home

Landslide?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:14:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Quinnipiac has terrific news for Barack Obama today. In Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania:

This is the first time Sen. Obama has led in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac University polls show:

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

(Emphasis supplied.) If these numbers are real and hold up, Obama will win in a landslide.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Michelle Obama's Makeover Begins Today | Live-Blogging Michelle Obama on the View >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Landslide? | 208 comments (208 topical)
    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    These internals are not great.  

    The Democrat trails among white voters in Florida and Ohio, but gets more than 90 percent of black voters in each state. He also has double-digit leads among young voters in each state.

    Every election cycle it's the youth vote that's going to SAVE us.  And every cycle they don't turn up.

    Forgive me for the cynicism, but meh.

    mmm (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    Pretty good trends for a guy that is supposedly unelectable.

    I mean, I wasn't expecting any Florida numbers to look like that until post convention at best.

    [ Parent ]

    It's excellent news (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    If it were out of Zogby, I wouldn't have believed it.

    [ Parent ]
    More excellence from PPP in VA (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by magster on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:58:12 AM EST
    Obama + 2 with Obama supposedly receiving only 67 % of AA vote.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm aware of that poll (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    Honestly, I don't trust it. Adjust the AA numbers to where they're supposed to be, and Obama nears a double-digit lead. That can't be.

    [ Parent ]
    I see (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:13:03 PM EST
    the propaganda campaign has already started.  Just keep publishing that Obama's ahead and voters will start to think, "Well, I might as well vote for him, he's going to win anyway."

    [ Parent ]
    Propaganda Campaign? (none / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM EST
    You are starting to sound like a GOP troll. Are you rooting for McCain? Sure sounds like it.

    [ Parent ]
    heh! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:46:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Eleanor....sounds more like you are being (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    practical.  These polls aren't all that and what happens down the road is what will be more telling.  Are these within the MOE or close?  If yes, means not so much.  The bounce obama has rec'd since the nomination was given to him, has not been stellar...that says alot.    

    [ Parent ]
    Different times (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:22:11 AM EST
    The DNC spent over 40 million dollars to advertise on MTV etc.  Young people are on the internet or otherwise plugged in.  Fads usually last a year.  Through November should take Obama through the product cycle.

    [ Parent ]
    Good luck with that (4.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:25:39 AM EST
    Seriously.  It's just that I remember a lot of talk in 2004 about the youth vote.

    I've gotta run out the door and don't have time to dig up numbers right now, but I remember the projections and the actuals differing significantly.

    [ Parent ]

    These polls aren't modeling unusually high (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    youth turnout, though.

    [ Parent ]
    But they did vote in the primaries (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    The primaries saw lots of new voters and why would they vote in the primary and not in the more important, General election?

    This is the first year I ever voted in a primary. By the time my state voted, it was always a done deal.

    And this year they (young and minorities) have a young minority candidate, one of their own so it at least appears as if it matters.

    [ Parent ]

    Good grief! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    He's 47 years old. I didn't realize that "youth" included the over 45 set. I would have guessed that it stopped somewhere short of 30, if not short of 25. Can I call myself young as well, or does this extension of the "young" category only apply to Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    It all depends (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50:53 AM EST
    If he won your demographic in your state, you may just be "young". I think it was Iowa that had the "younger" vote going up to 50, lol!~

    [ Parent ]
    Yup, you're young (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    if you voted for Obama, old if you voted for Clinton.  I'm in the 41-45 demo, and over and over I saw it reported as young or old depending on which way the group went.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah but what if he didn't win your demographic (none / 0) (#116)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    in your state?  Does that make you old?  

    [ Parent ]
    He didn't win (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    any demographic in my state, because he wasn't on the ballot.

    I guess that makes us ageless.

    [ Parent ]

    If he lost 18-24 year olds or 18-29 year olds (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    in a state, are those 18-24 year olds now old people?  Or Appalachian?

    [ Parent ]
    No, because the DNC and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM EST
    know how you would have voted, silly.

    You're young!

