the Live Journal fangurl base.  I hear tell they write slash fiction pairing Obama and Edwards.

    Bwaaa! (none / 0) (#86)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:07:46 PM EST
    That's so true.

    I don't think Obama would be wise to pick either member of the losing 2004 ticket.  It's not a winning message.  Besides, Kerry projects elitism from every pore and, well, picking Edwards would be just picking the male, yet decidedly less succesful and less experienced, version of Clinton.  


    yet Edwards has been thru a national campaign. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    Nothing embarrassing about him came out during the process. So it's a safe enough pick.  Not my suggestion that he ought to be picked o'course but there are positives.  If he's allowed a budget and set to the south he could do McCain all sorts of damage.

    The statement I heard from Edwards (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    the other day was unequivocal.  There is no statement a pol can make that Da Media will deem to have "ruled out" anything.

    That said, any politician who is under heavy pressure from the presidential nominee to take the VP slot is going to have to consider it.

    I can say I have absolutely no intention of voting for Obama, but Yahoo would immediately claim that I hadn't "ruled out" voting for Obama.  And that would actually be true because I have no idea what unexpected thing/s might happen between now and the time I go to vote in November.

    Nobody with any honesty can "rule out" what they will or won't do or think in the future.  It's silly.


    This morning on This Week (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    He backed off from an absolute NO.

    Bowling balls have more bounce (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by DaleA on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    This is really shocking. Wonder who the 8% that won't vote for either is?

    I'm one of those (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    Can't bring myself to vote for either.

    Me too. (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 8) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:27:25 PM EST
    may have discovered her niche market. She has cornered the "none of the above" voters. LOL!

    Knitters n/t (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:22:30 PM EST
    ROFLMAO! (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    bitter knitters (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    Talk about a great t-shirt (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    "Bitter Knitter". I'm actually considering learning to knit. I think I did something when I was a teenager, but it was pretty pitiful. I can at least crochet a potholder, but "bitter crocheter" doesn't have the same style.

    Me three, plus a knitter n/t (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    I'm part of the 8%. n/t (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:22:44 PM EST
    Me, too! (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    And my husband three.  And our daughter, four.

    LOL!!! What a great analogy! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM EST
    almost everyone I know in VA, PA, WV, KY, and MD (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:29:14 PM EST
    are part of the 8%. Just anecdotal of course, but just saying.

    I'm in one of those states, and I don't think (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    I've met a single person who was a swing voter who said they would vote for Obama over McCain, while i met many people who said they would easily vote for Clinton over McCain.

    Me too in FL (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    To be clear, I have met many (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    strong Obama supporters... but it's the swing voters and swing states that are going to determine the magnitude of Obama's historic, landslide victory in November.

    you'd think the geniuses (none / 0) (#176)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:01:12 PM EST
    at eh DNC would decalre right now that they will reform the primary process in such a way that it produces the optimum Democrat for  half a dozen or so swing states like Mich, Ohio, Penn, Missouri.

    We 'd rarely lose the presidency if such a reform were enacted.


    oh yea, should have said (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    all of them would vote for Clinton over McCain.

    and dems are upset with Lieberman.... (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:14:19 PM EST
    as he disses obama...what did they expect?



    This is too funny! (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    I read about Obama and Lieberman's conversation in the Senate.  

    I guess Lieberman is showing them that he won't be pushed around.  Good for him!  What does "Independent" mean?  


    Matt Stoller on Wash Journal today (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:51:02 PM EST
    A woman caller identified herself as a Dem who will not vote for Obama. Obamabot Stoller dismissed her concerns about Obama, claiming she was really a Republican.
    Oh, and Stoller claimed Obama immediately distanced himself from Wright and Johnson when controversies about them arose.

    And Dems bashed Bush for "creating his own reality"?!?


    Obama running on his own is different (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    ... than Obama running against Hillary and smartly smacking around easy targets. The little MSM I've tuned in that's not still actively taking their whacks seem lost and bored now.

    I couldn't care less. Club Obama got their way and now they have to bring it. Their message and methods are unfocused gas.


    The MSM is waiting... (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    for the convention to make it official. Then they will open up on Obama. They can't do it until then because if they make him look unelectable, the SDs might switch to Hillary. And she can win against the GOP. So don't look for anything bad about Obama until after the convention. Then he should put on body armor, because they will get out the big guns. And he has given them so much ammo with his past associations that it will be like shooting fish in a barrel. I can't wait to see what the Obamablogs' reactions are to the onslaught. They will all get carpal tunnel syndrome trying to refute the 527's and the GOP news outlets. They won't be able to, but  they will try.

    Funny... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:27:14 PM EST
    Ive met many swing voters who're leaning towards Obama.  Guess anecdotal evidence doesnt amount to much.

    McCain is working for Hillary voters (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    Obama is working for Republican evangelicals and Indys.

    NoQuarter -


    obama's next bounce may be on the way (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:11:53 PM EST
    out of the nomination.

    I'm surprised (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    I thought he'd get more out of it than this.

    I guess he needed all of those primaries to keep him in the news and give him a purpose for the big campaign events.


    I don't mind Kerry being VP (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:48:11 PM EST
    but I would really Edwards to be AG.

    I'd like a lawyer with a record on (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    behalf of upholding the U.S. Constitution and a reputation for being tough and firm.  

    Got some names to share? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:06:49 PM EST
    After I wrote that, I thought, now who (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    fits that description:  BTD!

    Pathetic (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    All the excitement is gone.  They got what they wanted, and we still have two guys, two, mediocre guys, slamming each other trying to prove something.  I don't know what, but the thrill is gone.  One, is demi on our side, one is demi on the other side.  Ho, hum.  Euro Soccer cup is way more interesting.  

