State Polling of Obama-McCain Race: A Realistic Assessment

Obama and McCain in dead heat in Minnesota? Obama by 11 in Ohio? McCain by 4 in North Carolina? Does any of this make sense? Not to me frankly. But let's start with the best "news" first - the PPP Ohio poll:

Obama leads by equal margins among men and women, and has a four point lead with white voters while also holding a dominant 75-21 advantage with African Americans.

A Democrat has not won white voters in Ohio in a Presidential election since Bill Clinton in 1996. Obama leads by 11 DESPITE "only" winning African American voters (13% of the Ohio electorate according to the poll) by 75-21? No gender gap? Puhleeeaze. That said, it means something - to wit, Obama should fight as hard for Ohio as any swing state because he can win it and stop McCain dead in his tracks right there. McCain can NOT lose Ohio and win the Presidency in my estimation. More.

SUSA's Minnesota poll is equally unfathomable. McCain TIES Obama in the 18-34 group? Ridiculous. McCain wins Independents by 11? And still is only tied? Absurd.

I do not believe Minnesota is even competitive myself. I think Obama has a lock on Minnesota.

How about North Carolina? Is it REALLY a 4 point race? This one has demographics that make it more believable. Obama loses whites (79% of the electorate) by 54-31 and wins African Americans (18% of the electorate) by 86-7.

In 2004 general election, African Americans comprised 26% of the North Carolina electorate, and John Kerry carried them by 85-14. There is no reason to believe that Obama will not at least match that turnout of African American voters and will certainly do better than 85% of the African American vote. Here's the part that IS hard to believe - that Obama will only lose whites by 23 points in North Carolina. John Kerry and John Edwards lost white North Carolinians in 2004 by 46 points. If Obama cuts it to 35, it will be a huge achievement.

Assume, for the sake of argument, 72% of the North Carolina electorate will be white and Obama pushes African American participation to 28% of the North Carolina electorate. Assume further that Obama carries 92% of the African American vote. Assume further that he improves on the Kerry-Edwards performance in North Carolina and gets 35% of the white vote. THEN, Obama wins North Carolina 51-49.

In short, for Obama to win North Carolina, he needs a miracle basically. Record breaking African American turnout COUPLED with a record breaking performance for a Democrat with white North Carolinians - an 8 point improvement over a ticket that included a native son of North Carolina.

It ain't going to happen people.

One last poll to discuss - Ras' Virginia poll that has Obama plus one. the problem with Ras is he does not provide crosstabs. but let's run the exercise based on the 2004 election. In 2004, Kerry/Edwards won the African American vote (21% of the electorate) by 87-12 and lost the white vote by 68-32 (72% of the electorate). The remainder 7% of the Virginia vote was Latino, Asian and other.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama pushes African American turnout up to 23% of the Virginia vote and wins the group by 92-8. Let's further assume Obama is able to outperform Kerry/Edwards and capture 35% of the white vote. Let's further assume that Obama capture the 5% of the "other vote" by 65-35. The result is . . . a 50-50 tie.

So assuming an incredible performance for Obama in Virginia (Note - Jim Webb won 42% of the white and 685 of the Asian vote, 3%) in 2006, and barely beat George Allen), and he might squeak out a victory.

Here's my point - Obama CAN win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. Hell, he should. But it is absurd to argue that Obama's election strategy hinges on winning Virginia and North Carolina. Fight for them? Of course! That helps keep McCain out of Ohio and Michigan especially. But COUNT on them? Please, no.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Denver Police Order Veritas Launchers For Convention Protests | New Evidence of David Flores' Innocence >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • The PPP Ohio poll is just wacky (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    And the Minnesota poll is useless to me because it does not report a racial breakdown. I have an email out to SUSA about that now.  

    I agree with the rest of what you say, except that you spare the Obama camp the embarrassment of bothering to refute their "Georgia is in play" meme.

    George might not be in play (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:49:32 PM EST
    At the presidential level, but if he can bring out the vote it will help a lot of democrats at the state and local levels.  This is the case I think in a lot of states that might not be realistic for a democrat to win at the presidential level.  

    Personally. . . (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    I think George is completely out of it this time around.

    We're killing independent George! (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:23:38 PM EST
    Well played Sir (none / 0) (#152)
    by Claw on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:33:26 PM EST
    PHEW !!! (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:26:55 PM EST
    at least we can take that one to the bank!

    His EC votes will be (none / 0) (#76)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:43:29 PM EST
    critical and he's primes to beat teh Virgin.

    This is one of the few reasons (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    I can see for the Democrats to keep pounding the drum about Georgia, and maybe a few of the other small-chance states.  It's a GOTV effort, not nec. a realistic assessment of the possibilities.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    Obama WILL NOT help downticket races. This is a myth. Most candidates don't want anything to do with him.

    What good are downticket (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:22:04 PM EST
    wins in GA if they're Zell Milleresque?

    I'd rather those people run as republicans.


    Kerry/Edwards lost whites in Georgia (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    76-23 and the state by 17 points.

    African American turnout was 25% of the total and Kerry/Edwards won them 88-12.

    Obama, with an incredible performance, can keep it within single digits.


    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:12:08 PM EST
    he won't even keep it in single digits. His best shot is losing by 10 pts imo. AA vote was massive and maxed out in 2004. Bob Barr won't help him because he is drawing potential Obama voters as well as McCain voters. Then you have Cynthia McKinney who could take some of Obama's voters. And yep, Obama has zero chance of carrying any state in the south plus the border states.

    AA's (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Claw on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:28:30 PM EST
    Aren't going to vote for Cynthia.  Not when they have a viable candidate.  And AA voting certainly didn't max out in '04...if anything it was kind of lethargic.

    Oh some (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:20:27 PM EST
    will vote for her here in GA. It's not like Obama is going to carry GA anyway and she's the local candidate.

    Here in GA the AA vote was maxed out in 2004. We had a black candidate running for senate named Denise Majette. Read carefully now: THERE AREN'T ENOUGH AA's IN GA to get Obama a win in the state.


    Today's news about obama and (none / 0) (#162)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    southern states:



    In other words, impossible (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:09:40 PM EST
    But if he does really well there with black turnout in rural areas, he might have coattails on local races. That's not something we care too much about, though. Winning the WH is everything.

    Not So Sure the Coattails Will Be Meaningful (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    Most of Obama's improved showing will be in boosting African American turnout.  The districts where most African Americans live are already going to be democratic because they vote democratic.  If boosting AA turnout could help, Dems would rule the South and the country.

    Yes, he could boost black turnout in rural areas, but I don't think there's enough black votes there to overcome his deficit among whites, which is bound to be greater in rural areas.  


    The current Georgia State Senate and house maps (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    were drawn under the supervision of a Federal Court, so they are reasonably fair I think. There's essentially a soft pack of blacks.

    Still, I think you're overall probably right, which is why Georgia is out of the picture at the Presidential level.


    I say check back in a few weeks and see (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:04:11 PM EST
    where we are...

    This (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    is a myth that the Obama campaign has put out there. Most of the districts that are majority AA already have a Dem. The other districts he won't help. Barrow endorsed Obama but he has a primary challenger. He may not even make it out of the primary.

    I think you understate this (none / 0) (#124)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:17:13 PM EST
    Districts with greater than 30% AA pop are marginal for Republicans. A conservative white Democrat could win such a district.

    No (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    because the way Obama has campaigned he will lose white votes for every black vote he gains.

    No. (none / 0) (#187)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:14:23 PM EST
    Winning the White House is NOT everything.

    Not to some of us, anyway, who actually lived through the past 50 years in politics.  Sometimes what mattered most was the governor's race...or the country commissioners', or the mayor's race or the state House, US Senate...etc.

    If the presidency is all you care about, you're not really doing politics IMHO.


    Ok, that's fair (none / 0) (#195)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:26:05 PM EST
    I overstated my point. But for the big issues, as Hillary said, it takes a President.

    Don't Forget State Races (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:31:14 PM EST
    Redistricting is in 2010.  Not a coincidence that the GOP took over Congress shortly after they took over state houses.

    Oh, I know about that (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:41:09 PM EST
    And so yes, state races matter. Max black redistricting in 1991-2 made 1994 possible.