    [ Parent ]

    His ideas and presentation are young.I (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    I know lots here are invested in tearing him down, but he is fresh and new and looks very young.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, but his ideas (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    aren't young. Appealing to "change" is one of the oldest political ploys in the book. Selling yourself on your image and your biography isn't fresh either. You just personally haven't seen it before. A lot of us have, therefore we aren't impressed. Not meaning to harsh your mellow here, just speaking truth.

    [ Parent ]
    No Matter How Much You Hate The Guy (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    You cannot deny that he embodies young energy. Bright youthful energy is a force to be reckoned with, and a force in effect, big time, during this election.

    His ideas and presentation are young. I know lots here are invested in tearing him down, but he is fresh and new and looks very young.

    It is true that his policies are mainstream democratic, nothing new, but his style, ways of relating and message all reflect his youth and have indisputable appeal to the younger generation.

    Whether or not he is will be anything like John Kennedy as POTUS, he has the very appealing youthful glow that always embodies bright ambitious young people.


    [ Parent ]

    I was responding initially to this (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    And this year they (young and minorities) have a young minority candidate,one of their own so it at least appears as if it matters
    .

    That sentence makes sense when  applied to blacks, but it makes no sense when applied to young people. His style may appeal to youth but is not a youthful style. I don't hate the man, I just don't think he'll make a good President, and I think his style and appeal parallels that of Bush's successful style and appeal during the 2000 campaign. (I'm talking campaign style here, not governing style; that's yet to be determined. Nor am I talking about issues.)


    [ Parent ]

    No Sense? (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    To you, but that must because you are not paying attention.  The stats are out there. Young people relate to Obama irrespective of race or gender.

    link

    link

    link

    etc.....

    [ Parent ]

    I am 51` (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    so I have seen a lot of elections in my time.

    He is just as inspiring to me as Bill Clinton was in 1992.

    [ Parent ]

    Same Difference (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:01:33 PM EST
    Bill Clinton (Around the same age as Obama the first time he ran, right?) was also perceived as youthful.

    When you stack these guys in their forties who you haven't seen that much of before against the older Washington hands (GHWB and McCain), they not only are younger but the age difference accentuates that image.

    They seem (and are, really) young and new.

    [ Parent ]

    You've got to be kidding. (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    He's nothing like Bill Clinton.  Bill Clinton never got up and read a canned speech in his life.  He was the best debater in the group. He could rattle off numbers and facts from the top of his head. Obama is just a programmed like a droid.  He's already stealing all of the Clintons' ideas because he doesn't have any of his own.  That's why he had to destroy the Clinton legacy.  He and his handlers are going to do everything the Clintons did and claim credit for themselves. Just sayin.'

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I do not like Obama (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:15:33 PM EST
    but does that immediately keep me from seeing the obvious? His message is the same as previous candidates (change change change), the only difference is the he's energized the media as well, which I have to give him kudos for. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but so far it looks like fair weather.

    The youth vote does not have a dependable track record; if we go into Election day with a lead solely depending on the youth vote, I will be skeptical indeed.

    If I wasn't so much into evaluating candidate's actual records and policies, I would be ecstatic about Obama; as is, I'm disturbed but not surprised that the establishment candidate has the nomination. I hope the stretcher that they wheeled him across the finish line will hold him up through November.

    [ Parent ]

    Sweet. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    I hope they hold and think they will. McCain is running a campaign that will one day be seen as a blueprint on how not to run a campaign. Dreadful - and that's a good dreadful.

    that is one big IF (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:18:59 AM EST
    you got there

    A huge IF... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:22:24 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    actually I think this is his (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:46 AM EST
    post nomination bumb

    [ Parent ]
    It is a HUGE if (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Claw on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    but it certainly isn't bad news.  I don't think we can win FLA.  Too many voting shenanigans, too much voter fraud.  I think a dem would need about a 20 point lead to win FLA.  But if these numbers hold up in oher states (and these numbers are very premature) I'm very optimistic about our chances.  I also agree with the other posters that the more people hear McCain speak, the more they realize he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.  