    Definately, the Euro soccer cup (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:20:09 PM EST
    is more interesting.  A friend put it this way.  She said she hadn't realized her only interest in the race was Hillary.  And, now it's down to two boring guys who hopefully will have the courtesy of wearing different colored suits so we can tell them apart.  

    Euro Soccer is fine, but (none / 0) (#80)
    by mg7505 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    The NBA Finals have me hooked.

    I think it's going to be a long, boring summer. When do the debates start? At least that will provide some quasi-substance. More likely than not we'll just find out who the media darling REALLY is. I can't wait to watch these two race to praise Reagan.

    As long as politics is theatre, why not laugh?


    I wish they had a Clinton follow-up question (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    in that poll.  It would be interesting to see where her primary supporters landed.  My guess is a lot had to have landed in that 8% voting neither column.  I'm also intrigued by the static nature of Obama's support.  How do you reconcile that with all the shifting underneath the numbers?  Any poll-savvy types have any theories?

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:37:29 PM EST
    I think in the past most polling assumed the 'neithers' were mostly undecideds, in which case it's not worth surveying their reasons (at least not in daily tracking).

    But this year it would be interesting to see.  Also I'd love better breakdowns of the 'leaners'.


    They will probably wait a bit (5.00 / 6) (#197)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:15:21 PM EST
    Right now it's just too soon to really assess what is going on with Clinton's supporter's. Why spend money polling them when they probably haven't finished "grieving" (btw, if we were talking about men instead of women, the line would be "when they haven't decided which candidate to vote for in the general election - grief would have nothing to do with it - we know that men vote with their heads, not their hearts, right?).

    Isn't this a period in time when all (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    of America is supposed to be ga-ga over the new Dem "candidate"?  I mean he vanquished a nasty opponent and the only things standing in the way of HOPE and CHANGE is an old man.

    What's up?

    Maybe they have gone from (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:27:17 PM EST
    ga-ga to gag-gag. Heh.

    can we start over and get two other candidates (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:23:06 PM EST
    please. I know, how about the one dem candidate who actually... ok, I'll stop saying that here. :-) I think these numbers are telling. I seem to remember a recent poll that had a generic democratic candidate beating a generic republican candidate by nearly 20 points. It's dems year. This is really sad indeed.

    I don't know about these tracking polls though. I think they're kind of worthless. I bet the analysis by good polls is still Obama up by around 5pts. Still well below what it should be. Wonder if Obama being too afraid to debate McCain like he was about Clinton is having an effect. We'll see what happens after each convention and each VP pick. Some bounce on both sides I'm sure.

    Perhaps the refusal to do the town halls (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    is having an effect.  At least with Clinton Obama had the excuse that they had already had a lot of debates. I do think it looks bad when McCain is out there every day offering and Obama is refusing, or offering to do it on July 4th, which is a non-starter.

    I agree - I'm stunned at... (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    Obama saying he will only meet McCain once...and that's on the 4th of July when we will all be glued to the tube to see the event.

    Oh, wait, I forgot, I have other plans on July 4th and it doesn't include Barack Obama.


    It's amazing (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    to me that a 72 year old man is reaming a 47 year old on campaign stamina.

    That 72 year old... (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:26:23 PM EST
    ...has wanted to be President for almost as long as Obama has been alive. I was thinking that the age thing would kill McCain's campaign, until I read that McCain hiked the grand canyon - rim to rim - with his sons two years ago. I'm guessing that McCain figured that his age would be an issue, and wanted to put people at ease. It's a pretty smart move, actually. I don't even know a lot of people my age who could do that.

    Tracking polls are as good any any (none / 0) (#174)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    Actually, in a sense they are better. The fact that they call people every day means that they have a larger sample than a lot of one-shot polls. Any polls this are out are really meaningless except to take the temperature of the voting public. By election day everything will have changed - the 527's, both left and right wing, have barely started doing their thing.

    Help me out, Obama supporters: (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    when will we detect the coming landslide for Obama?

    tick...tick...tick...tick... (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    Perhaps Obamabots need to rachet up the Hillary hate to increase Obama's polling?
    Yeah - that'll work!

    Here ya go (2.00 / 0) (#111)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:18:30 PM EST
    FiveThirtyEight: 308.5 - 229.5

    Electoral-Vote: 304 - 221

    Looks like a landslide to me.


    Whew! And I thought he was going to lose (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    PA, OH, and MI.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM EST
    looks like you were wrong.

    Ohio is statistically tied (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    As is Michigan.  And this is just after Obama sealed the nomination



    Statistically tied you say? (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:27:24 PM EST
    The latest Ohio polls had Obama ahead by 9 and that was pre-Obama clinching.
    But looking at only the latest polls is dumb. 538 uses a complicated regression that takes into account tons of variables (polls, polls in nearby states, previous elections, party ID, ect, ect) to predict the winner of each state so things like a bounce from winning the nomination have little effect on the overall projection.
    It currently gives Obama a 62% of winning Ohio and 58% of winning Michigan.

    I'm predicting a landslide (none / 0) (#98)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:13:18 PM EST
    for "none of the above".

    Let's just hope that that's not the name of an actual person.


    Perhaps this dead cat bounce will (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    be followed by a Schrodinger's cat bounce----it MAY be there, but you cannot disturb the quantum state by actual measurement.

    It's been over a week. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by AX10 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:26:01 PM EST
    Obama should have had a sizable "bounce" in the polls at this time.  It has not happened.  Most likely, it won't.  It will be a close election this fall.  Don't be suprised to see 5-8% of the vote going to Barr, McKinney, and a possible HRC write-in campaign.

