Gallup: Obama 46, McCain 44

It's just one poll, but Obama's silence on the FISA capitulation bothers me, so I am posting about it. In any event, at least in terms of national polling, no poll has Obama ahead by more than 5 and leading by less than 2. It's a close race according to these polls.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Friday Open Thread | Obama AWOL On FISA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As polls go (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:48:08 PM EST
    How much do you love that some people are now trusting Insider Advantage?

    Looks like a prophecy. (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    McCain will be 44.  Will Obama be 46?

    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    I admire your restraint (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:52:37 PM EST
    but really have been looking forward to your follow up on Kevin Drum's bet and the Gallup poll.

    Turkana's already gone there (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    And I Missed It? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by BDB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:08:21 PM EST

    In a comment (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    Kevin Drum is not worth spedning a second's (none / 0) (#83)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    time reading.

    Polls this far out in the race (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    are difficult to take seriously as such much can change in just a short period of time.

    However, with all the crowds and adulation, the historic nature of his candidacy and his long, very public "success" in "winning" the Nomination over Hillary, you'd think Barack would be running stronger numbers.  Maybe 10 points or so.

    I suspect these Polls which show a tepid response to him, at best, may be indicative of the reluctance post-February (and post-Wright) that led Democratic Primary voters to choose Hillary over him in the final months of the contest.  Only this reluctance is now on a National scale and we still have the inevitable swift-boating and Republican-drive media narrative to endure.

    One wonders how these slightly tepid numbers will hold up after all that.

    Considering... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    ... that McCain's campaign efforts have been rather lame so far, he really should be further out in front. Of course, it's certainly possible McCain's campaign will remain lame.

    that's what I thought all along (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:20:36 PM EST
    is that the rise of Clinton and slowing of Obama has a lot more to do with the Rev Wright than the oft noted "racist white voters".

    I believe the primary results would have been much different has the Rev Wright stuff come out before Super Tuesday.

    IMO the Rev Wright controversy was never going to hurt Obama with blacks or with the far left dems.  But hurt a lot with conservative dems and with indies.  So, I think had it come out earlier Obama would not have done as well with the indies and repug crossovers that he did well with in the earlier primaries.


    I have a relative visiting from SE Iowa. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    She participated in the Dem. caucus in 2004 and 2008, voting for Edwards each time on the first ballot.  Then, becuase Edwards didn't get the required # of votes, she voted for Clinton this time on the second ballot.  She sd. she has been thinking about how Obama won Iowa and can't figure it out.  I sd. that will be  THE book out of this primary season.

    I've never understood the claims (none / 0) (#44)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    about Obama bussing in all sorts of college students from ILL to vote in Iowa.  I'm not sure what is meant when they say that.  Does Iowa law allow students attending school in IOWA from out of state, to vote in the caucus in Iowa?  Is that what they are talking about?  Did these same college students then forfeit their right to particiapte in primaries in the home states?

    Or, are they making a claim that college students were bussed into Iowa who DON'T even attend school in Iowa?

    I recall when I was in college in PA, out of state because i lived in NY, I had a choice of voting in PA or NY.  But, NOT BOTH.  And, that was a general election, not a primary.  And, it was a L O N G time ago.

    I know thre have been MANY complaints about the actions of the Obama campaign in several of the caucuses.  But, I've never really seen any full discussion of the charges or whether any were proven valid.  I suppose they will all just be forgotten about now.


    My relative sd. nothing unusual happened (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:46:42 PM EST
    at the caucus she attended, and the city she lives in is directly across the Mississippi River from IL.  I asked her if the Obama supporters tried to take over the caucus, disrupt, etc.  Answer:  no.  

    Iowa very lax on residency rule (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    of only three days.  Essentially, according to a relative who is a student there from out of state, all they had to do was say that they were Iowans.  And readers writing into the papers there, online, reported buses coming over the river en masse, many young people participating never seen before, etc.

    Go back through archives of the Des Moines Register, the Iowa City paper, etc.


    My understanding... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    (and it's limited...so bear with me)

    IA does allow students to caucus. Check the IA Sec of State site for the exact rules.

    Part of the "thing" re: buses was that the caucus landed in the middle of a semester break. Ostensibly, that would mean that many of those students would be out of the state visiting parents and such for the break.