    [ Parent ]
    precisely... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    considering the fact tha the right-wing noise machine remains dormant, its a huge "if"....

    the only question is why the right isn't going after Obama right now.... either they want to make sure that he gets the nomination, and then go after him, or they realize that Bush has left the next President with an impossible task -- and the public has a very short memory, and will blame whoever is running things when things REALLY hit the fan for the problems.

    One of the reasons I'm thinking seriously about voting for McCain is because if Obama wins, by 2013 the Dems will have lost both houses of Congress, and the White house....

    [ Parent ]

    My theory: Hillary is running interference (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:59:03 AM EST
    As long as there is a possibility that she could pull off a miracle in Denver, they won't go full force on him.  When/if it's a done deal, they'll pull the trigger.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think thats about right (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    the hammer wont come down until after the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Your theory (none / 0) (#151)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    they realize that Bush has left the next President with an impossible task -- and the public has a very short memory, and will blame whoever is running things when things REALLY hit the fan for the problems.

    ...is why I sometimes these days have a fantasy that the Democratic leadership wants to lose this election (but be able to say "look, we tried, but you were just not ready for a black president" or something like that).

    Going a little OT, but I wonder if anyone can tell me... a very long time ago, my mother told me about a SF story in which, for some reason (possibly because of a historical situation like the one we're in today, where everything is likely to go further to pieces in the next few years) both major parties decided that they didn't want to win, so they decided to go down in a splash and one party nominated a woman while the other nominated a black man. This story would have dated back to the 1960s or maybe even the 50s? Anyone recognize it?

    [ Parent ]

    are you sure you are not thinking (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    of the classic Robert Downey Sr movie from the 70s, Putney Swope?

    [ Parent ]
    No, I'm sure not (none / 0) (#162)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:43:28 AM EST
    She told me about this sometime in the late 60's, and it was definitely a story (i.e. written matter, not a film). (I have it in my head that it was Asimov, but that could be way off. Howard Fast? He did write some SF)

    [ Parent ]
    Florida (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:00 AM EST
    I just don't see him winning there.  Ohio and Pennsylvannia look really good so far.

    If McCain's polling says what the Q poll does, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:07 AM EST
    then McCain is going to have to sink money into Flordia. That's less money he'll have for Ohio. This time electoral "white elephants" work in favor of the Democrats, because we have a money advantage.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    will have as much money as he needs.  he is a republican.

    [ Parent ]
    That's what they said about Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    Fact is, Obama is breaking all fundraising records. He will probably be able to outspend McCain 2:1.

    [ Parent ]
    he outspent Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:26:16 AM EST
    3 and 4 to one and barely won the primary.
    this election wont be decided by fundraising IMO.


    [ Parent ]
    I simply don't believe (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:28:11 AM EST
    McCain won't be competitive financially.  He's gonna cuddle up to Wall Street and Halliburton REAL fast this fall.  If he hasn't already.

    [ Parent ]
    And he'll have to make the sale (none / 0) (#94)
    by anydemwilldo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:51:35 AM EST
    The financial interests that have traditionally bankrolled republican candidates aren't idiots.  They want something back for their investment.  If they don't think he has a realistic chance of winning, they won't invest.

    Right now we're on the knife edge, with McCain still holding on to life as a "potential" president.  If he falls much farther behind, his fundraising operation is going to collapse.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by neoliberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    Is vastly superior to McCain as both a candidate and a person. Imo, she was the hardest test for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that's probably right (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:33:01 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right, it'll be decided by how (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM EST
    voters feel about the incumbent party in the WH as it relates to the tanking economy, $4.50/gal gas, and sliding home values to go with rising unemployment.  Not to mention voters' overwhelming dislike of the nitwit fratboy in the Oval, aka John McCain's running mate.

    Though having a financial advantage in the fall will not hurt to drive home the above points.

    [ Parent ]

    He would have been ouspending her (none / 0) (#44)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:31:04 AM EST
    8-1 if she would have stayed within budget.  Money is always a factor.

    [ Parent ]
    He outspent her in states where (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    he was behind. The only really ominous example is Indiana, where he apparently started out ahead, spent, and lost.

    [ Parent ]
    Indiana (none / 0) (#63)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:38:08 AM EST
    She was ahead in the month prior to the Indiana primary.  His only lead was small one for about four days in the week before.