    Obama has to (none / 0) (#106)
    by Claw on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:06:54 PM EST
    Bring in whites, but he can push AA turnout up hugely.  Only about half of the AA REGISTERED dems voted in 2004.  We've also acquired quite a few "creative-class" folks since 04 and we have the advantage of Bob Barr (a Georgian) who'll leach votes from McCain.  Clinton won in '92 with roughly the same model.  Perot helped out by sapping votes, Clinton got quite a bit of AA support, and he brought in enough white votes.  Obama will bring in fewer whites but will try to make up for it with a huge win in a larger AA electorate.  I think GA is a long shot state...but the harder McCain has to work here the better Ohio looks.  
    If we get "an incredible performance" from Obama (the GDP vote drive succeeds, Barr gets votes, Obama gets a few whites), Obama takes GA.

    Ok, whatever (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:08:08 PM EST
    I love how none of these "Barr will help in Georgia!" people never mention Cynthia McKinney.

    I Bet She Ciphons Some of the AA Vote (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:11:07 PM EST
    heck, if Obama's campaign can't stop behaving like 12-year-old jacka$$es, she might ciphon off mine.

    Of course, I realize as a Clinton supporter I would still be a racist.


    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Claw on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:20:43 PM EST
    Think she's running for POTUS...is she?  You do realize that we have a huge number of unregistered but elligible AA's?  That the turnout will be enormous?  Barr will help in GA as a sort of Ron Paul surrogate who is FROM GEORGIA.  I acknowledged that it's a longshot state...I'm just saying it's possible and will make McCain's campaign harder.  You also realize that neither Gore nor Kerry really campaigned in GA...because there was no reason to.  

    She Is Running for POTUS (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:24:48 PM EST
    and, last I looked, was in the lead to be the Green Party nominee.

    That's precious (3.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Claw on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    Trust me.  No one will be voting for her.

    Nor will anyone be voting for Bob Barr (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    They are equally inconsequential. And Georgia remains completely out of reach.

    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Claw on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:40:48 PM EST
    Barr actually has some support in GA.  He'll get the crazy Ron Paul vote at least, and the only people who would have been voting for Cynthia are members of her own family and AA's who would only vote for an AA.  Those AA's (I can't speak for Cynthia's family) will be voting Obama.

    There is also a shiny new voter ID law. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Burned on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    I'm assuming Obama's Georgia people are out in force getting that taken care of.

    bob barr (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    is leaching votes from both Obama and McCain. Obama isn't going to get enough white votes to win like Clinton did.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:25:54 PM EST
    I think he hurts McCain more, but he'll also give disaffected GOP and GOP-leaning independents an out other than voting for Obama.

    He also (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:15:39 PM EST
    gives Dems a place to register a protest vote. The last poll I saw here in GA had McCain at 45%, Obama at 35% and Barr at 8%. You could certainly say with those numbers that Barr is taking votes away from both candidates.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Claw on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:26:04 PM EST
    He isn't.  No one thinks Obama's a libertarian.  He's going to take unhappy republicans and that's it.  Votes for Barr will be lost votes for McCain.  These are people who would have held their collective noses and voted repub, or stayed home.

    Keep kidding yourself. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:13:35 PM EST
    People will vote for Barr simply because they can't stomach McCain or Obama.

    My husband is going to vote for Barr simply because he has been going to the local democratic party meetings and talking to the members. And he would have voted for Hillary if she had won the nomination. So there's one person who disproves your theory.


    In 2004 (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    Bush beat Kerry/Edwards 56-44 among whites. And even captured 16% of the African American vote.

    Ohio is RIPE for the taking for Obama.


    I read something the other day (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by litigatormom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:18:32 PM EST
    that suggested that the Obama camp did NOT consider Ohio to be critical.  Another one of those "we can convert red and purple state" comments.  What are they smoking?  I'm not sure Obama can do as well in Ohio as Clinton would have, but why on Earth are they talking about Colorado and New Mexico and Georgia and not talking about Ohio? Isn't it bad enough that they've basically written off Florida?

    i dont mean this personally toward you (4.20 / 5) (#50)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:29:14 PM EST
    but it is so tiring to hear this constant rumor-mongering and story -distortion, all in service of Obama bashing.

    They did not say that they are not looking at Ohio. They did not say that they are not making a MAJOR effort to win Ohio. They just happened to mention that yes, they could win without Ohio. Which is obviously true (hint: Kerry states plus Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico).

    You dont need Georgia, or NC or VA in order to win without Ohio. But, once again, they are NOT turning away from Ohio.


    It Might Be (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    if Obama's campaign quits acting like they don't care about it.

    This may be the first political campaign I've ever seen where insulting and ignoring key voters seems to be part of the strategy.  Talk about a weird way to build a majority party.  


    my thinking is that those who hold their nose (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by thereyougo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:25:41 PM EST
    to vote McCain, would do it knowing the certainty of democratic Congress will balance the president.

    Its the only way McCain wins, and not much Obama can do about that. Its why some Independents are on the fence 50/50 in some contests.


    Throwing this out.....if McCain wins and the (4.66 / 3) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    democratic party obtains a very large majority in the congress (veto proof let's say), how much damage could McCain do?  He has been very good about working with the dems, so far.  Just curious and before any panty bunching starts, I am not voting McCain, just asking the question.

    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:27:48 PM EST
    the '06 elections were an historic wipeout, even though the Press (quelle surprise) played it down the best that they could.  Pelosi and Reid are going to allow Telco Immunity to go through out of fear of a President who is at Nixonian levels, so what will they do with a freshly elected one?  They are political cowards who can't even control their own people, so I have little faith there.  Plus, the party has gone "all in" on this Election, if we lose there are going to be some MAJOR shakeups.  (There should be even if we win, our Selection process sucks eggs.)

    That said, I vote by my reasoned beliefs, not out of my abject fears.  Obama will very likely get my vote, but the deal isn't sealed, and I'm very unentuhsiatic about voting for the guy.  (His whole campaign has a Bushian feel to it, as so many others have noted, not in its ideology but in the way that they market him and the tactics of (some) of his supporters.  Replacing one personality cult with another may temporarily stop the bleeding, but it could have severe long range effects.  Before I get yelled at, Sen. Obama is far superior to Shrub, that's not what I'm saying, but something just doesn't feel right.)  My Pres. vote may go empty, but I doubt it.

    My thoughts at least.



    Why associate getting hyper or unreasonable... (3.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:29:40 PM EST
    with a female article of clothing?

    Also, the dems in the house and senate have definitely proven that they have no spine against a republican president.


    We're Weak, Vote for More of Us! (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:33:37 PM EST
    he's got to camp out in Ohio anyway. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:42:31 PM EST
    So I suppose you can say he'll do well there.

    PPP OH (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM EST
    I heard the PPP OH poll oversampled Dems by 25%.  If that's the correct terminology to mean:  there were too many Democrats in the survey to give an accurate result.

    I Did A Rough Comparison Between This (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    PPP Ohio poll and the SUSA 5/23 Ohio poll. In some ways they both look a little wacky but they track pretty closely all in all. They both have strange AA percentages. PPP 75% to 21% Obama and SUSA 76%  to 17% Obama. Both show Obama beating McCain among both men and women with only 1% gap (SUSA) between support among genders. SUSA had Obama up by 9% with 13% undecided.



    i finally bought some d & d dice (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Turkana on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    and will launch the "turkana poll" in the very near future...

    Good Because Kathy Has Been On (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    vacation and we haven't been getting any KUSA poll results.

    Finally? I got a whole box of those from (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Joelarama on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    high school.  I could have sent them to you.

    On topic, I'd love to know where you dis/agree with BTD.


    i agree with him (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Turkana on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    i often do. it's quite annoying, actually.

    Tell me about it. (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    who ever said he would COUNT (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:58:11 PM EST
    on VA and NC?
    HAsn't the whole buzz about his strategy been explictly that he will not count on just one sketchy path to 270, but will be pushing on many fronts?

    What states DOES he count on? (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:59:41 PM EST
    Look, it is fun to say "50 state strategy" but this election will be won or lost in Ohio, PA and MI.

    Whatever is done, those states MUST be the focal point.


    PA is no lock (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    and that is part of my concern.

    A LOT of talk about Georgia, NO TALK about PA.

    Michigan is already tight. Ohio should be in the bank already imo and will be IF clinton id the VP choice.

    See, this is an election that Obama should win easily. If he loses, he blew it.