    LOL.. a Clinton write-in campaign might (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST
    hurt McCain more---it will keep former supporters who might for him away.

    When enough people get sick... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by citizen53 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    of the process, really, then maybe it will change.

    We are in need of more viable political parties.

    It starts with a candidate that will push for true campaign finance reform.

    I am not holding my breath.

    Rasmussen Daily Polling (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    Still has Obama up by 6 points, including 'leaners.'
    61% of voters say they will definitely vote for one or the other (36-31% Obama). 9% are neither defnites or leaners.

    Looking at the Gallup numbers, this is the second day in a row the two are statistically tied.

    On favorability ratings, McCain trails, but not by much, 2-3 points among most groups (except younger voters).  He is ahead with unaffiliated voters (which was a bit of a surprise to me) -- 55-51.

    Wonder How Much Larger That Unaffiliated (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    voter pool has gotten.  

    Rasmussen is using (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:38:59 PM EST
    a pretty high Democrat ratio in the model.  I wonder if that's changed....

    I believe that the polls will be slanted to show a (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    bias against Clinton on the ticket.

    Republicans control the pollsters and the only person Republicans are afraid of is Hillary.

    What the media (and big money) want:

    1.  Obama as the nominee.

    2.  Hillary not on the ticket.

    3.  "McCain wins!"    

    Karl Rove knows how to win elections.

    How bad would the numbers have to get (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    before they realize they need Hillary on the ticket? How many people do they think they can compensate for with new voters and high turnout?

    Interesting times....

    Obama gave a Father's Day (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    address at a Chicago church today.  Perhaps that will help his numbers.

    it was the greatest speech ever (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:50:57 PM EST
    about fathers. Kids will be reading about this in 100 years. It sent a tingle up my leg. Snark.

    No one has done more (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:51:55 PM EST
    for fatherhood than Barack Obama.

    LOL (none / 0) (#151)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST
    My Dad already said no, no, a thousand times no (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    But then he's a habitual pseudo-Repug and Demo come lately who fell hard for "La Clinton".

    No (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:39:47 PM EST
    but it's becoming more obvious to me everyday that he missed his calling. He should be an evangelical minister. He likes preaching to crowds etc. It's perfect for him.

    I'm a pretty darn loyal Democrat. (5.00 / 17) (#64)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    And I feel like Obama was shoved down my throat, while his apparatus systematically tried to tear down, and even paint as racist monsters, two of the politicians I respect most -- Bill and Hillary Clinton -- and denigrate everything they fought for in the 1990s.  These, after all, are battles that continue to be fought today.

    If a Democrat like me is going to have to hold his nose to vote for Obama, I can imagine what more independent-minded or conservative Democrats will do.

    In fact, I don't have to imagine.  Most of the Democrats in my very Democratic family will likely vote for McCain.

    Eventually, style and charisma (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Left of center on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:53:16 PM EST
    has to be followed by material and substance. Obama has proven himself to be an excellent motivational speaker/preacher, but not so much a great leader.

    I don't even give him credit for... (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:56:23 PM EST
    style or charisma.  

    Obama was a non-starter for me from Day One.

    And now that it's Day 1,000,000,000...he's even less of a non-starter...if that's possible.


    He's somewhere between Kerry and (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    Dukakis in both.

    Can't Say That I Was Ever Motivated By (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    Obama's speeches. Even in 04, I preferred Sharpton's speech because it had some substance to it.

    I was a Kool Aid drinker in 2004 (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    I remember watching Obama and thinking finally, finally, the Democrats have someone coming up the ranks who does not cause tears of boredom to run down my face every time they start talking.  Someone who can talk about democratic ideals without making me want to wince and rewrite their speeches for them.

    I would have shoved all of his supporters to the floor in my race to get to the front of the Dixie cup line.  Seriously.

    But then Massachusetts elected a new governor who ran on the same 'Hope and Change' platform as Obama, and I was 50/50 right up until the weekend before Super Tuesday.

    And now I'm in the 8% of Bitter Knitters.  Go figure.


    "Coming up the ranks" is the key (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:55:53 PM EST
    If he had spent more time coming up the ranks and learning a thing or two I would have been an enthusiastic supporter.

    I'm more practical about things like qualifications and ability than I am emotional about stirring speeches.

    I really think he and the DNC jointly have squandered what could have been a long and brilliant career for the short-term gain of defeating the Clintons.


    This is pretty typical of the kind of (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:01:01 PM EST
    person who is driving my "dumb" parents (who hold three graduate degrees, two from Ivy League universities, between them) to vote for John McCain.

    I should say this is the kind of (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:02:42 PM EST
    "attitude" or "rhetoric" that would turn off my parents and people like them.

    Polls vary from day to day (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    I know, but I find that large undecided/neither percentage quite interesting.  It certainly contradicts the meme being put out by the media that  Hillary supporters will fall in line for Obama.  Most will, probably, but even a few percentage points of holdouts could swing the election.  I don't recall back in 2000 or 2004 any Dems voting for Bush b/c they didn't like the Dem nominee.

    McCain is already courting these voters.  Whether or not it pays off, it's too early to tell, but I feel that Obama has painted himself into a corner by fueling his campaign with anti-Clinton sentiment and failing to reach out to Clinton supporters in any meaningful way.  I even wonder whether he will let her campaign for him.