    [ Parent ]
    IMO The Key Is Not About How Much (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    McCain has in his campaign chest but how much will Republicans be willing to fund the 527s. If McCain has enough to compete on a 2:1 basis and the Republican 527s are well funded and actively make up the slack, Obama loses the funding advantage. The 527s can attack in ways that McCain can not. If OTOH, the Republicans are more reluctant to fund the 527s this election cycle, then Obama definitely has a big funding advantage and can IMO use this advantage more effectively against McCain than against Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    The question is how effectively the money is spent (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    surprisingly (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:37:07 AM EST
    republicans are actually pretty good at that

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think he'll get Florida in the end, but (none / 0) (#23)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:52 AM EST
    what this does is it puts John McCain on the defensive. Now he has to defend Virginia, North Carolina AND Florida, meaning he has less time and money to spend on places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
    Florida was John McCain's last firewall, and now it's gone.

    [ Parent ]
    FiveThirtyEight (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:14 AM EST
    currently gives Obama a 74% chance of winning.

    FiveThirtyEight (none / 0) (#36)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    is my new favorite blog.  I think it's going to be a huge part of my life for the next five months...

    [ Parent ]
    The oil drilling issue (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:19 AM EST
    is worrisome, tho. The response from Obama is crucial and tricky. All rural and suburban voters are listening in particular.

    Let's hope they all understand the facts (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    We are drilling currently off Florida and if anyone thinks that building more drilling platforms will lower the price of gas, they are wrong. The price of gas will go down when an alternate energy source for cars and trucks is found. Until then, demand rises daily and more drilling will take years to turn into actual gas at the pumps.

    That is all I want, the facts.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain's call for offshore drilling (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    can only hurt his chances in FL (and CA, not that that one is in jeopardy whatsoever of going R).

    This Q poll, while it's early in the campaign, seems w/n the margin of reality right now, and McCain's stupid decision to side with Big Oil will probably help O keep and even slightly increase his lead there.

    O is very lucky to be running in an anti-incumbent, anti-Repub year, especially against an uninspiring and aging candidate who seems determined to side with big ripoff corporations instead of the people.

    It looks increasingly like a huge Dem year.  The Rs can only win by stealing it massively in OH, FL and elsewhere by targeting heavily minority and college town precincts, gumming up the voting works and the usual stuff.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    the GOP can still win it by making Obama so toxic that voters will reject him.

    [ Parent ]
    This isn't 2004 or even (4.50 / 2) (#82)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    1988.  The economy is in the tank, and we have a candidate who doesn't seem to be quite as clueless as the knuckleheads we nominated those years who decided to lie down and take the punishment the Rs dealt out daily.

    The Repub Recession will trump all this year, count on it.  No pastor eruptions or similar is going to change the favorable outcome for Dems.

    [ Parent ]

    Keep (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    dreaming. There was no way Kerry was supposed to lose in 2004 either because of those numbers. Obama hasn't been very good at responding to the GOP so far. We'll see if that changes. The largest problem Obama has is that he is an unknown and failed to define himself during the primary. This leaves him open to being defined by the GOP.

    The election will probably boil down to who are you voting against not who you are voting for.

    I've seen us lose in favorable climates before. Besides, Obama really isn't making much of an economic policy push so far. He's way too reliant on the University of Chicago Milton Friedman economists.

    [ Parent ]

    In 2004 the economy wasn't (3.33 / 3) (#114)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:00:31 AM EST
    in the tank and the Iraq situation wasn't nearly as unpopular as it is today.  Too, Junior's popularity is much more in the tank than back 4 yrs ago.

    Sorry to bring this news to you but this cycle is going to be about the public's view of the 2-term party in power in the WH as it relates to the economy -- and all other considerations of character and the like are going to take a backseat.

    I will add that Rs will likely try to drum up some sort of NS-related October Surprise once again this year, as they do for almost all pres'l elections.

    Folks won't be buying this time I predict.  The little boy has cried Wolf! once too often.

    And no, not even Wolf Blitzer crying Wolf! will be able to help the McCain/Bush ticket ...  