    I Think It's Telling (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:27:06 PM EST
    that Obama rolled out both the Edwards and Gore endorsements in Michigan.

    I'm sure that will totally make up for miscounting their votes and then seating half the delegates.  It's not like the people who got screwed in the primary get to vote in the GE.  Michigan violated the rules, so the votes won't count.  

    Oh, wait.


    But that is good (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:31:23 PM EST
    He is campaigning like crazy in Michigan. that is a good thing.

    Yes and No (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    It's good that he recognizes he needs Michigan and is trying to win it.

    It's not so good that he needs to be working so hard in that particular state.  Michigan can swing and does need attention, but it shouldn't need this kind of unrelenting focus.  


    MI... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:54:48 PM EST
    ...has been a battleground state for decades. Democratic wins there are narrow. It deserves quite a bit of attention.

    Rove was on TV saying how (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    dumb ist was to roll out Gore in Michigan.   I wonder how the GOP are exploiting the Enviromental record of Gore in that Car manufacturing state?

    Anyone know?


    Rove made a good point, then (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    I really hope Rick Davis is an idiot and puts all of his money in California. I doubt it, though.

    The problems for McCain in California (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:09:34 PM EST
    Is that Kerry won by such a huge margin (1.2 million votes) that it's almost impossible to make up for that difference.  California had voted 6 straight times for the GOP before Bill Clinton took the state in 1992.  But Dukakis had kept it close in 1988, only losing the state by 4%.  How you make up a 1.2 million vote difference is beyond me.  

    I think the GOP in California has this grand delusion there are all these white conservative suburban voters.  These voters don't really vote but once they do, the GOP will triumph.  Every election, these millions of voters fail to materialize and shift the state red...largely because they don't exist.  There are these voters but there are simply not enough of them.

    Now, in 2004 Bush won the white vote (though lost among white women) and garnered 18% of the black vote.  However, he lost the state by double digits because Latinos and Asians voted 2-1 for Kerry.  Kerry also won 60% of Independent voters, who are critical to Democrats winning California.  Similarly, Latinos and Asians voted 3-1 and 4-1 respectively for Hillary in the primary.  Now that might give McCain an opening.  He's not going to win white progressives over in California.  The only way for McCain to win is to get a massive defection of Latinos and Asians and couple that with major inroads among independents.  Now that could happen, there's a lot of rancor over the primary and I've seen polls where Latinos shockingly favor McCain and where Obama polls weakly among Asian voters.  But that won't be enough and frankly, if McCain does win California, it will likely just be an exclamation point on a resounding election victor (ugh).  


    I think talk of CA for R or GA for D (none / 0) (#120)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:15:56 PM EST
    Is somewhat silly.  Not that it can't happen.  But only that if it did happen, it would be like you said the exclamation point on an otherwise resounding victory.  These kinds of huge flips are not going to be the leading edge of anything.  If they start to go, then you will already have safely bet your money on one candidate or the other.

    Medical marijuana oln Michigan ballot (none / 0) (#212)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:45:42 PM EST
    should help Obama.

    I'm no longer that worried about Pennsylvania. (none / 0) (#27)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    Of course, it all depends on how Republican attacks ads play. Michigan is a big concern for me though. The right VP, and the Republicans have it. Which would pretty much cancel out even a win in Ohio.

    I would like to (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:56:08 PM EST
    revise and extend my previous remarks about Obamas chances of winning.
    if McCain continues to run the old republican guy campaign he is currently running Obama will win.
    and probably win big.
    I mean, I realize he IS and old republican guy but for some reason I expected a smarter campaign.
    and I also realize its early.

    Clinton won't be offered the VP spot (none / 0) (#158)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:40:49 PM EST
    Their hiring of Patti Solis Doyle as the VP's chief of staff tells us that.  You don't hire someone Hillary fired and announce their job will be COS for the new VP unless you're very sure the VP won't be Hillary.  I think the Obama campaign made a strong statement in publicizing the Solis Doyle hiring before the VP announcement.

    Then Obama's a bigger fool (none / 0) (#188)
    by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    than I previously thought.

    wouldnt want to argue that (none / 0) (#196)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:26:57 PM EST
    but if you saw Tweety and company laughing about the obvious slap in the face to Hillary the Doyle thing represents you would have to agree it looks less and less likely.

    Just never could see any indication that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:47:07 PM EST
    would really consider Hillary for VP and all kinds of indications from his surrogates (declared and undeclared) and his actions that he won't offer it to her.

    Not a biggie for me since I don't want her as Obama's VP and Obama himself will have to convince me to vote for him.  So far, I'm not convinced.


    Can you say (none / 0) (#202)
    by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:32:44 PM EST

    I can.


    I don't think he has a firm lock on PA (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:07:39 PM EST
    Not unless he posts Rendell-like numbers in the Philly burbs a-la 2002. It's certainly possible, but he NEEDS to improve in the southwest (you know, Appalachia!)

    84% in the Philly burbs? (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    Rendell was a special candidate. I think you're living in dreamland to expect Obama to break 55% in any of the adjacent counties.

    Really? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:23:16 PM EST
    I would have thought a 60-40 very doable. That's discouraging.

    I rather doubt it (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:27:38 PM EST
    look at 1996. Check Bucks, Montgomery, and Delaware. Even accounting for Perot, Clinton's margins didn't really approach what you're calling for. And Bill Clinton was singularly responsible for making it socially acceptable that white suburbanites could vote Democratic.

    Listen up (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    We have a new Democratic Party and we don't need your stinkin' state to win.  In fact, Obama can easily concede Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and West Virginia and still win in a landslide!  You're just part of the old Democratic party, kinda like Donald Rumsfeld's old Europe.  



    Wayste Ferhinya? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    We don't need stinkin' Wayste Ferjinia!

    Huh? NJ trending less blue? (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    Even if you mean, more blue, it can't makeup for a total lack of support for Obama in the areas Hillary won huge in PA (Lackawanna, Indiana, Green counties).

    I have no idea where you got this from (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    but the NJ suburbs have been trending blue for more than  decade. It's just like the PA suburbs and the NoVA suburbs.

    One of the Reasons PA (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    was a lot bigger Clinton win than Obama had hoped was that the Obama campaign overestimated his support in the suburbs.  He was supposed to win many of them to add to his run up in the city.  He either lost them or barely won them and so didn't get enough of the vote to offset the smaller cities and rural areas.

    Then there's his bitter-cling comments.  My guess is that McCain isn't going to be as polite as Hillary was and fail to note that he didn't just say Pennsylvanians cling to god and guns, they also cling to racism and xenophobia.  Add in a few quotes from prominent Obama supporters arguing that the voters in rural Pennsylania are racists and that should help McCain a lot in the rural areas and small towns.

    I think Obama can win PA (less sure about OH, frankly), but he's an idiot if he considers it a lock.


    I was just back there over the weekend (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:34:13 PM EST
    Latte town is blanketed with Obama signs. But I think they confuse signs and crowds with overall support--still.

    It Worked In New Hampshire! (none / 0) (#78)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:44:17 PM EST
    And, um, PA (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    Alaska. (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:10:28 PM EST
    Speaking of the vaunted 50 state strategy - (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    - one of the top local news stories on WOUB (a public radio station out of Athens, Ohio, with coverage across the rural SE part of the state), was about an Obama advisor's remarks (Axelrod, I believe, but couldn't swear) to an audience in D.C. that Obama didn't need Ohio to win.  The actual story was more specific and less - 'hey ohio, we don't need you!' - but the bumper, headline, and lede reminded me of the bitter/cling and Goolsbee gaffes during the primaries.  

    Michigan can be "made up" (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by litigatormom on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:23:40 PM EST
    CO, IA, NM, VA, NV, or other places?  Please.  MI is critical.  He can't assume he can capture enough additional "red" or "purple" states to make up for MI.  He's already lost FLA.  And he doesn't have a "lock" on PA. Clinton might have had a "lock" on it, but right now Obama doesn't.  He needs to build up his presence in PA.  He can't take MI or OH or PA for granted, nor can he assume that he can pick up enough states for those big three to become less than critical.  

    He also needs to watch out for NJ.  My guess is that it will go Blue in the end, but NJ has a tendency to poll more Republican than it actually goes.  McCain will poll well there, at least for a while, and Obama can't let up there.