    What makes you think "most will, (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM EST
    probably?"  I've been a politics geek for a long time.  I've never felt discontent like this among Dems, particularly not when the Repubs have held the WH for a long time.  No one was really a Kerry fan, but no dems I know didn't vote for him or ever threatened not to, and a lot of moderate repubs/Independents I know voted for him as a protest against Bush and his war.  No groundswell of anger, just disappintment in a bad candidate.  Those moderate repubs/Independents?  They are all quite happy with McCain.  Those dems?  There is fury against Obama -- absolute fury -- among women.  And among working class dems, there is out-and-out distrust.  I don't think either will dissipate, and it's more than a few percentage points, IMO.

    Please stop calling my parents and people (5.00 / 10) (#88)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:08:53 PM EST
    like them "dumb" or "stupid."  Can you get it through your thick mind that this type of labeling, typical of the Obama campaign, alienates people?

    Dismissing Appalachia as "racists," and saying the same about respectable Democrats, like Geraldine Ferraro, Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as two Democratic governors, is part and parcel with calling people "dumb" and "stupid."

    You need to "bone up" on respect and civility toward others.

    Could we please (5.00 / 11) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    put a moratorium on what McCain allegedly called his wife, at least until someone can link (or find a reference to) a solid source?  I haven't seen such a reference yet, and the constant repetition is getting old.

    On Roe, Obama nearly voted for Roberts, and was only thwarted by a staffer who pointed out it would not help his campaign.

    Soc Sec:  Obama's policies have flipped around a bit on privatization, this is not a strong point.

    Oil companies:  McCain voted against the Bush-Cheney energy bill, Obama voted for it.

    If you're going to try to frame those who support McCain as 'stupid' you'll likely not have a great deal more success than those who tried to paint those voting for Clinton as 'stupid'.

    I don't even care if there is a link. (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    I just don't want to hear it. And I don't care what Obama called his wife either, just in case there's some link to a story of Obama calling his wife a name. I DON'T CARE. If you can't talk about issues, then please keep quiet.

    (Obviously, this request is not directed at you, Valhalla.)


    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:31:59 PM EST
    That is what I should have said, actually.

    The People have spoken (and they're right). (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    It's a race to the bottom.

    As far as positions on issues, McCain has been everywhereover the map, and he'll alienate McCain voters as he settles into fixed positions.

    Obama, conversely, has been nowhere to be found, and he'll alienate Obama voters as he gets more specific.

    To the extent he adopted positions to differentiate himself form Hillary, he has already settle most of the way back to Hillary's positions (notably fixing social security and meeting with adversaries ... next, keep an eye on his health insurance mandate stance).

    At least twenty times (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:12:07 PM EST
    on various blogs, I have asked for evidence that that happened. I have still not received it.

    Evidence you wanted (none / 0) (#147)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:42:22 PM EST
    It is supposedly in the book "The Real McCain" written by Cliff Schecter.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:18:50 PM EST
    But that's not evidence.

    I appreciate it though.


    It was heresay evidence (none / 0) (#171)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    Nobody's on tape or anything.

    Schecter apparently needed something shocking to sell books.


    If you're smart, you'll start shilling for McCain (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    on here. It will have the effect you desire.

    Good Job (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    You are doing Obama proud and are a perfect example of the Obama campaign. Keep up the good work. I'm sure that Obama appreciates your efforts.

    Lose the attitude (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:17:59 PM EST
    and start telling us why we should vote for Obama, please.  Reasons that do not include 'because he's not McCain.'

    Precisely (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:52:01 PM EST
    On Crooks and Liars, which supports Obama, each day appears four or five stories about the evil one, McCain.

    It would be more helpful to their cause if they, and Obama's supporters who are popping up now, would extol some of his virtues instead of McCain's deficiencies.

    Personally, I think that's going to be a problem.

    Is he going to get us out of Iraq if elected?
    Don't tell me that McCain won't. I'm not voting for him.
    What is Obama going to do? Last I heard he was saying uh ... 2012 - maybe.

    The right to vote is precious. It is equally important to have someone to vote FOR. Right now, Obama is not that candidate.


    but demonizing the opponent is what worked in the (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:03:36 PM EST
    primaries. New politics and all that.

    Dudgeon? (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:19:33 PM EST
    Is that what they're calling doubts about Obama's record these days?  

    Some Obama supporters need to wake up and smell the latte.  He's got a teensy little problem with a slice of the electorate that could cost him in November.  It doesn't do any good to ignore it or condemn those who are considering other options.

    I remember similar comments on a progressive message board that I used to frequent back in 2004.  Anybody who criticized Kerry or raised questions about his electability was shouted down and called a "Freeper".  Well, we all know how that ended up, don't we?

    And it's 100X worse now.  It doesn't help you or your candidate to live in a bubble.  Problems exist.  If they're not dealt with, they will get worse.

    I don't know who (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:31:03 PM EST
    I'll be voting for, but I'm fairly certain I won't be voting for Obama.  I'll be weighing my options over the next several months.

    There are a variety of reasons to vote for McCain, or a 3rd party candidate, and I respect them, just as I respect Clinton supporters who are voting for Obama.  Voters are motivated by a variety of factors.  It's condescending and belittling (and does nothing to help your candidate) to presume to label and read the minds of voters who don't support him.


    Out of the loop (none / 0) (#145)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:40:55 PM EST
    ok, what's a 'freeper'?  (I'm obviously not hip)

    Freeper (none / 0) (#148)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    is a derogatory term for a conservative, a reader of "Free Republic".

    How about as a protest vote (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:20:04 PM EST
    to demonstrate that, first and foremost, you won't support a party that won't respect who you are as a person?

    OMFG (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST
    Go away.

    I'm not voting for him. (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    But my understanding is that they do not like his character or trust his judgment, based on among other things (1) his long-term affiliation with Rev. Wright; (2) his suggestions he would consider privatizing social security; (3) his campaign's above-mentioned race-baiting; (4) his failure to embrace universal health care.