    There was some discussion surrounding whether or not the Obama campaign was trying to get those students back into IA before the break ended.

    I don't know what happened to all of that.

    I've heard/read elsewhere that a couple of the IA caucus sites had a more contentious crew than others. But that's rumint at this point.


    iowa fraud (none / 0) (#132)
    by laurie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    perhaps you should take a look at this

    and then at this to understand Dean's role in it


    oops (none / 0) (#134)
    by laurie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    try again to post a link



    oops again (none / 0) (#135)
    by laurie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST

    why can't I post links? (none / 0) (#136)
    by laurie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM EST
    I used the chain thingie but it doesn't work with me...
    anyway iowa link is

    Dean link is


    I should add, Obama had 4-5 personal (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST
    appearances in this city of 30,000 people.

    and the fact that the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    so willfully ignored the obvious will of the voters -- who had obviously changed their minds about him after February and were clearly voting for Hillary as she racked up win after important Battleground State win through March and into April -- and literally pushed Obama on the voters as the Nominee will be one thing I'll never forgive and which makes me increasingly hesitant to vote for even downticket Dems this year.

    I don't think we've EVER had a Nominee who lost New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania and Florida.  If (when?) he loses in the GE, it won't take too many people too long to put together the dots and wonder aloud 'why did they run this guy again?'


    Yeah, how could he win? (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:20:41 PM EST
    The Convergence of the he lefty blogs, the corporate media, the huge crowds, even a gracious opponent, a media that adores him and hated his opponent (also-my guess between JM and BO, they take BO's side), ADDED to a disastrous year for republicans (8 years of GOP rule, disastrous tenure, massive deficits, wars, economic trouble, and huge gas prices) and he is still in a statistical dead heat??

    By the way, he is also taller, younger, more charismatic, and a far better politician than McCain.  He also has more money.

    I guess that despite everyone prasing the Emperor's fine clothes, the public has its doubts.  


    You miss the point... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:47:37 AM EST
    Or perhaps this is simply another way of looking at the same data.

    Hillary was the chosen candidate. Then around December 2007, a bright and shiny newcomer emerged. With the Wright revelations, he became just another candidate with baggage, and began hemorrhaging voters. He's been losing voters ever since.  He was a six-week wonder.

    The mob returned to Hillary, but the media would have none of it, nor the DNC. So they pushed him over the finish line, leveraging his wins during his six-week spree.

    He's still a candidate on the downswing, with occasional bursts and bubbles of renewed popularity on the way down.  

    He may yet win, if the Republicans stay in their coma.


    How come Obama isn't... (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    beating "that old man" by at least 10 points right now?

    Really - will anyone of you Obama supporters explain that...when this should be a BLOWOUT YEAR even if Dems were nominating a rock after 8 years of Bush.

    WHY?  Please educate us.

    No education necessary....it has been said (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    many times before on this site; the more people get to know obama, the less likely it might be they would vote for him.  His combination of bad judgment and no leadership (today FISA) is catching up to him.  And I wouldn't count on a "lame campaign" from McCain from here on out.

    actually, the opposite is true (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:17:04 PM EST
    if you judge by looking at the state-by-state polls at Pollster.com

    Overall obama is not much to look out (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    right now....check back in a few weeks and we'll talk.  

    Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    had 307 electoral votes on August 8th.

    Any poll this far out means nothing.


    True abotu polls..But... (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    trends are important and Obama is flat against mcinsane right now - a worrisome state. No putting HRC away bump, no mccain is an obvious idiot everyday bump, no Americans hate bush and republican rule more everyday bump - no bump at all.

    Historical funny. (none / 0) (#80)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:24:28 PM EST
    I think the only democratic nominee in recent memory (in 40 years) who came from way behind and won a race against a sitting President was a guy named Bill Clinton.

    Funny, all other examples that people give of polls not meaning very much at this time include democrats having a huge lead in summer and losing in November!

    It's not very reassuring, you know!!


    so when the polls say he's cormfortably ahead (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    the polls are to be discounted, because, hey, what use are polls in June.  When the polls say it's close, then we criticize Obama for not being more ahead than he is?