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    One word: Vietnam One Year: 1972. Do you realize that exactly 20% of americans approved of the WVN in 1972? And people really hated Nixon. Do you realize that the Dems in congress have been an abject failure? That they are even more disliked than Bush?

    You might hope that this election is a referendum on Bush but it could be a referendum on Obama. Have you considered that fact? The race is close right now and all the GOP has to do is raise enough doubt in people's minds that Obama simply can't be trusted so the voters can't pull the lever for him.

    Every year I hear from people like you who say "This time it will be different". Well, it's almost never different and the things that have worked in the past somehow work again no matter what the environment.

    [ Parent ]

    So what are you going to do to make it different? (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:36:20 AM EST
    "Woe is me, we are going to lose, we always lose" is no way to go through an election. What are you going to do to make it different?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:52:27 AM EST
    saying that we're going to lose. I'm only looking at this realistically. All the Obama is going to win and McCain is going lose shouting doesn't make it so. I can't fix Obama's electoral problems any more than I can't fix McCain's. Both of them have some pretty serious problems. Ignoring those problems doesn't make it go away.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe it just seems this way to me (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:07:25 PM EST
    Every year I hear from people like you who say "This time it will be different". Well, it's almost never different and the things that have worked in the past somehow work again no matter what the environment.

    This sounds to my ears very much like "woe is me, we can't win. We almost never win."

    No one expects you to fix any electoral problems. If you had that capability you need to get thee to campaign HQ immediately.

    However, you are not totally powerless either. Can you get one other person to vote Democratic? How about 2?

    [ Parent ]

    I guess (none / 0) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:21:46 PM EST
    that's what you want to hear and see. Whatever. The problem is that the same thing Obama supporters are saying HAS all been said before. Somehow this time it will be different because of X. Somehow the GOP attack machine won't work this time etc.

    I can easily get people to vote democratic for downticket races. Getting people to vote for Obama is quite another task altogether. And don't play the race card. Obama's race is the least of his problems.

    [ Parent ]

    Was there a Repub Recession in 72? (none / 0) (#145)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    I don't think so.

    What were Nixon's job approval numbers?

    Anywhere near Junior's over the past two years?

    I don't think so.

    VN War?  Tricky had taken care to largely take that one off the election schedule with his Vietnamization effort starting in 69 and the end to the draft.  By Nov 72, VN, which obviously by then had not been a popular war, was successfully neutralized as an issue by Dick.  

    He'd also gained in popularity (iirc) with his bold trip to Red China and the summer detente visit to Moscow.  No longer the rabid anti-communist who was unwilling to deal with the red menace.

    Now he was almost Nixon the olive-branch offering peacenik.

    Heheh ...

    [ Parent ]

    Nixon's (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    numbers were terrible. They were similar to what Bush has. Goldwater conservatives hated the guy. The problem in the end was that McGovern was so unpalpatable by the populace that Nixon won in a landslide. Obama has done a lot of damage to himself even before the GOP starts on him. The GOP has said all along that they were going to let Obama coast through the summer and then unleash the dogs after he's nominated at the convention. Get back to me then about the Nov. election.

    [ Parent ]
    Gotta cite for Nixon's (none / 0) (#157)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:36:09 AM EST
    job approval #s in 72?  Because I don't think they were remotely close to the dismal ones Junior has had since he began seriously dipping in 2005.  Voters then were also not passing judgment on a two-term incumbent party in the WH, as they are today.  That in addition to the generally okay economic conditions back then (one year before OPEC lowered the boom) created favorable conditions for Nixon.

    Then he enhanced his chances not so much for victory (that had been assured when he and his band of Tricksters "arranged" for McGovern to get the nom over the feared Muskie), but for a landslide when he skillfully went after McG's character.

    And like in 1988, 2000, and 2004, he got a very flawed opponent who was inept at fighting back -- when he wasn't creating unforced errors for himself that is.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    I know Nixon arranged for McGovern to get the nod. Much like the Republicans here in GA went and voted for Obama simply because they knew that he had zero chance of being competetive in GA.