    In other words, they don't know what he stands for after a campaign built on race-bating, "hope," "change" and the milestone of having our first African-American president.  They do not think he is a true progressive, and they think he is s stuffed shirt.

    Moreover, they are older and buy the idea that the "post-9/11" world needs a strong president.  They do not trust Obama to be tough or experienced enough to be President in that world.

    That's it.  After your incivility, it's more response than you deserve, and it's the last acknowledgment you get from me.

    Talk to the hand (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    Obnoxious bee.

    Telling you that you are doing a good job (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    is indignation? Don't you think that you are doing a good job representing your candidate? If you do, then why would you think my comment was anything less than a compliment? If not, then why would you go on line and go out of your way to do your candidate harm?

    Not a McCain supporter (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:34:17 PM EST
    But you're on a roll with your arrogant assumptions about everyone, so please don't stop now!

    and this is before (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:35:08 PM EST
    the repub 527's start chiming in. yeah, sen. obama is a real slam dunk for the dems.

    is it too late for pat paulson to jump in? yeah, i know he's still dead, but he'd still be a better candidate than a live sen. obama.

    Wouldn't Be The First Time That Voters (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:01:33 PM EST
    in MO elected a dead candidate over a live one. I could vote for Paulson.

    Hey, looky here (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:34:29 PM EST
    He's still running for President, even from the Great Beyond.

    "His consistency has been amazing," notes Mark Soifer, Doo Dah Parade co-founder. "He ran in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 when he beat Ross Perot in the North Dakota primary. In 1996, he finished second to Bill Clinton in New Hampshire. Now he's returned from the Great Beyond in an attempt to haunt the Oval Office.

    "I'm pleased as punch to have been named New Jersey Campaign Manager by Noma Paulsen," says Soifer. "The Doo Dah Board of Governors believes that Pat's ghost can bring a refreshing, humorous approach to the present campaign.

    Paulsen has a solid platform, said Soifer. Here are two of his ideas:

    On Foreign Aid: We should ask every country in the world to send us whatever they can.

    On Taxes: No taxes. Let's just tip the government 15% if they do a good job.

    And so it goes. You gotta love this guy's logic dead or alive.

    The Doo Dah/Paulsen Campaign headquarters has Paulsen "United We Sit" buttons, bumper stickers and posters. Paulsen's 2008 slogans include: "Pat Paulsen in `08, Dead Man Running", "Pat Paulsen in `08, Thinking Inside the Box", and "Pat Paulsen in `08, Never Say Die!"

    but... but... (5.00 / 9) (#140)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:37:52 PM EST
    kevin drum said...

    I can't laugh--just can't. (5.00 / 9) (#149)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    Ha! (5.00 / 10) (#172)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:58:06 PM EST
    I wonder if that is the shortest time BTD has ever had to wait to win a bet like that.

    One (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    word: respect. Obama doesn't respect the voters. It's probably his fatal flaw.

    Now you have an inkling how the (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    primaries felt for Clinton supporters---to think that DEMOCRATS voted for that man? It was more than enraging. I'm not going to go there, in fact, because I'm over the primaries. Are  you?

    Take your act to a factory at quitting time (5.00 / 7) (#164)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    And see how many votes your ridiculous attitude wins from those dummies too.

    Insulting people whose support you need pretty much settles any doubt over who's the idiot in the discussion.

    SCOTUS, Congress, downticket races are all your responsibility now.

    So you're saying you're not a Hunny Bee then? (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    Gosh, you'd think the "brilliant" campaign strategists would have sent one of those instead.

    Presumably you can buzz off and advise them on it.

    "If they really are Democrats" (5.00 / 6) (#178)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:02:08 PM EST
    You'll have to explain to me what constitutes a "real Democrat".  Does it mean that you toe the line to vote for someone whose campaign you detested -- who labeled the other candidate in a Democratic party a racist? Does it mean voting for a candidate who insulted you personally you didn't vote for them in a primary? Does it mean that even if the Democrats violated Democratic princples (ala RBC), you still go with them to be a good soldier?

    Me, I think a good Democrat puts country over party.

    Since it's Father's Day, let me tell you (5.00 / 14) (#181)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:02:56 PM EST
    why my 81-year old father, a Korean war veteran and union Democrat who has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since he cast his first vote for Harry Truman, will vote for McCain (his first vote for a republican, ever):

    1.  Honor -- he honors McCain's service to his country.  He sees no evidence that Obama honors his country, in fact he has seen strong evidence to the contrary (Exhibit A being Rev. Wright and Obama staying in that church for 20 years).

    2.  Respect -- he feels McCain respects seniors for their experience and hard-earned wisdom.  He sees no evidence that Obama respects anyone much over 40, much less respects and understands the type of wisdom that comes from the school of hard knocks, not an Ivy League education.  My Dad has seen this before.  He was not a fan of the Sixties.  He sees many similarities between McGovern and Obama supporters.

    3.  Experience -- my Dad feels McCain has the experience to stand him in good stead in a crisis.  One never knows what a president will have to deal with, but the odds are s/he will face a crisis at some point, perhaps a potential world-shattering one.  Simply put, he sees no reason to trust Obama in such a crisis situation.  His feeling is that Obama is a danger to the country my Dad loves, particularly since we are in the middle of two wars.  He will not vote to hand over the keys to the most important job in the world to a guy with such a thin resume, who has come out of nowhere.  

    Understand now?

    Hey, Bee (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:04:05 PM EST
    If you have a different point of view, express it.
    If you want to promote Obama, it does your cause no good to call people with whom you disagree "dumb".