    Yes -- this should be a blowout year.  And it may very well be.  Even in blowout years, the blowout is not reflected in the polls this far in advance.

    See mathematical predictions at 538.com, and summaries of polls at USA Electionpools, and Electoral-vote.com, all of whom have Obama beating McCain by more than 100 electoral votes.

    OK, so now that I've shows polls indicating a blow out, is it time to discount them?  What more do you want?


    Speaking for me only, a different (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM EST

    well, ok, but (none / 0) (#19)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:21:13 PM EST
    if the odds of that are slim, it would seem that the second best thing would be McCain's defeat, no?

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:27:36 PM EST
    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    oculus, your enthusiasm for the nominee is showing.

    My point is that this year was loudly (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:29:35 PM EST
    proclaimed to be different.  Obama was majestic, heavenly, the "one" we have all been waiting for.  Crowds fainting at his feet.  Women in tears (we are crying now for sure!)

    And with the Bush legacy and John "McSame", an old codger as the Republican...the election is Dems to lose.  

    And this is one of BO's honeymoon periods - the next will (supposedly) be when he announces his VP and then for the week after the convention.

    What's wrong?  What's not happening?  And believe me, something is wrong.  And something is not happening.


    The second best thing (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:34:20 PM EST
    would be divided government this time and a more leader-like Democratic president in 2012.

    The way things are looking now, economy-wise, etc, a non-leader Democrat is going to be disasterous for the Democratic Party for YEARS to come -- Carter all over again...as I've been saying all along.

    Not that this primary and the RBC hasn't been disasterous for the Democratic Party, as have been the racism charges, etc.

    Oh and FISA capitulation hasn't helped matters either.


    I beg to differ (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    John Paul Stevens will be close to 89 at the beginning of the next term.  Even besides that:

    The GOP has stacked the federal judiciary for 20 of the last 28 years.  We don't need 4-8 more years of that stacking.

    That's for starters . . . but, hey, if you loved the past eight years of domestic and foreign policy mess, four more years of McCain doesn't look too bad.  He'll do wonders for our military and standing in the world, no?


    A DC- That is exactly why (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:58:57 PM EST
    we need 60+ Dems in the senate. And some strong leadership to stand up to a pres. mccain would be nice.

    2008 is absolute must for democrats and America (none / 0) (#92)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    end of story:

    • SCOTUS
    • signed death warrant of untold thousands under mcinsane
    • run away global warming

    call it crazy all you want, but we have been in some very serious 1984 territory for the past 8 years. 2008 could very well be the last American presidential election if mcinsane wins, if the Chimperor's increasingly rumored Iran summer attack even allows the election to occur.

    With a mcinsane as POTUS, it would only take one manufactured attack on American soil to completely eviscerate the Constitution even more than it has been already.

    Time grows short on what's left of "the American experiment."


    There is only one person (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    left in the race.

    Sadly. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    i doubt obama will win (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by sancho on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    florida and ohio will be difficult. it will depend in part (but not in whole) on the new dem. establishment there. if he wins, it will be a squeaker. past history says he will lose ohio and the GE. that does not mean he will certainly lose, though. it just means that it will be an upset if he does win. w/o question, the republicans are ecstatic to have a chance this cycle when they should be blown out.

    Either kind of poll should be discounted (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what the polls say right now, they are not reliable indicators of what will happen in November. Neither are the electoral vote summaries, which are merely extrapolations from polls. The reality is that nobody knows what will happen. Obama might run an absolutely amazing campaign, not get tarred too badly by the right, and tear apart McCain. McCain might benefit from 527's who attack Obama at critical junctures before the election and end up winning. I'm betting that the latter is more likely than the former - but neither I nor anybody else really knows.

    Polls now showing Wisconsin (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    as strongly Dem are, forgive me for saying so, nuts.

    Cream City- I totally agree (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    Wis. will be a squeaker. Anyone who thinks differently just does not understand my home state. I also think mccain will pick pawlenty which could help him in the upper Midwest.

    You said (none / 0) (#77)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM EST
    the same in the primaries as I recall...

    Nope, I said it was entirely an enigma (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:38:41 AM EST
    to me as we got within weeks of the primary, in part because of our predilection for Republican crossover -- and that is what happened, in addition to the collapse of the Clinton campaign, of course.