    I don't think dems will win Michigan or Ohio (none / 0) (#172)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST
    Detroit won't compensate for a huge statewide loss which is what I predict will happen

    It's not that simple this year (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:23:51 PM EST
    The "it's all about Ohio" meme just doesn't hold this election.  Take a look at Poblano's analysis from yesterday for a great explanation.

    Given current polling, there are 11 states that lie within a +/- 5% advantage to either candidate (to wit: Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Florida and Montana).  Outside of these, in the "safe" states, Obama already has 252 electoral votes.  All he needs is 18 points out of those states to win.  There are all sorts of combinations from those states that don't involve Ohio or Michigan.

    Now, obviously it's still early, some of these states won't be close in the election, and some "safe" states might switch sides too.  But the point is this: it's not 2004 any more.  The spreads aren't simply trending towards democrats, they're flattening across the board even in traditionally very red states.


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    that Poblano says it does not make it so.

    Montana, Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota and Florida are not in play imo.

    Unless it is a landslide. And if it is a landslide, then what does it matter?

    You run the race that is before us, not the one you dream of.

    Bill Clinton won Ohio and Missouri (not to mention Kentucky, WV (by double digits!!) and Louisiana) in 1996 on his way to 370 electoral votes. Kerry ALMOST won Ohio.

    Bill Clinton led Bob Dole by at least 10 throughout that campaign.

    Right now, we have a tight race, within 5 points.

    I think we need to be REALISTIC in our assessments.


    it's interesting how Florida is still considered (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:49:16 PM EST
    in play by someone with Poblano's statistical background. It's almost inconceivable that it's in play without either a white southerner or Hillary Clinton on the ticket.  evne then without her on the top of th eticket it's a stretch to say that Mccain wont win there.

    PA and MI, yes (none / 0) (#57)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    Ohio would be the quickest most direct way to get over the top. I am sure they are making a major effort there. I mean MAJOR.

    But it aint necessary.
    Kerry states + CO, NM, IA would do it, for example, and there are several other combos.


    the easiest way to shut the door (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:35:38 PM EST
    and to actually just put this thing away is to actually build a 10 point lead in Ohio.

    McCain has no map without Ohio.

    He DOES have one even if he loses Iowa and Colorado.


    i agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by tben on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    I believe that Ohio is essentially tied right now (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:37:31 PM EST
    That's pretty scary.

    Especially Given the Low GOP (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    enthusiasm level for McCain.  He has no crowds and no money.  The Ohio economy has been decimated.  How could it possibly be close?

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:41:15 PM EST
    lots of people plan to split their tickets. Lots of people see McCain as bad but see Obama as just as bad if not worse. The GOP isn't excited with their candidate and outside of AA's and the creative class, Dem's don't seem to be too excited either.

    however minus Nh and Mighigan and (none / 0) (#87)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:50:48 PM EST
    That plan doesn't work.

    You are assuming that Obama gets every Kerry state.


    and NH is a risky bet (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:51:47 PM EST
    John Lynch makes an interesting sleeper VP option.

    But he has to scare the Republicans elsewhere (none / 0) (#84)
    by Llelldorin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM EST
    You're right--If he doesn't win OH, PA, and MI, he'll have a heck of a time making it up elsewhere.

    What he can't do is focus all his efforts into a straight-up duel with McCain on those three states. Republicans have demonstrated their skill in elections that revolve around a tiny handfull of states. They're really good at pouring in money and playing local political games.

    Obama has a fair amount of money to play with this year. It might make sense to try to bleed the less-well-funded McCain campaign by making him keep running back to VA, NC, NV, and CO to nail them down, instead of just throwing four months and all his resources into the upper Midwest.

    What we really want to do is put the Republicans into the position we're usually in, where they have to run the "battleground states", while we can pick and choose. If VA and NC become battleground states, McCain suddenly has a much harder game to play.


    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    is that money doesn't seem to really help Obama. If he had to outspend Hillary 2 or 3 times over to eke out a win in the dem primary what does that say about the general election where people are less inclined toward him? The advantage McCain has is that he's a known quantity.

    Doesn't help in a single state (none / 0) (#207)
    by Llelldorin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:38:53 PM EST
    The problem there was that in the later primaries (particularly after February, by which time Clinton was campaigning hard and well) you contest 1-3 states at a time. There's a limit to how much money can help you there--having ads on TV every three minutes instead of every 5 isn't much help.

    What money can buy you is lots of simultaneous campaigns. If Obama just pours money into Ohio, McCain can beat him anyway (just as Clinton did, in many states). If he can hold NC close enough, though, he can force McCain to also campaign there. Likewise CO, NV, and VI. McCain has less money to spend, so slicing it more ways hurts him more than it does Obama.

    Besides, to be brutally frank, if you're 46 and running against a septuagenarian, it makes sense to force them to chase you all over the map, instead of letting them sit in a single timezone contesting three adjacent states.


    case in point (none / 0) (#88)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    I duno if Rove is just jawing but he suggested that Gore being in Michigan was a mistake.

    I read today (none / 0) (#123)
    by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:17:02 PM EST
    that Chuck Todd said it was risky, because of the anti-environmental car industry.

    Nice to see Todd echoing Rove, isn't it.

    I suppose y'all heard about the GOP buttons at the Texas state convention.  



    Oh dear (none / 0) (#199)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:30:30 PM EST
    TYodd Echoing Rove.

    They really Hate Al don't they?


    NC is not in play for dems (none / 0) (#173)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:57:22 PM EST
    I doubt Colorado is either especially if Romney is on the ticket.

    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:01:44 PM EST
    ...we are just soooooo in love with Mitten's magical underwear that we'll all vote Republican.



    There's actually proximilty to Utah (none / 0) (#197)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:29:20 PM EST
    bots on the ground and organization.

    Thanks BTD for the reality check (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    I'm hesitant to read too much into any polling now, particularly as to the white vote.  I really think we need to wait for the post-convention campaign period.  I think this election is doubly perplexing to predict, because not only do you need to make allowances in your projections from past election data for the strong anti-incumbent party factor, but also you need to temper those projections with a previously unknown factor of having the first minority (and one with potentially explosive character issues) in the running.  We'll see what happens.

    I am skeptical of polls that have (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    Obama running 20 points better with whites than Kerry.

    It is POSSIBLE (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:10:14 PM EST
    but it would be more likely with Hillary on the ticket.

    I join you in your skepticism (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    But do you attribute that to the particularity of Obama as a candidate, or are you just generally skeptical of that big an improvement over the last cycle for any Dem among white voters at this point?

    I guess this is my way of asking you: Divorcing yourself from the specifics of Obama and McCain, what kind of improvement over Kerry's numbers with white voters would you expect for a generic Dem during this particular cycle?


    Mostly the Dem issue (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:16:24 PM EST
    And Obama is not Bill Clinton in the sense of appealing to working class whites.

    There is more John Kerry in him than Bill Clinton.


    Obama Had Been Bleeding (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:39:49 PM EST
    white support in many of these states near the end of the primaries.  Case in point, South Dakota.  He had projected a 10 point win and lost by 15 (or was it the other way around?).  Anyway, there was a 25 point swing between what Obama was projecting in February and what he got in June and it was against Obama.  Obama was also supposed to win Indiana and he didn't.  It was close, but the main reason it was so close was the high turnout among AAs.  Look at the exit polling among whites in Indiana, NC, and SD on the Wright/Trinity issue - those who thought it was important went overwhelmingly for Hillary and quite a few whites thought it was somewhat important. And that was among mostly white Democrats.

    Obama is very much a John Kerry type candidate only with more charisma and less experience.  I think there's a good chance the weakness of the GOP will result in his election, but McCain can't attract crowds or raise money and yet he's still close in the polls.  If McCain ever finds a way to get the GOP excited about his candidacy, Obama could be in real trouble.


    tin foiling it (none / 0) (#91)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    I hope these polling outfits are not building him up for a fall.

    My prediction (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by dianem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    None of the polls taken right now will be even remotely accurate. The only way to tell how different purple states will vote is with a time machine. The right wing has barely singed Obama - shots across the bow. They have been releasing some big hits, and they've already hurt Obama's reputation. Clinton had nothing to do with Wright, or the right-wing whisper campaign about him being a closet Muslim, or Michelle Obama's poorly spoken words about her pride in her nation. Obama has a glass jaw. The public is not familiar enough with him to stick with him through a crisis, and 6 months (or even a year) is not enough to make them that familiar.