    As far as Iran is concerned, Obama has suggested the possibility of bombing them also. He didn't sing a song about it, but the civilians killed will be just as dead as if McCain pushed the button.

    Similarly, he has suggested preemptive strikes against Pakistan if there were "actionable intelligence". Preemptive war based on "intelligence". Sound familiar?

    Name calling isn't going to get us anywhere.

    McCain worries me.
    Obama worries me.

    Oooh, more love and unity. (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:15:15 PM EST
    I take it that since you haven't been "driven off", you don't consider yourself a "sensible person"? Am I reading your post correctly?

    Personally, I refuse to be victimized.  That's why threats and insults don't influence me. Try something else for a CHANGE.

    I'm Close to Being Driven Off... (1.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:53:16 PM EST
    ...Mostly because this place has become tiresome. I've glimpsed some interesting personalities here over the last couple of months but recently it's degenerated into the same whiny, bitter, negativity day after day, with a pathetic cast of characters bound and determined to victimize THEMSELVES.

    While you may perceive my comments as containing insults, that was not my intent. And I don't really think I've said anything that could be interpreted as threatening. Perhaps I've said too much...


    I don't think she has done that. (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    I came here as a Clinton supporter.  When Clinton was pushed out, I thought I would vote for McCain but now I'm seeing McCain say/support things that I'm not thrilled about...  So I guess I'm on the fence as to what I will do in November.

    I like this website though, because people actually discuss issues.  

    Maybe I'll muddle through all this and actually vote for Obama in the fall, or maybe I won't.  Frankly, I just don't know what I'm going to do.  (I guess I'm part of the 15% that is undecided.)  

    Grace- You have qualms about McCain (1.00 / 0) (#206)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM EST
    How can Obama reach out to you? What things can he say/do that would raise your comfort level with him? I ask this with all sincerity, because I am going to work for his campaign, and voters just like you are the ones I want to speak with. Anyone who knows McCain has positions that are contrary to progressive thinkers.
    So, how do we talk to you? What do you want to hear? I see posts here that seem to criticize Obama for aligning his position on a given topic with Hillary Clinton's position, and that confuses me, because I would expect that to incent people to his side rather than the opposite. Thank you for letting me pick your brain!

    The issue is... (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    The issue is not whether McCain is an acceptable candidate for progressive democrats - or democrats generally.

    The issue is whether or not Obama is a candidate that is acceptable to progressive democrats. That is - if he hopes to win the election.

    I also think that someone who thinks that McCain's positions are "hunky dory" is as entitled to express their opinion on this website as anyone else.
    At least that has been my impression.
    I don't think you, or I, have a right to say who should or should not post an opinion.

    But I must say, I haven't seen anyone promoting McCain's positions. I also haven't seen anyone promoting Obama's positions. All I have seen is "Obama ain't McCain". That worked for the primaries against Hillary Clinton, but if that's all he's got for the general, we're in for a bumpy ride.

    BEEBEEBEE (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:25:57 PM EST
    What you radiate is a quality of intolerance for others than I have found to be endemic in the Obama campaign.

    Bullying and name calling will get you nowhere.

    The arrogance from your post is truly magnificent.

    let me clue you in (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:38:54 PM EST
    ricky rocket, it isn't going to get any better for obama. once the 527's start in on him, he'll experience a slump, of several points.

    too much ammo for them and, unlike whitewater, it'll all be true.

    as far as mccain goes, sure, he has skeletons hanging all over him, that everyone knows about already. yet, he still manages to get re-elected.

    do you see a pattern developing here son?

    In my view, the two worst presidential choices (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by esmense on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:53:03 PM EST
    in my lifetime. (And that's saying alot when you when you consider that covers politicians including Nixon, McGovern, Carter and the Bushes.)

    It seems like a few other Americans may be feeling the same way.

    Even more discouraging; as ill-prepared and/or ill suited as I think both of these candidates are for the presidency, my real distaste and/or disillusionment is for/with the parties that nominated them. In fact, although I don't believe either of these men are adequate candidates for the job of president at this very difficult time in our history, I have a somewhat better opinion of both men, as individuals, than I do of the majority of office holders and influence peddlers who make up their parties' current "leadership."

    We know who McCain is. (4.60 / 10) (#110)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:18:26 PM EST
    We know who Obama is.

    My preference order:

    1. Clinton
    2. McCain
    3. Puppy-Throwing Marine
    4. Obama

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:21:22 PM EST
    My best friend (another Clinton supporter) and I have a running joke: "McCain/Satan in '08"!

    But I'm willing to consider the puppy-throwing marine for Secretary of Defense.


    Ok, someone finally named an opposing (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by FemB4dem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:07:30 PM EST
    candidate who would make me vote for Obama -- the puppy-throwing Marine. LOL.

    LOL (n/t) (none / 0) (#195)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    Tie? (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:27:17 PM EST
    Here are the six GE polls done in the last week:

    IBD/TIPP   Obama +3
    CNN        Obama +3
    NBC/WSJ    Obama +6
    HOTLINE/FD Obama +2
    GALLUP     Obama +3
    Rasmussen  Obama +6

    Statistical tie? Or a consistent leader?

    Uh, what's the MOE on those polls? (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    LOL! (5.00 / 9) (#40)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    Bragging about +3 and +2 leads in a race like this? Where Democrats look to sweep Congress and possibly gain a veto-proof majority in the Senate?

    Boy, that's some awesome spinning there.


    Bragging? (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    Since I voted for Hillary it would only be considered bragging if I had posted the stats on a McCain website. Just putting the numbers out there. Translate them as you wish.

    My translation: (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    Obama is just one Jeremiah Wright interview away from being well behind McCain.