    After all, Wisconsin was the closest state in 2004, and almost the closest in 2000 -- and I have been saying ever since, on this blog and others, that my state easily could go red this time.  And since the primary, the Wright debacle still makes it too close to call in Wisconsin, I think, no matter the polls.  (Btw, the best pollsters here haven't weighed in since; when they do, we'll see what we see. . . .).

    Sorry to expose the failure in your memory retrieval mode -- not to mention the total illogic of your comment, since primaries are quite different than general elections, y'know.  See, in fall, it won't be Dem vs. Dem anymore. . . .


    It's easy (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    When the opposition puts their most appealing candidate forward and we put our weakest what do you expect? Our loser primary MUST go. Bill Clinton only got through and was able to win because the Dems in DC didn't stick their noses in the process.

    vs McCain, Worst Prez/admin isn't 20pts min? WTF (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    ... this is so weak. Granted it's only one poll (and I'm not a cruncher) but after a thrilling primary, 24/7 CDS, the mantle of cutting down the "clear favorite" (LOL) and every help from party, Oboiz and MSM why the hell is Obama's lead so piddling?

    And this following a historically unpopular Prez and admin, against a weak GOP rival and without a real Rethug attack leveled against him.

    Seriously, what's up?


    He's going to lose. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:05:41 PM EST
    Why are you so certain he's going to lose? (none / 0) (#78)
    by prittfumes on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    Please produce your evidence.

    Gutt feeling. (No claim to (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:53:35 PM EST
    seeing behind the polls, etc.)

    well, I guess he is (none / 0) (#106)
    by tben on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:17:39 PM EST
    A statistical TIE! (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by AX10 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    That is all he has right now.
    The Generic Dem candidate is ahead by 12-15% and all he can get is a TIE!
    Heck, Hillary was ahead of McCain by 10% right before she dropped out.

    And a statisical tie ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:51:05 PM EST
    means again we're in another "coin flip election" nationally.



    asdf (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    Wasn't he supposed to expand the map??

    He did ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:41:39 PM EST
    we now have 58 states!

    look at this summary of polls (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    here for more info on whether you think it's a statistical tie.  As well as three other citations I provided in another post that show him ahead by over 100 EV's.

    Just assumption based (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    on more polls.

    I used to post these kinds of polls (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    all the time when they showed Clinton beating McCain easily and Obama losing to McCain.  Then, the Obama supporters all said polls mean nothing.  Now you are quoting the same polls since they currently favor Obama.

    Summaries of polls mean no more... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    ...than a single poll. For example, you could have taken a poll right after the Iraq war started and you would have found that people thought the war was a good idea and we were going to win. Did that make it true? If you had a hundred polls saying the same thing, would it be true? Right now, more people believe that they will be voting for Obama than McCain. That is their sincere beleif, but they might change their minds. A lot will happen between now and November.

    Hillary up by 10? (none / 0) (#107)
    by tben on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    Obama up by 15%  LINK

    Oooh, I guess that also means he is at the highend of the generic dem range.

    Be happy.


    Hey! (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    Isn't that the same percentage he was up by in South Dakota?  What a coincidence.

    polls (none / 0) (#133)
    by laurie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 10:25:51 AM EST
    I looked at the gallup polls results and saw that they weren't broken down on a partisan basis. However the 2 polls which came out on  June 18, were - in fact Public Policy Polling surveyed 55 Democrats for every 30 Republicans, and SurveyUSA was just about the same, 52% to 28%.
    This may be because there are more Dems around this year, or it could because more people are declaring themselves independent....
    The PPP poll is particularly curious because despite polling 55% Dem, Obama only received 50% of the vote. Wonder Why?

    Well, in fairness, (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    USA Toda/Gallup has a different picture:

    Democrat Barack Obama leads Republican John McCain 50%-44% among "likely" voters in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll released just moments ago.

    Eric Dienstfrey says they're using a different sample for this one.

    Six points? That's nothing. (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    Come on people!  This is OBAMA the great we're talking about against an old man who is hateful and a war monger and will throw women back into the kitchen where they rightfully belong.

    What's Obama's problem?  He clearly has one!