    McCain is a known commodity. People may not agree with his politics, but he is familiar, safe, comfortable. He's the old pair of shoes you go back to when your feet hurt. Obama may be selling change - but only young people think that change is the most important thing. Older people want stabiliy, experience, comfort. Okay, not all of them, but enough that Obama has an uphill battle.

    Unless Obama implodes, unless Axelrod can overcome 20 years of familiarity by attacking an old man, Obama will be lucky to win the blue states. McCain simply isn't tied stronly enough to Bush to make that argument stick. He and Bush hated each other. Everybody knows that.

    Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:47:02 PM EST
    ...FOX News has been attacking Obama for over a year with their bs.  Remember madrassagate?

     The right wing also has this problem: pretty hard to blast TUCC and simultaneously claim Obama is a muslim.  

     McCain is tied to Bush where it matters: the Iraq war.  



    Yes, But (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    Many of the polls I've read show that Obama and McCain split and some even have McCain winning the question on who will handle Iraq better.

    I don't think it's because people love McCain's Iraq policy, I think Obama's inexperience scares a lot of folks.  It's still amazing to me that the Democratic Party thought it could make experience completely irrelevant when they got to the general election.  In a close race, people usually go with the devil they know or think they know, unless something changes that will be McCain, IMO.  


    Oops (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:01:35 PM EST
    Meant to add that that's why a narrow lead is not enough.

    One of the reasons Obama lost so many close primaries to Clinton is that late breakers went her way.


    Consistently (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    Obama better try to get this point (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by aquarian on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    Did fence-sitters break to Hillary or away from Obama?  The ones who broke for Hillary might be convinced to vote Obama in the fall.  The fence-sitters who ran from Obama are the ones he needs to catch.  He seems to be making little effort on that score.  In a close election, the fence-sitters will matter.

    This: (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Nadai on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    The right wing also has this problem: pretty hard to blast TUCC and simultaneously claim Obama is a muslim.

    You're assuming the right wing favors logic.  Judging from the Republican emails going around, they don't.  I haven't seen many that don't have at least some internal inconsistency (not to mention out-and-out lies).


    You're Not Seeing the Full Smear (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    The full smear is not that Obama is a Muslim.  It's that Obama is a secret Muslim trying to pass himself off as a Christian.  He chose Trinity because, while Christian, its "radical" teachings closely align with his radical beliefs.

    NOTE - I do not believe any of this.  I wish Obama had a little bit of radical in him instead of being the center-right candidate that he is.


    Yes.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    ...but remember, FOX has been doing this for over a year.  When you take that into account, as well as the fact that this election isn't about winning over hard right wingers, I don't know how much damage they can realistically do.

    This wil sound mean (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:16:20 PM EST
    but, TUCC is going to be portrayed as a front for Farrakhan and Wright as his Lt.

    wrong (3.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Kevin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    If you look at polling, the majority of Americans do tie him with Bush.  And it doesn't help that when the media actually looks at the policies to verify this they find out that, lo and behold, he does hold the same policies as Bush.

    There will be an ad this year that just runs the clip of McCain defiantly stating that no one has supported Bush more then he has.  That no one is a bigger supporter of the war.  

    Sorry, but the fact that he says these things in public makes the job to easy for Obama and the media.  You can say the public knows they hate each other, but one ad showing the "hug" is a pretty good way to erase that memory.


    The wrench in this machinery is Congress (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:18:52 PM EST
    Dem "controlled" Congress is even less popular with voters generally than Bush, and will more likely be held responsible (than McCain personally) for failing to stand up to the Bush admin.

    Although the lockstep Republican controlled Congress was responsible for rubber-stamping Bush's unchecked powers, sadly it was with the assistance and compliance of Dem leadership.

    After 2006 responsibility to oppose rested solidly with the Dems. They did not serve as an independent body and to say they merely underachieved is charitable in the extreme.

    This theme is what will strongly come into play with media and voters in November. I frequently asked my own representatives how a failure to serve as a strong opposition created a strong case for the party to be granted a leadership role.

    All I got was continuing outrage about my outrage, and imperious warnings that I "needed" to get them more funds and power. (What for if they persistently fail to intelligently apply the longtime support they already had from Liberals like myself?)


    Eh (none / 0) (#150)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    People hate Congress.  People always hate Congress.  But the generic D-R ballot polls are quite favorable to the Democrats and I've also seen polls that place most of the blame for gridlock on the GOP (now if only the Dem. nominee would do that more).

    So, while I think it's true that running on a "Democrats in Congress Rock!" theme would not be a good plan.  I think an even worse plan would probably be for the GOP to run on "What the Country Needs Is More Republicans in Congress."  They are going to be stuck running local-themed races.


    Yeah, it's pretty much sucked my whole lifetime (none / 0) (#214)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:48:25 PM EST
    I think the way it will come into play is in serving as a vent for media to "fair and balance" any negativity from McCain onto Dems generally.

    Any challenge to McCain's maverick status by attempting to align him with Bush can be countered with congressional failures being heaped on Dems for failing to stop Bush.

    An inexperienced Dem President with untrammeled Executive powers working in concert with a screwup Dem "controlled" Congress is a theme McCain and the Rethuggernaut will play to the hilt.

    Now I don't believe that Obama is remotely liberal (nor Congress) but pander as Club Obama might to the right with social conservative chit chat, that's a non-starter.

    The NuDem Chicago machine that's supposed to trundle its way up the WH drive hasn't even gotten off the lot, hasn't shown it can get Dems in lockstep to do their bidding on demand, and will more likely get hooted back by media who have been smacked around by a machine that knows how.

    Not all the oPhone txt msging and Smear Sites in the world will counteract that.


    As BTD noted (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    above, what concerns me is just how tight this race is right now.  We should be able to put up any generic candidate and have at least a 10 point lead and instead it is barely five.  Maybe that number will increase, but it scares the holy living Hell out of me.  The Press has been surprisingly neutral, if not outrightly critical, of that Regressive nominee, and if that continues, then Obama will win, perhaps easily.  To be honest though, I think the Press will come back to McCain "big time" when push comes to shove.  His barbeque ain't free you know.  :)

    Five points is well within the Bradley Effect zone, which I hope that the effect of which has dissipated over time.  But I'm an Atheist for a reason, blind faith does not come easily to me, so I am quite concerned.


    The Generic Poll I Saw (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:02:27 PM EST
    had the Democrat winning by more than 20 points.

    But generic polls always do that.  Everyone loves Democrats in theory.  


    There have been more Democrats than Republicans (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    since most Americans have been alive. FDR created a Dem registration plurality, and we never lost it.

    But you have to wonder what some of these "Democrats" think "Democrat" means.


    Perhaps They Think It Means (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:44:13 PM EST
    FDR or Bobby Kennedy and not candidates with Republican-lite economic policies who like to talk about process instead of policies and cannot relate to the culture of rural or lower class America.  And I don't just mean Obama.

    I had dinner with some of the Emily's List people last week, mostly older folks.  When they talked about the party, they talked about listening to FDR, the civil rights and feminist movement, LBJ's Great Society.

    What have I gotten in my 40 years on this planet from the Democrats?  Tom Daschle?  Sam Nunn?  Michael Dukakis?  John Kerry?  The malign acceptance of misogyny?  The erosion of Roe?  The caving on the Constitution for the last eight years?

    I got Bill Clinton, not bad, and Al Gore, who got screwed while the media and the party sat around and watched and then praised him for conceding and then told the rest of us to get over it.  Now, the party is determined to take Bill Clinton away.    


    Its pretty naive to think (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by jtaylorr on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:13:03 PM EST
    that anything other than "Republican-lite economic policies" would play well with Americans.
    The moment you cross that line, Republicans start screaming COMMUNISM and we've lost it.

    That's Because the Dems Let Them (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:39:59 PM EST
    And Obama has spent the entire campaign repeating right-wing framing on economic issues ranging from social security to healthcare mandates to GOP de-regulation.

    If more Democrats did on those talk shows what Hillary Clinton did on Bill O'Reilly, which is challenge the media narrative, we'd be better off.

    We'd be even more better off if Democrats actively took steps to change the media, which, as Bob Somerby has chronicaled, is more interested in writing novels than reporting actual facts.