    According to CBS news, Bush's rating is slightly below what Nixon had. All the yammering about Bush's approval rating would be much more salient if Cheney were running. I would have no doubt that we would win in a landslide.

    Well, so far Obama has been pretty inept at fighting back. When he actually shows that he knows how to fight the GOP I might change my opinion. I do have a question though. How is Obama going to fight the GOP when he constantly wants to hold hands with them and is even considering a Republican for VP.

    [ Parent ]

    After Re-election (none / 0) (#201)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    Nixon's numbers started to slide to a low of 27% in early 1973 as Watergate began dominating the news. That as his lowest rating, according to an article on the CBS News site comparing recent presidents' lowest ratings.

    Presumably, they were higher six months earlier when he was running and getting re-elected.

    [ Parent ]

    Nixon's approval ratings (none / 0) (#192)
    by texasobserver on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    Here's a cite showing Nixon's approval in 1973 and 1974.  They declined as the Watergate scandal unfolded but were not low at the beginning:

    Nixon (Gallup)
    1/1973
    Approve 51%
    Disapprove 37%

    6/1973
    Approve 44%
    Disapprove 45%

    1/1974
    Approve 27%
    Disapprove 63%

    8/1974
    Approve 24%
    Disapprove 66%

    [ Parent ]

    It is terrific (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:43 AM EST
    Q poll is a quality poll that I trust. If they say Obama is up in Florida, then he probably is. If I were him, I would start thinking very long and hard about how I'm going to answer questions about the death penalty and Cuba, because that's how McCain is going to go after him.

    And then there's Virginia, where PPP says that Obama has a small lead. But if we adjust his AA numbers to where they will inevitably be, Obama has almost a 10 point lead. I do not trust that poll.

    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:48 AM EST
    The way the Q poll casts putting Hillary on the ticket is simply wrong. Their own data show that Hillary on the ticket is a net advantage in all three states.

    [ Parent ]
    It seems all info producers do not like the idea. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    Dunno why, but it's very hard to find anyone in the information production industry that likes Hilllary in the VP slot.

    [ Parent ]
    Because the media hates her (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:06 AM EST
    She's an evil calculating you know what, you see.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah that and (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:53:50 AM EST
    it's a Clinton thing. I really do believe it's not MERELY a sexist thing against Hillary because she's a woman but a anti-Clinton thing in general.

    Sooo often when I hear people discussing the VP angle I hear them talk about Bill and how he would be lurking in the background, "opening his loud mouth," and otherwise getting "in the way."

    So it's a global Clinton thing and not just about Hillary. Though arguement could be made that the above are coded comments about how Hillary can't control Bill etc.

    Now given that Clinton hatred is substantially a media generated phenomenon, this is no suprise when MSM outlets push it. But the associated memes are very widespread at this point and crop up even in the analysis of pollsters who dispute their own data. That's a bit suprising to me. Though I suppose I shouldn't be suprised.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's something you won't see reported (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:56:03 AM EST
    in Florida, blacks support having Hillary on the ticket more than any other Demographic group.

    [ Parent ]
    Q Poll in FLorida (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:26:24 AM EST
    has always had Obama tied with McCain. this not that big a change.

    I think Q poll in Florida is especially suspect.

    [ Parent ]

    It's eight points over May, which is something. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM EST
    But yeah, Q's been consistently high on Obama in Florida relative to most of the other outfits.  I'm guessing Rasmussen will show a dead heat there with their next one.

    [ Parent ]
    The appearance of a dead heat in FL (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:33:46 AM EST
    is good enough to spend Ohio and Michigan off the table. At least, I hope so.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    Their 2004 work was good though, IIRC. They always seemed to have a slight Republican tilt, but that was just compared to Zogby (who fooled us all).

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's best campaigner (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Coral on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:52 AM EST
    is McCain. Everytime I read or hear about McCain proposals, I lose a bit of my disinclination to vote Obama. The stuff about off-shore drilling has really set my teeth on edge.

    I have to say you are right about that. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    Gives me a bit of hope.  Hopefully a lot of Democrats who have grown to dislike Obama, or at least his campaign and their tactics, will turn out to vote against McCain.