    100 EV's a problem? (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    See post above which references three sites that show Obama leading by over 100 EV's.  Six percentage points in a GE is easily translatable to 100 EVs.

    Hey Tben.....is it your turn today to lurk (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:27:51 PM EST
    and troll rate?  If you are so passionate about your boy, then put up something that might actually change people's minds to vote for him.

    Isn't it up to Obama (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    to do that?

    I have no time for most of his supporters, as they only seem to make matters worse.


    You meant our "guy" (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:35:44 PM EST
    If Obama came out against the FISA bill would that change your mind?

    MKS....Coming out after the fact (which seems (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    to be SOP for obama) wouldn't mean too much...sorry.

    oh and FYI....I didn't mean your guy. The (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    days of other people's versions of political correctness are over for me.  If race has to be read into everything, that is on you...not me.  It might apply if I was a racist, which I am not.
    And I haven't forgotten MKS you like the term african american not AA.  

    Then I want all states spelled out (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    so that I don't have to parse the postal acronyms here.

    C'mon, acronyms are a way to save typing time for us and bandwidth for TL. :-)


    Registered Voters are different than (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    Likely Voters.  At one time, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll had Kerry leading Bush 55-43 (12 points) for likely voters but only leading Bush 51-46 (5 points) among registered voters.

    tben....obama is your boy....Hillary is our girl (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    Why are you trying to make trouble?

    "Boy" just grates (3.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    If you want informal, use guys and girls....

    There is a long history regarding the use of "boy."  


    Girls is not equal to guys (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:44:50 PM EST
    if you're going to disingenuously drag racism into yet another conversation, please do your homework.

    To paraphrase another TLer "Language, it's a gift."


    you mean (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    Boy would be fine with you if the candidate is "white", right?

    Just like we could talk about the past drug use of white candidates, but not Obama's.


    Guys and Gals (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:58:19 PM EST
    I was brought up with Dick and Jane and that dog Spot. See Dick and Jane run? See Spot Jump? It was always boys and girls. I NEVER EVER thought of boy as a derogatory term. Have you ever said "Oh Boy, that was tough. A little nicer than other current words. Anyway, I think we are all just going off the wrong way here. If you say, girl, then the opposite of it is boy. If you say gal, then it is guy. Although there is Guys and dolls. Yeah, that is correct for sure. Ha. If we keep in mind that it is a lot better than guys and B***hes, and Obama supporters had no problem with THAT term, then we can move along to FISA and crickets. That is the real story right now. If Finegold could speak out, why not the nominee? Now that would be leadership, BEFORE the vote already taken.

    I was brought up with.... (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:57:26 PM EST
    c*cks*cker, motherf*cker, b*tch, d*ck, piece of sh*t, you name it.  It's my language and I love it.

    I say you're all crazy...it's the context, it's the context, it's the context.  


    I probably have a much longer history than you do, (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by prittfumes on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:33:33 PM EST
    MKS, and I got over that kind of PC crap a long time ago.

    She Knows All About It (1.00 / 3) (#43)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    That is why she uses the demeaning and racist term.

    I prefer giving the benefit of the doubt (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:48:53 PM EST
    The poster did agree with me on not using the acronym AA for African American, which I found to be dehumanizing in the way of the good ol' U.S. Army.

    I'd take AA over "boy" though.


    OK (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:12:42 PM EST
    Be my guest, I have pointed it out to the commenter in the past and only got defensive snark, downrating, and a bit of a pile on. For some here it is OK to call Obama boy.

    Too early to matter (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Veracitor on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:39:59 PM EST
    This is still just a matter of familiarity, like Clinton had with her name recognition.  Obama has tremendous advantages that have not yet been brought into play for the general election - money, demographics, anti-Republican sentiment, age, issues, Internet, volunteers, ground game, and newly-competitive states.

    Being even at this point indicates a potential landslide in November.

    Short version: no one knew who (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:41:47 PM EST
    Obama was in FL/MI/KY.

    Veracitor....he had all those advantages (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:42:30 PM EST
    in the primaries where he lost by 20 - 30%.  I just think it is too early to be doing happy dances.

    off course it's too early (4.00 / 0) (#53)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:47:37 PM EST
    but: (a) the fundamentals look good; and (b) all polls do show him ahead.  That's a whole lot better if the "too early" stuff showed him behind combined with fundamentals looking bad.