    Or just one further TUCC video.

    Or just one further unfortunate association with William Ayers.

    Or just one further off message remark from Michelle Obama.

    Or just one further "Bittergate" gaffe.


    MOE? (2.00 / 0) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    Don't mean to sound contrary but the MOE is meaningless if you are behind or ahead in every poll. It's nullified by way of consistency.

    The more interesting question might be, how many more votes would Hillary receive vs McCain if she were a man, or how many more votes would Obama receive vs McCain if he were white. The last stats I saw for either case was an increase between 6% and 10%...showing once again that both Clinton and Obama, by polling ahead of McCain, show their superiority in spite of a large segment that would vote against Hillary or Obama for not being a white male.


    MOE is not meaningless . . . (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:44:36 PM EST
    especially if Obama is trending down . . .imo  ;)

    And this large segment of which you speak . . . any links/backup?


    Between 6 and 12 (none / 0) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:01:25 PM EST
    I mis-spoke. It is between 6% and 12%. Gallup did the poll. 94% said they could vote for a Black while 88% said they could vote for a woman. I have no idea how to post without using the URL but I found it with "the Google" ;)

    The 88% could also be a strong argument that Hillary suffered from misogyny, with the damage cut in half by the fact she was running against a black male.


    I'll be honest here . . . (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    when Obama joined the race, I was pretty sure if it came down to the 2, Obama would win. This was based on my personal work/life experiences. :( It drove me NUTS that the talking heads were asking if America was ready for a woman. Also drove me nuts when they started asking if America was ready for a Black man. I was glad they both did so well on that front, but it wasn't pretty and not sure it really played out right given how it went.

    I will google around, I just thought you had a specific you were referring to :)


    Bad logic (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:11:55 PM EST
    The 88% could also be a strong argument that Hillary suffered from misogyny, with the damage cut in half by the fact she was running against a black male.

    That assumes that the 12% that wouldn't vote for a woman is a group exclusive of the 6% that wouldn't vote for a black man. I would suspect there's a hefty amount of overlap in those two groups.


    True Enough (3.00 / 0) (#113)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:18:57 PM EST
    I suspect you are absolutely right, but still Hillary should have suffered more than Obama with both suffering in a GE vs McCain. I would have thought race would have superseded sex in costing votes. Gallup proved me wrong.

    If each poll is within the margin (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    of error, you can't say what you're saying.  Margin of error is not meaningless.  Margin of error IN EACH POLL is saying they're statistically tied.  Therefore, they're statistically tied.

    However, averaging polls from different organizations, using different methodologies IS meaningless.


    You call those numbers a lead? (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:30:55 PM EST
    Come on.  This is Obama the Great!  

    Oh, wait - that was back in early February.  He hasn't been so great from that point on.


    the trend is more important, IMO. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    I think these are right (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    I suspect a pretty solid +5 lead right now in the general population. But at this stage, that's really too close to call. There's so much yet to happen. The real story there though is why is it only around 5 points given the much wider margin between a generic dem and a generic repub.

    Gallup (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    is actually +2 as of today.  But who's counting.

    NBC?  Let's see, isn't GE, their parent company, sponsoring the DNC convention?    They appear to be rooting for someone.

    Rasmussen?  Who knows.

    The rest show Obama either in a statistical tie or barely above -- this after he's been all over the news as having sealed the Democratic nomination.  I don't think it looks too promising, do you?


    GE is sponsoring the (none / 0) (#58)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    Democratic National Convention.  Wha?

    I should have said (none / 0) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    it's one of the several co-sponsors.  It's a way of getting around campaign finance laws.

    Don't they also own (none / 0) (#90)
    by mg7505 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    NBC? If so, I expect to hear a lot of hateful commentary about Hillary.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:59:17 PM EST
    has a picture of John McCain being greeted by Richard Nixon just after his release from the 'Hanoi Hilton' on its front page today.

    I won't link to it, I was only on the site to see if there was a more recent WSJ/NBC poll.

    But from that picture, which is pretty impressive even if it is Nixon, says to me that the NBC 'family' of news shows is most likely not going to be half so anti-McCain as they were anti-Clinton.


    Margin of Error (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    Most of those numbers aren't outside the moe.  I wouldn't be crowing about those numbers or resting on my landslide laurels.  One bad news cycle can flip a lead that small.

    My gut tells me Obama is probably a shade ahead at this point.  But even if I was an Obama supporter, which I admit I am not, I'd be deeply concerned by being only a shade ahead.  In this electoral environment, a Dem should be consistently polling ahead by a minimum of 15-20 points.  Now the R's managed to pick probably their best possible candidate for a cycle like this, since McCain has indie appeal, so maybe you knock a few points off the anticipated lead for that.  And it was a rough primary, so maybe a couple of points shaved there. But still, for the Dem to be well under 10 at this point is shocking.


    This is like the primaries all over again... (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by jtaylorr on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:47:14 PM EST
    People seem to forget the popular vote doesn't matter in the GE. We should be looking at individual states.
    FiveThirtyEight has Obama winning the poplular vote by less than 3% but winning the electoral college by 79.

    Wankerific. (3.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:22:22 PM EST

    How quickly we forget our history... (1.00 / 0) (#163)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    Remember when Taylor Marsh was telling us "Rise Hillary, Rise", when she started closing in and then briefly surpasing Obama in the matchup poll a few months back.

    Things switched back very quickly...TM didn't seem s o quick to bring attention to that. I imagine the same thing will happen here if/when Obama regains more of a lead. It will go unreported and unannounced here.

    As I recall, you do comment on BTD's (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    posts here.  So, not sure how you reached the conclusion any uptick for Obama will be ignored.  