    McCain is not the happy warrior campaigner who duped many moderates and centrists in 2000.

    [ Parent ]

    I gave $50 to McCain in 00' (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    It makes me feel dirty.
    My though process was that if the Democrat lost, at least we'd have a decent Republican. Boy was I wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry offered the (none / 0) (#70)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    Vice Presidency slot to McCain in 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    I voted for him, I gave money to him, but (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:45:01 AM EST
    Kerry was not a good candidate.

    I hope Obama has enough sense not to reach out to Republicans in that way.

    [ Parent ]

    If he does (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    the only rational conclusion I could make is that he really wants to lose. I don't think he's that crazy.

    [ Parent ]
    he certainly seems to be (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    laying the groundwork to do exactly that.  talking about dead beat dads, the religious thing, its not looking good IMO.


    [ Parent ]
    also I disagree a bit (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:02:09 AM EST
    I think he is smart enough to know, or at least the people around him are, that these numbers are not going to hold and he is going to have to try to get some of McCains voters.
    rock, meet hard place.


    [ Parent ]
    not going to happen (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by VicAjax on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:14:15 PM EST

    when Kerry was running, the GOP was far more popular; so there was a credible thought that Kerry would have to reach to the right to get elected.

    now the party is in shambles and the Republican brand is badly damaged.  There's no real advantage for Obama to go for a red VP.  and Hagel, despite his opposition to the war, does not have much in common ideologically or policy-wise with Obama.

    it's all just silly talk to give people something to type about.

    [ Parent ]

    Club Obama's already canoodling with Repugs (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:56:28 AM EST
    It's fellow Dems that are the bad guys, remember?

    Now, some Democrats want Obama to look outside the proverbial box for a running mate, courting the independent voters Bloomberg would have sought. "He was not the candidate of the Democratic establishment although he's courting the establishment now," Democratic strategist Donna Brazile told Salon. "This is an opportunity to go outside the traditional walls of looking for some kind of geographic or political balance [in a running mate]. The country's in such a mood now, it's in a pickle almost," she added, referring to the possible appeal of the national unity ticket.

    Hagel would also bring some strong credentials, says former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat and fellow Nebraskan [...](And Obama's veep is ... a Republican? By Mike Madden, Salon, 06/17/2008)



    [ Parent ]
    Brazile!!! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    The country's in such a mood now, it's in a pickle almost," she added, referring to the possible appeal of the national unity ticket.

    Put a sock in it, Donna.  Ugh.

    [ Parent ]

    Once Again (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    Hagel is an extremely CONSERVATIVE Republican. Progressive Punch gives him a score of 9.46%. In fact, he is more conservative than McCain who has a score of 13.89. Health care - Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 9.89. Corporate subsidies Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 50. Environment -  Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 27.60     Education, Humanities, & the Arts      Education, Humanities, & the Arts - Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 5. Fair Taxation - Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 17.46.

    The only area that he has deviated from Bush is that he has spoken out against Bush's actions in Iraq. Even when he has made statements against Bush's Iraq policy, when it came time to actually back up his words with his vote, he voted with Bush.

    Hagel would put choice and every other Democratic value just a heart beat away from being on the line. It would give his positions validity within the Democratic Party. It would also set Hagel up as the future presidential choice in 8 years.

    I am currently not inclined (subject to change) to vote for Obama but Hagel as VP would be a deal breaker for and might actually get me to vote for McCain for the reasons stated above.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't believe the Dems are putting it out there (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    ... even as BS to try and keep the VP discussion lively without Sen Clinton.

    Brazile's pathetic.

    [ Parent ]

    there is even growing talk (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    of VP Hagel.  personally I could totally see him doing that.


    [ Parent ]
    Yup, Hagel was the specific potential VP mentioned (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    ... in the Salon piece.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah ditto for me (none / 0) (#191)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    Volunteered for him too.  Helped organize on campus for him.  I knew he wasn't a good candidate from the get go but I supported Howard Dean in the primary so I'm no one to talk.

    [ Parent ]
    Hubris level orange. nt (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:37 AM EST


    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    I think what we're seeing is the post-nomination bounce, now that HRC has gone underground.