    Shorter version: yes, it's too early, but it's better to be in June with trends going up than be in June with trends going down.


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    Obama announced over a year ago he was running for president, and he just spent the last months campaigning in most of the states across the country.

    If voters still don't know him, they must be not paying any attention at all.

    I find that hard to believe.


    indeed, a whole lotta folks (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:09:04 PM EST
    are not paying attention very much, and won't until after Labor Day.  These are not the folks who read political blogs.

    landslide in the presidential ? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by sancho on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    for which side? the only landslides i recall these past many post-1964 years involve republicans  nixon and reagan. it will be a squeaker. look at past electoral maps and then think about which states obama will win that kerry or gore did not. i like that he can attack in more states but his money could not help him beat hillary in the states he needed to win to secure the nomination w/o DNC chicanery. there is no evideence thus far that increased exposure to obama brings out more votes for obama.

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:52:44 PM EST
    Being ahead by 10-15 points would be a weak indication of a landslide in November.  And still it would only be a weak one.  See:  Dukakis, M.

    The polls don't mean much at this point, for a lot of reasons.  But you can't pile up all the pros for your candidate against all the cons for the other candidate and declare 'whee! we're going to win'.

    Through all the elections I've seen I've learned to never underestimate the Republicans and never overestimate the Democrats.

    This is the year the Dems couldn't lose, and all polls that are this close show is that they're roughly as likely to lose this year as any other.

    Maybe he'll squeak it out but a 2-6 point difference at this point is nothing to get all overconfident about, not in this year, not against this opponent.


    who's overconfident? (none / 0) (#69)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    I agree -- it's like being ahead 2-0 in the first inning.  There are still 8 innings to play.  All I'm saying is that even though it's only at the end of the first inning, it's better to be ahead 2-0 than behind 2-0.

    It's more like being ahead 2-0 (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:29:20 PM EST
    in a basketball game.

    Name rec? Obama called her divisive, polarizing (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:53:54 PM EST
    Club Obama can't have it every which way but honest on this point.

    Everyone already knows her ... and hates her which is Obama's personal selling point.

    He continually cited her unfavorables, but apparently those were more among his worshipful blogren and CDS media than voters, who she won over in force.


    No doubt about it (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Veracitor on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:33:33 PM EST
    Clinton had a huge advantage in the early primaries because of her name recognition and familiarity - especially in Florida, Michigan, and other states that voted before February 5th.
    Just like McCain, who has been on every Sunday news program since 1894.

    However, she was a much harder competitor than McCain - with little to differentiate against on issues.

    What happened in the primaries is largely irrelevant to what will happen in the general election.  McCain is Bob Dole II - and worse.

    Being even at this point portends an Obama landlslide.  He has nowhere to go but up, and McCain has nowhere but down.


    Roll with that and good luck to you (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:27:02 PM EST
    I don't see that happening as Obama's exhausted every advantage but McCain has yet to cash his in.

    I have to agree (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:01:07 PM EST
    Obama has more or less exhausted his case against McCain in the way that he destroyed Clinton and Edwards.

    he previewed all the attacks and the Democratic party only half bought the routine.


    Can you be more specific? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Veracitor on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:03:19 PM EST
    What advantage has Obama exhausted against McCain?

    he previewed all the arguments (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    by beating Clinton on the IWR vote.  he might even be made to look out of date when Nov rolls around.

    That's koolaid stuff (none / 0) (#131)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:03:59 AM EST
    In this case, the more people know him, the more they don't like him.

    no poll? (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:42:22 PM EST
    BTD wrote:
    no poll has Obama ahead by more than 5

    FYI: USA Today/Gallup, which came out today, has him ahead by six.

    Old poll (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    Obama leads Republican John McCain by 48%-42% among registered voters in the survey, taken Sunday through Thursday. In a survey taken May 30 to June 1, Obama held a three-point lead over the Arizona senator.

    Oops, my mistake (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    That said, it is no change from an earlier poll that had Obama by 5.