    By nominating Obama, it appears the party has agreed to go with the media narrative as "truth" the last 20 years - both parties are responsible for the partisanship, the Clintons were polarizing in the 1990s, Ronald Reagan was transformative (he wasn't, Barry Goldwater was) and on and on.  How that's good for Democrats, I have no idea.


    There's the difference (none / 0) (#208)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:38:55 PM EST
    between the two parties. Democratic politicians are always afraid of Republican politicians. As the majority party, the Republican's never worried about how the Democrat's would react. Even as the minority party they still have the Democrat's dancing to their tune. We need to finally stand up and say enough. Maybe the approval rating in Congress would improve if the Democrat's finally developed a spine.

    Mccain has a serious argument (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    and he'll prod Obama into confirming that he'll retreat from Irag or keep  a quanifiable number of troops in Iraq just as McCain intends to do.

    It may be that the press cares nothing for the arguments (knowing privately, that Obama will proabably keep about 60,000 in iraq and that they just want the stale GOP out so they can talk about Iraq as some sort of success again.)

    God only knows what is going on with the coverage.


    How he should run. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by abotron on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    I've supported Obama throughout the primaries and I think he needs to stick with what he's been doing these past few days. More "Change That Works For You" and less "Change We Can Believe In". He has all the "believer" votes, now he needs to keep on his new tact to get the "worker" votes.

    He should not be afraid to stand behind his proposed foreign policy. He's been a bit shaky due to moderating some of the stances he took(negotiating with Iran; should always state "at time and place of MY choosing") but as long as he appears to be coherent and in control on foreign policy and sticks with the "Change That Works For You" themes, he should win this election.

    Also: He should be relentless in pushing the "Iraq harms our economy" theme(which will appeal to even some hawks). He should start running an ad with that JedReport video that shows McCain going, "I have supported President Bush on every single transcendant issue, nobody has supported our president more than me" juxtaposed with "why does he want to connect me with President Bush?". That video is the one that will lose John McCain the election.

    How does Obama run on the "Iraq hurts (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:30:54 PM EST
    our economy" theme when he has now said he "never said" he is going to withdraw the troops?  Just wondering.

    He never said (none / 0) (#176)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    he was going to withdraw the troops?


    Didn't he talk about troop withdrawal a few months back during one of those debate things?


    Of course he did , but apparently (none / 0) (#181)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:07:31 PM EST
    that was just "Obama speak."  Now he's said that "no, no, I've never said that troops should be withdrawn," and that he is against "an artifical deadline" for withdrawing them. This topic should make a nice windsurfing ad looped with his prior statements to the contrary.

    (If someone would explain linking instructions, I'd provide the link)


    Linking instructions... (none / 0) (#182)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:11:19 PM EST
    Look just above the large text block. DO you see the  icon that looks like a chain?

    Block over the text you want to hyperlink, click on the icon, and drop the URL into the box that pops up.

    Hit "ok."

    You've hyperlinked.


    Easiest Way To Link (none / 0) (#211)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    Use brackets:

    [text for link URL]  You do not need a space between the text and the URL, but it works fine with a space as well.

    Simple as pie.

    More Here


    Has Obama peaked? (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    This is really the question that got to me at the end of the primary.  Is there anyone left for him to impress with his combination of bio/charisma/new politics?  Anybody else going to be boarding the Obama train?  He talked a big game about how he'd go into any state (like PA) and wow them, because to know Obama is to love Obama, but that didn't seem to be at all the case at the end.  His campaign at the end appeared entirely defensive (holding the converts) not offensive.  

    Now I'm not saying Obama can't win more voters than he's currently got going forward, after all there are a lot of people out there cheesed off at the Republicans, but will those gains be because of him or because of the D by his name?  Likewise, McCain has gotten very little attention due to the long primary.  What happens when McCain gets out there front and center, does he still have some peaking left to do as he flashes that Maverick grin?

    I think it's way too early (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:38:52 PM EST
    to predict anything.

    The campaign is still on a slow simmer.


    this is going to be the ugliest campaign (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:43:47 PM EST

    Obama's got nothing to run on but cliches, and McCain has the Scarlet R tattooed on his forehead.  Neither campaign actually has a credible positive agenda for America, and that means its going to be a battle of the negative ads, and who people hate the least come November...


    Don't Forget (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:45:44 PM EST
    They are also both "biography" candidates.  Which means the attacks are unlikely to be about policy since neither is really running on policies.  Although I'm sure they both have them on their websites.

    Exactamundo! (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    It's going to be "Who do you hate less?" Ugh.

    Obama has already started (none / 0) (#217)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    dancing to McCain's tune. McCain called him on never having been to Iraq, and then Obama came out with "I will go to Iraq before November." So what I see happening is McCain tossing out balls and Obama scrambling to catch them. So basically, McCain is going to be calling the shots in the campaign. Which won't make the Dem candidate look like much of a leader.

    I don't pretend to be as knowledgable (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Joelarama on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:45:23 PM EST
    about election politics, demographics, and polling as any regular commenters here.  To be imprecise about it, it seems to me that the upshot of the analysis is that the same swing states "matter" that have mattered since the Clinton era.

    My main curiosity is this:  What difference will money make?  It seems for the first time in a very long time that the Democratic nominee has the potential to bury the Republican with campaign spending.

    Assuming Obama keeps up his unprecedented fundraising, and McCain's funders remain tepid or "only" up to their usual effort, will gobs and gobs of money rewrite the electoral map to some extent?

    That's what interests me going forward.

    Money (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:01:33 PM EST
    I suspect the main benefit of money will be that Obama can force McCain to expend money and time in states like Virginia and North Carolina, which keeps him out of places like Ohio.  

    Obama will probably flip a couple of states, Iowa I think is a good bet.  

    I don't see any new permanent majority coming out of this election.  The Dems went with probably their weakest GE candidate out of their leading choices.  You don't change the electoral map by doing that.

    To be fair to Obama, I don't think we had a map changer running this year.  Hoover changed the map more than FDR in 1932.  Bush might do the same for Dems this year.  But we probably won't get the same kind of bold agenda from Obama (unless he becomes someone else) that we got from FDR that helped build a more permanent majority.  

    If we're going to change the map, we're going to have to do it locally, one state and one district at a time.  If Colorado goes for Obama it won't be because he turned it blue.  It will be because Democrats in Colorado have been working their butts off to win the State legislature and then show they can govern.  Obama may be able to capitalize on that in ways other Dem. candidates couldn't, but it will still be because of the ground work that's been going on there for years.


    Obama's burn rate is troubling; didn't budge PA (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:30:03 PM EST
    What difference will money make?  It seems for the first time in a very long time that the Democratic nominee has the potential to bury the Republican with campaign spending.

    Six weeks to campaign and spending 3x what Sen Clinton did, and Obama didn't budge from where he started out.

    That's not just troubling but disturbing, as the makeup of PA features many of the kinds of voters he'll need in those states his campaign is blithely assuming will be his once he unleashes his Charisma on them. (They also seem to be taking the "nowhere to go" Dem voter as a gimme, and actions like telling Rendell that Obama doesn't need "the people" just "their checks" aren't going to help.)

    Speaking only for myself, the much courted Indy voter of 2004 may have been ambivalent and undecided, but the Indy faction of 2008 is a different political animal.

    In combination with that potentially disastrous burn rate, purchased ads will be needed to FEND OFF attacks, will also be needed to woo the voters he's alienated on his own, and to make up in some way for the "lost" free media that gave him momentum and a honeymoon for a movement that IMO is no longer a story.

    Finally, the strategy for his volunteers on the ground is to target voters and tell personal stories of 'how they came to Obama' (using religious terminology.)

    Again, speaking just for me, the blowback from this, particularly in courting conservative religious voters of any age, is huge both among Repugs and Dems (and not just the bitter clingy dummy knitting white old Latino Asian and lunchbucket racist people who drink the "wrong" coffee.)

    Most people won't base their votes on how a couple of oPods "came to Obama" and it's my guess will be turned off by that approach.


    Don't kid yourself BTD (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by herb the verb on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:12:05 PM EST
    Obama will have to fight extremely hard to win Minnesota. I'm not saying he can't, I'm saying I believe he could be behind here right now with a high undecided factor. I wouldn't be surprised if he lost heavily, I wouldn't be surprised if he won narrowly, I would only be surprised if he won handily.