    [ Parent ]
    It's only mid June (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    There's a lot of time between now and November.  Why just the other night, my beloved Lakers were leading the Celtics by 24 points.  They somehow managed to blow the lead and lose the series in humiliating fashion.

    [ Parent ]
    Lakers got the smackdown last night (none / 0) (#150)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:28:34 AM EST
    It was sad, really.  I stopped watching after a while.

    I was rooting for the Celtics, but it was sad about the Lakers.  There's gonna be alot of changes in LA, that's for sure.

    [ Parent ]

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#182)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    The Lakers have a great team.  A few ball bounces one way or another in Game 1 or Game 2 and the Lakers would be celebrating a championship right now.  That's just the way basketball is.  The Lakers didn't win the championship but they did win the Pacific Division, had the best record in the west, and won the Western Conference Championship by defeating the defending world champions.  That's not a team you make a lot of changes to.  

    If you're a Celtics fan, you should be happy with the blow out.  I love watching victory lap clinchers that are big blow blow outs.  

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#190)
    by oneangryslav on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    "There's gonna be alot of changes in LA, that's for sure.

    This is LA's first trip to the finals in the post-Shaq era, and they only really started to put it all together this year after getting Gasol in mid-season trade.  The Lakers are young and will have a healthy Bynum back for next year.  There will be very few changes.  Maybe Derek Fisher and/or Lamar Odom.  Otherwise, the foundation is there for a couple of more runs at the title.

     

    [ Parent ]

    The Laker fans comin' out in full force (none / 0) (#198)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:15:27 PM EST
    I love it.

    I'm not a Celtic fan, I just preferred them over the Lakers.  While the Lakers has a solid team, it hasn't paid off for them over the last 4 years or since Shaq got the boot.

    The Lakers fought hard to get to the finals and they played good ball.  it's just Boston wanted it more.  It was a good series all around.

    [ Parent ]

    Now we wait for VP picks. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:24:25 AM EST
    I think polls will continue to favor Obama going foreward. I was expecting this, but this is far better news, far earlier than I expected.

    I think the VP picks on both sides will be the next major thing that could shift things around one way or the other.  

    Fan-tastic (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    If this holds up, the majority Democratic Congress AND the Democratic President will be able to cave to the minority GOP on FISA and other issues.  

    Sorry, not feeling very much joy about the party today (Obama has become the least of my complaints).  Their complicity in destroying the Constitution (including non-leader Obama) makes it kind of hard to care as much about their electoral success.  And, of course, their participation in the petty, every day corruption that has become life in our Nation's capital.  

    Hip, hip, hooray Democrats!  You're slightly better than the GOP you cravenly cave to at least some of the time!  Go team!

    The next SCOTUS nominations are among the most (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by imhotep on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    critical issues.  It's essential that a Dem wins.
    However, Obama is an appeaser, so I'm not sure that we'll get what we want there.

    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    If only there was some way a Democratic Senate could stop a right-wing Supreme Court nominee?  

    I was at a luncheon where Barbara Mikulski was speaking and was railing against Alito and Roberts.  I almost couldn't take it.  The only reason either are on the Court is that enough Democrats in the Senate went along with putting them there.  

    Do I think Obama's picks would be better than McCain's?  Yes.  But that doesn't make the Senate Democrats any less accountable for what the Court has become.  If you can stop something, but don't, it's your fault, too.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, it's their fault (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    But saying "you should," doesn't mean they will. The evidence shows that a President can get his appointments through, even if he has to compromise a bit.

    We're faced with a choice between center-left appointments and hard right appointments. I know which ones I'd rather have on the court.

    [ Parent ]

    Personally (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    I'm getting sick of the entire "We're Weak and Pathetic, Vote for More of Us!" routine from the Democrats.   It's particularly tiresome when it comes from Democratic Senators themselves.  We'll cave so elect one of us President!

    At some point, one they're rapidly approaching for me personally, they are going to have to do better than simply be less awful than Republicans.  Because when you cave on all the awful things Republicans do, you're not really a choice I can get all that invested in.

    As for Roe, as a practical matter there are parts of the country where you c