    TL has not missed a major poll yet (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:02:31 PM EST
    as far as I can tell.  They are supporting Obama, so I'm sure you can stay tuned here for pro-Obama poll results.

    Recent Numbers I Didn't See Here (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    June 15 Rasmussen US Obama 49 McCain 43

    June 13 Rasmussen OR Obama 46 McCain 38

    June 13 Rasmussen MN Obama 52 McCain 39

    June 12 Rasmussen NC Obama 43 McCain 45


    Question- are these statistics different (none / 0) (#47)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    Then other years at this point?  

    Although the two are not really (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:53:04 PM EST
    comparable, Obama's lead right now is about the convention-bump Kerry got, which was considered a 'small' or 'very small' bump at the time.

    I couldn't find any numbers for when Kerry 'clinched' the nomination, but iirc, it was not at all a big dramatic race to the finish.  

    So Kerry's post-convention bump is probably the closest comparison.  That does not mean it's a good comparison.

    The numbers for Obama went up after Clinton asked  her supporters to support him, but at best they are leveling off at 2-6 points.

    Were I an Obama supporter, I'd be encouraged (at least he's not consistently trailing) but I wouldn't be resting on my laurels just yet.


    No, definitely not. (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    The Republicans have their strongest ammunition saved for right after the convention.
    Obama's big churchy event at the convention segues perfectly into a bunch of ads featuring Wright, Meeks, etc.

    In addition (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    The Republicans have their convention days after the Democrats' Convention.  

    He'll definitely get a bump (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    but it's almost impossible (imho) to say whether substantial or not.

    He should have gotten a substantial bump after 'clinching' the nomination last week.


    He's still working on the clinching (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    part, apparently.  See FL this weekend.

    I know (none / 0) (#191)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:11:47 PM EST
    But I'm having a hard time coming up with a neutral euphemism for what has happened.  Maybe I'll just start saying 'since June 2' and assume everyone knows what I'm referring to.

    PollingReport.com (none / 0) (#75)
    by nellre on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:00:31 PM EST
    I always go here for polls
    White House 2004: General Election

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:14:15 PM EST
    That's a big help.

    Not sure using Kerry (none / 0) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:16:21 PM EST
    is such a great example.  He lost.

    Well, he was right about (none / 0) (#118)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    corn ethanol, and he didn't vote for the Dick Cheney energy plan.  

    My comment was specifically about the (none / 0) (#124)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:25:43 PM EST
    ** thing.
    Thanks for not doing that again.

    I'm pretty sure there is evidence right (none / 0) (#128)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    here at TL that one can be quite dumb and support Obama. Every candidate needs dumb voters---don't put them down!

    To paraphrase Snoopy: (none / 0) (#137)
    by WillBFair on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:34:26 PM EST
    we're doomed. We just have to hope that the polls are skewed, and that, because most Americans know the war was a mistake, they can figure out that they have to vote for the democrats to stop it.
    On the other hand, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

    Difficult to blame the voters if (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:44:41 PM EST
    they don't conclude the Dems. will get U.S. military out of Iraq.  What evidence should those voters rely on to make such a conclusion?  

    exactly--and too little attention has been paid (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:50:24 PM EST
    to the fact that the country put the Dems back in charge of Congress in 2006--first time in 12 years--and today Congress is more despised even than Bush.

    I think there are probably more cynical voters today than ever before, thanks to the cluelessness and shameless careerism of both parties.


    Obama's latest words on our (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:56:47 PM EST
    occupation of Iraq sound nothing like the words of a leader planning on leaving Iraq soon either.  I was extremely disappointed watching the video.  I knew he was going to lighten up on when we were planning on withdrawing, but now he sounds just like George Bush and is saying we can't have some sort of set deadline.  Now nobody is promising to get us out of Iraq other than the Green party I guess.

    And didn't Farheed(sp) Zacharia(sp) (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    on CNN say today that Obama's Iraq stance wasn't a whole lot different than McCain's?  If that's the media meme, then Iraq will be a moot point (especially considering that the Dems have done nothing about Iraq).

    Recent interview (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    Video link of Obama's Iraq stance.

    Why are you doing this? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Coldblue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    I'm curious.

    Whatever n/t (none / 0) (#152)
    by Coldblue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:46:30 PM EST

    Make them sweat (none / 0) (#193)
    by nellre on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    Until you do right by me, everything you even think about gonna fail!

    (but don't give McCain the Whitehouse please)

    cellphones (none / 0) (#217)
    by TheRealFrank on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:24:28 PM EST
    [is the reply option broken?]

    Rootabaga: the cellphone thing is the oldest myth in the book. It is just not true. Pollsters are aware of the fact that there are people with just cellphones, and they correct for it. It is not currently a major issue in polling.

    As of right now, that's just a tired old myth pulled out by supporters of a candidate who are not happy with the poll results that they're seeing. The Ron Paul supporters were especially fond of it.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#218)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:41:03 PM EST
    We close comments at 200.

    It's balance to support down ticket and not Obama (none / 0) (#220)
    by Yotin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:43:59 PM EST
    Check and balance is basic to the functioning of our democracy. We saw what happened when Bush ran the WH and the GOP ran Congress.
    It's almost a given that Dems will win both houses in 2008. Since, I'm not hot on Obama and check and balance is extremely more important than electing Obama, he's the one I'm dumping from the ticket.

    Who could have predicted...? (none / 0) (#221)
    by goldberry on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    But would the SuperD's listen?  Noooo.  They would have none of it.  
    They shouldn't expect any November conversions either.  This whole primary season has been a disaster.  
    I never liked Howard Dean.