    Our caucuses are a joke and sparsely attended or even cared about. Party activists only. Pay no attention to them regarding candidate preference. In a primary, my feeling is Clinton probably would have won.

    increasing black turnout v white backlash... (4.60 / 5) (#100)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    I think that a strategy that is based on winning by increasing black turnout is a very bad idea...

    I think a lot of Clinton's success with white voters was a rejection of "identity politics" as the determining factor in the Democratic nomination.   And I think that you'll see the same kind of patterns emerge among white voters in November as the kind of analysis that BTD has provided here becomes more widespread.  (not faulting BTD for the analysis -- but the more "black turnout" is discussed as a major factor in the election, the greater the likelihood of a 'white backlash')

    If Obama was actually qualified for the job, I don't think this would matter so much.  But lets face it, the sole reason he's even competitive right now is that the GOP 'brand' is is such disrepute, and Obama is the person with the "D" next to his name.

    It won't take much in the way of dog whistling to establish Obama as the "Affirmative Action" candidate -- the guy who isn't the best qualified, but gets the promotion because of his race.  And once that happens, the Dems can wave buh-bye to he white house for another four years....

    People who think NC is in play (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    should look at the various "close" races Jesse Helms ran.

    I Lived Through the Gantt Race (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:08:15 PM EST
    and would prefer not to look at it again.  I could barely stand it the first time.  Ick.

    Also, it seems that the GOP has put affirmative action measures on a number of state ballots, including Colorado and Missouri.  Evil little suckers aren't they?  Effective, but evil.


    No Affirmative Action Measure On MO (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    ballot in 08. They failed to get the necessary signatures before the deadline. Even without it and even though Obama is slightly ahead 43% to 42% in last poll (Rassmussen), I still find it hard to believe that Obama will get enough of the conservative Dem votes in non-Democratic stronghold counties to win here. Would be completely against how they usually vote for as long as I can remember.

    Thanks for the Update (none / 0) (#171)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    Whether it helps Obama or not, I'm glad the measure didn't make the ballot.

    Me Too (none / 0) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:30:40 PM EST
    Rather proud (hope it is warranted)  that they couldn't easily find the necessary number of signatures here.

    And who wrote the "hands" ad? (none / 0) (#111)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:09:59 PM EST
    CNN's favorite Republican panelist: Alex Castellanos. Oh yeah, this is coming.

    And wait until we see the NRA ads with (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:18:28 PM EST
    Obama saying on video before the DC primary that he supports the DC handgun ban and thinks it's constitutional, with him saying later in PA he hasn't taken a stance on that issue.  I can just hear the creepy voice over -- Obama will say anything, but we know his agenda, he's out to get our guns.

    The Rocky Mountain states will be lost to Obama on that issue alone.


    lets not forget... (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:23:45 PM EST
    the questionaire that Obama filled out when he first ran for office, where he said he wanted to make all handguns illegal... then denied that he'd filled it out, and that his handwriting was on it ...but his handwriting IS on it...

    ...throw in a soupcon of "bitter/cling", and Obama can wave buh-bye to a whole slew of states, not just the west -- there are a lot of hunters in PA and OH and NH as well...


    Eh... (3.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    the press will deflect for their newest media darling.

    Won't matter... (none / 0) (#180)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    Most of the gun owners I know find the news laughable when it comes to covering gun related issues.

    They have their own sub-blogosphere where gun owners with Dem, GOP, Libert, Ind, and other party affiliations all talk the talk and know the laws and positions inside out.

    They scoff at folks like Matthews...and media darling status means squat.


    The media... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Thanin on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    still matters to moderate swing votes.  Those you sited definitely dont fall into that category.

    Uh... (none / 0) (#192)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    I didn't cite any particular site.

    and how do you know (none / 0) (#194)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    there aren't moderate voters on those sites?

    Agree Not a gun owner myself (none / 0) (#205)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:34:29 PM EST
    but those people I know who do like their guns seem to have their own networks for information that they trust over any other outlets.

    YES! (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:41:14 PM EST
    The gun issue is HUGE!  Sorry for yelling.  :)

    That is what 1994 was all about, if he is at all shaky about guns, his dreams of winning the middle of the country are doomed.  Fortunately the NRA turned uber-whacko and alienated folks and that helped Clinton in '96.



    Which Makes It Even More Infuriating (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    that Donna Brazile and others alleged Democrats didn't go postal on his a$$ over his white b*tch comment.  This is not some guy any of them, especially Brazile, should want to go for drinks with after the show.  He's not David Gergen.

    There's no hope for a party that won't stand up for one of its own against Alex Castellanos.  


    What was the hands ad (none / 0) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    I have no memory of this.  Can you elaborate?

    See (none / 0) (#126)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:18:01 PM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#133)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:21:08 PM EST
    and ugh!

    The NC Primary was a wake up call (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:26:22 PM EST
    A wake up call that went unheeded.  North Carolina is a southern state but the white voters in the Democratic primaries, tend to be a lot more like white Democrats in Virginia.  That's why initially Obama had a huge lead there.  However, exit polls showed Hillary winning close to 62% of the white vote.  That was a collapse for Obama.  Now it went unheeded because black voters voted en masse for Obama and the media could immediately project the state and begin celebrating.  But their celebrations aside, the cold hard dose of reality says to me that Obama has an uphill climb in that state.

    IIRC... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:38:07 PM EST
    among whites overall, it was 60-40...but among white Democrats, it was 65-35.  

    The difference lay in the white independent vote (52-48 Clinton) and Republican vote (54-46 Clinton).  


    I'm not sure there was really (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:21:44 PM EST
    white backlash in the primaries.  However, I think that could happen in the General Election.  White Democrats in the primary are a lot different from whites in the general electorate.  

    I think Hillary had a natural appeal to many Democratic voters and later independent voters.  It took her a while to find her footing but once she did, she did quite well.  However, she continued to worsen among black voters who saw the opportunity to elect a black man president and they opted for that.  


    I think you saw it in SC.... (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    Obama was doing poorly with white votes until he won in Iowa, then his support jumped to 29%... then the race-boating of the Clintons happened, Obama's white support dropped to 22%, and Clinton's rose to 50% (from 38%).  Clinton lost most of that white support after the controversy died down --- but it all went to edwards, and Obama wound up with just 24% of the white vote in SC.

    I think you also saw it in Indiana -- black turnout in Indiana was amazing, with more AAs voting in the primary than voted in the 2004 general election.  But White Turnout was also extremely high -- more white voters turned out than voted for Kerry in 2004....

    And I think it played a role in WV and KY as well (although Obama's treatment of blue collar/working class voters in those states probably played a bigger role in the 'perfect storm' of anti-Obama voting).


    omg! that is all just too funny! (3.00 / 2) (#125)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    obama take MN? puhleeeeeeze! sure, the five black people who live there will vote for him, and he'll pick up maybe 30% of the white vote. bear in mind, MN is a big hunting/fishing state, with lots of rural residents, most of whom are republicans and conservative.

    as well, mccain will get a nice bump there due to the convention. and the 527's haven't kicked in yet.

    VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS: all have 20% AA population, all will go mccain. obama might win OH, if he or one of his surrogates doesn't say or do something inordinately stupid between now and nov. i'm not going to hold my breath.

    frankly, these polls are pretty useless right now, because the real fireworks haven't begun. let's see what they say after both campaigns have brought out their big guns, after the conventions.

    the purported "conventional wisdom" is that the conservative wing (is there another one?) of the republican party doesn't like mccain, he's not conservative enough for them. that may well be true.

    however, i can guarantee you they like the concept of both a firmly majority democratic congress, and a dem in the white house even less. they will vote for mccain.

    Minnesota is currently Obama's (none / 0) (#203)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:32:54 PM EST
    Considering Obama has topped McCain in the last eight polls taken in Minnesota. I would say yes, Obama can and likely will win Minnesota.

    PPP poll in Ohio, please.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    they have about the worst rep in polling i have ever heard of

    Zogby and ARG are worse imo (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    At least PPP is somewhat transparent.

    PPP is all right (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    This particular poll seems wrong to me.

    No Ohio No Republican Presidency (none / 0) (#12)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:01:31 PM EST
    No Republican has ever won without Ohio.
    The Real Clear Politics average  with the PPP poll is Obama +4.  The other polls in their average are split McCain and Obama and are much closer.  Ohio can be blue and should be.   Sherrod Brown stayed out of the primaries but hopefully will campaign hard for the Democratic ticket.

    McCain will win Ohio (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:00:46 PM EST
    Right or wrong, but race and culture are going to be huge factors, and no one is talking about it.

    Who really knows? (none / 0) (#22)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    The biggest question is, of course, turnout modeling.  Who will show up, at what rate, and for whom will they vote?  If Obama is really successful at bringing 1st time and infrequent voters to the polls, then there could in fact be a dramatic difference in several states, simply because there are probably more than a few disaffected and demoralized "blue" voters in traditionally "red" states who figured their vote wouldn't make a difference, and people who were otherwise disengaged from the political process.  

    See (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST
    this is what makes these discussions difficult for me to engage in.

    We actually have a very good idea of who is going to show up.

    You do not like the fact that demography is so important here. What is funny is this has nothing to do with Obama's race per se - I am pointing you to Kerry numbers.

    Hell, Jim Webb only got 42% of the white vote in 2006 and that was with George Allen imploding.

    I am offering you a REALISTIC assessment. Ohio is ripe for the taking. North Carolina and Virginia are not imo.

    Let me ask you a question, how often was I wrong in my demographic analysis during the primaries?


    But we don't know.... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:43:00 PM EST
    ...what a "realistic assessment" of turnout numbers broken down by demos will be at this point.  We have a pretty good idea how different demos tend to vote, but we don't know what the composition of the electorate will be on 11/4/08.
    At the moment, it appears that Dems are more enthusiastic about their candidate, they have a higher party ID advantage than they did in 2004, and it looks like our GOTV is likely to be stronger and better organized this time around, while Republican base voter turnout may be a little weaker.  So modeling based on what happened in 2000 or 2004 is going to wind up being a bit inaccurate, I think.

    Remember why W was supposed to have an (none / 0) (#77)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:44:15 PM EST
    easy win in 2000?

    Alas, you don't have Nate Silver's caché (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    I do not mind that analysis (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:22:04 PM EST
    I do not agree with a lot of it, but it is based on SOMETHING.

    So is Zogby's polling. . . (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM EST
    (at least, he claims)

    It isn't (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    New/Youth Voters (none / 0) (#55)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    I anticipate a highly negative fall campaign.  It will be interesting to see what that does to turnout among these voters.  Will a negative campaign counteract the current enthusiasm and keep these voters home where they have always been?  I think Obama really needs them to win.

    I've always thought Obama was destined to either win big or lose spectacularly.  I'm not sure he can win the nail-biter.   That would suggest that he'd lost his shine, and I don't think he can win without it.  But as I keep saying, we'll see.


    About young voters/new voters (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    No one can argue that Obama has a large youth following.  He does.  However, I'm not sure if a majority of young people overall support him or even like him that much.  Now across the board he does better among millenials (except in a few states) against McCain but keep in mind that Millenials/Gen Y are the most Democratic group right now so he wins them by default.  I think he can't rely on Millenials alone to carry him.  

    I hope people don't forget that Hillary had her best performances in the highest turnout primaries.  A lot of new voters did come out but weren't locks for Obama.  I bring this up because I fear that we may fall into the trap again of just expecting new voters to come in and save the day.  I remember this in the 2004 General.  I hope we don't repeat the mistake.


    I tend to agree... (none / 0) (#58)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    ...to the extent this will be either a "2 point race" or a "20 point race" (don't take those numbers literally, necessarily).  A close race outcome probably favors McCain somewhat, or at least his chances in such a scenario are much better.  But a blowout more likely means that not only did "Obama fever" catch on, but that McCain was saddled with the "Bush III" label and couldn't really get out from under it.

    Of course he can win a nail biter (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:36:52 PM EST
    there is no logic to the idea that Obama can not win a close race. I say it again, Obama wins Ohio and he wins the Presidency.

    If he does not, it is an open question.


    Rather, It's not right that he CAN'T (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:38:58 PM EST
    win a close race, but his performance in the primaries suggests that he found it quite difficult to. (See also Texas).

    Late Deciders Broke for Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:06:21 PM EST
    In many of these states - PA, OH, MI - Obama is going to have to be up by more than the undecided vote and he has to watch his soft support.  In most elections, late deciders usually go with the more experienced candidate because they think it's safer.  

    Um (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:38:17 PM EST
    there is no logic to the idea that Obama can not win a close race.
    What happened in Indiana?

    I think he is going to have to (none / 0) (#79)
    by davnee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    I've been rethinking my expectations since the earlier stages of the primary anyway.  I'm still uncertain as to what Obama's best course is - to try and ride the hope and change campaign crest all the way through November, or just get down and dirty and run an issues/negative campaign.  He's a difficult candidate to get a bead on.  But I do think he needs to do whatever is right to win the MI/OH/PA trio.  He's not going to DC without 2 of those 3 imo.

    Here's the thing -- if it's a close (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:13:54 PM EST
    race that means people are having a hard time making up their minds.  IMO, those people will break by large numbers for McCain.  It's the comfort factor.  That certainly happened in many of the primary states, particularly the later ones: Clinton was the well-known, comfort candidate, Obama was the roll of the dice.  If moderate democratic voters responded that way in the primaries, my guess is undecided Independents will go that way in very large numbers in the general election, when it is truly crunch time, as will quite a few moderate/conservative dems.  We are in the middle of two wars -- does middle America really take a chance on the mystery behind door number 2, or take the known quantity?  

    What is this realism stuff (none / 0) (#175)
    by kredwyn on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:58:21 PM EST
    of which you speak?

    It sound...unusual...

    LOL (none / 0) (#215)
    by coigue on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:51:46 PM EST
    Texas Repubs have already come out with a pin (none / 0) (#206)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    that says "If Obama is President... will we still call it the White House?"

    Election Projection (none / 0) (#216)
    by JayHub on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 06:24:34 PM EST
    The Republican blogger at Election Projection, who is highly regarded and whose projection formulas have been right in the past, sees the 2008 Election shaking out as follows, if the election were held today:

    Projected Electoral Votes
    Barack Obama:  309
    John McCain:  229

    Projected Popular Vote
    Barack Obama:  51.69%
    John McCain:  47.31%

    He says, "Barack Obama continues to lead John McCain by a comfortable margin [and] appears to have this presidential contest well in hand at the moment."

    Other Republican predictors, such as Cold Hearted Truth, The Hedgedhog Report, Election Junkie and FiveThirtyEight, also all have Obama winning, but are hoping for a turnaround.

    Link to Election Projection site is here:


    Quinnipiac Obama fares better without Clinton (none / 0) (#218)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 08:33:29 AM EST
    Of course Republicans don't want her on the ticket. Since she dropped out he's picking up her votes in the swing states according to this poll.

    "If Sen. Obama seriously is thinking about picking Sen. Clinton as his running mate, these numbers might cause him to reconsider. The people who really matter come November - independent voters - turn thumbs down on the idea. And, many say they are less likely to vote for him if he puts her on the ticket," Brown added.

    Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent;
    Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent;
    Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent

    While Democrats support the idea, independent voters in each state say Obama should not choose Sen. Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. Results are:  

    Florida: Democrats want Clinton on the ticket 57 - 33 percent while Republicans are opposed 59 - 17 percent and independents oppose it 46 - 37 percent;
    Ohio: Democrats want Clinton for Vice President 58 - 31 percent, but Republicans say no 60 - 19 percent and independents turn thumbs down 47 - 31 percent;
    Pennsylvania: Democrats say yes to Clinton 60 - 31 percent, while Republicans say no 63 - 20 percent and independents nix the idea 49 - 36 percent.  


    The terms "lose" and "win"... (none / 0) (#219)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:01:52 AM EST
    ...are almost meaningless in this age of electronically rigged elections.  You can lose and win, you can win and lose.  I continue to be amazed at how deep in the sand our heads are on the issue of election fraud, and how we are not insisting on security and accountability.  Ohio, in case we forget, HANDED Dubya the last election in a very fraudulent manner.  Think Obama might have some trouble "winning" there?  Not that he can't win, but he's going to be up against one of the two most corrupt electoral systems of the last two presidential elections.  Good luck, he'll need it, especially if no real movement holds election officials to the fire.