    Capitulation (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    The surrender by this democratic congress of ours to the White House and the Telecoms is disgraceful.  As an Obama supporter I could not agree more with BTD...Obama need to come out against this travesty of justice.  I cannot understand for the likes of me Peolosi, Hoyer and Reid just bending over and giving Mr. 25% more than he wants...Un-FREAKING-believable....

    More than Mr. 25% involved (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:40:20 PM EST
    half the democrats are on the telecomm dole, just like all the republicans. The 105 Vichy dems in Congress are the most spineless people in the world: afraid of republican criticism no matter how strong the people are against republicans and more than happy to lap up those lobbyist perks and bucks.

    I guess there will be no getting away (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:51:14 PM EST
    from polls for the next 4 1/2 months, will there?


    Maybe it's just me feeling the effects of riding the primary rollercoaster for 5 months - and now feeling like I really am not connected or bonded to either candidate - that has me feeling rather indifferent to the current polling.  

    I mean, neither candidate has a running mate, and while the media is rolling the obligatory "on the trail" story every day, the campaigns have not yet cranked up to full volume - people are turning to typical summer pursuits - vacations, outdoor projects, sports - NFL training camp starts in just a couple of weeks, the Olympics is coming up soon - I think a lot of people are looking for escapes from reality and that includes turning off the political prognosticators and pundits.

    But I guess the pollsters have to make a living...

    and this is (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    before the repub 527's have their way with him.

    yeah, he's going to be a real killer in nov.

    Sickening (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    It's a close race according to these polls.

    In this bush environment against the inept cretin mccain, there is absolutely no reason for the race to be within 15 points. This is looking like a slow motion disaster unfolding - I HOPE with everything that its not, but given democrats propensity for turning every opportunity for progress into crushing defeat, I'm not optimistic.

    Newsweek, today, says 15 pt lead (none / 0) (#93)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    Today's article: here

    FWIW, they wrote:

    For now, however, Obama is running much stronger at this point in the race than his two most recent Democratic predecessors, Sen. John Kerry and Vice President Al Gore, who both failed in their bids to win the White House. In a July 2004 NEWSWEEK Poll, Kerry led Bush by only 6 points (51 percent to 45 percent). In June 2000, Gore was in a dead heat with Bush (45 percent to 45 percent)--which is essentially where he ended up when that razor-thin election was finally decided.

    I still agree that June polls don't mean a whole lot.  But, as I've repeatedly said, being ahead in June is still better than being behind in June.


    Newsweek (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:48:29 PM EST
    is affiliated with MSNBC.  Alter and KOS work there.  Nuff said.

    Right (none / 0) (#130)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:00:38 AM EST
    Right, Teresa.

    Historically, this is how the Dems delude themselves until November. I remember 72.


    We should all suspend talking about polls until (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Faust on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:37:31 PM EST
    post convention. I know that's not going to happen. But. Sometimes I dream little dreams.

    Newsweek (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    is the MSNObama magazine.  

    Click the link and look at the far right tab:


    So the cheerleaders come out with an outlier poll.  Coluh' me su-prized!

    its really bad form (1.00 / 0) (#104)
    by tben on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:11:33 PM EST
    to pretend that people are so corrupt as to just make up poll numbers - as a way for you to dismiss what seems to be, for you, bad news.

    Of course one wonders why it is you spend your time commenting at a lefty site, one that supports Obama, if any good poll news causes you such angst, and any bad poll news makes you so happy.


    It's even worse form (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:55:26 PM EST
    to pretend that a poll that almost defines the concept of an outlier must be taken with great seriousness.

    I have a friend who is a politician. (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by derridog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:36:21 PM EST
    He told me you can hire a pollster to get you whatever results you want.  They just skew the sample or the language.

    thats what I am talking about (none / 0) (#125)
    by tben on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:05:43 PM EST
    all manner of conspiracy theories dredged up to explain away a poll - one that shows the Democrat ahead?
    Seriously - this is good news. Be happy.

    56% of Democrats still (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Left of center on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:21:34 PM EST
    want Hillary as VP. Only 43% don't. Look at the polls after Obama picks a non Hillary candidate. In today's political climate, Obama should be ahead of McCain by at least 20 points, but this is what happens when the Democrats go with the weaker candidate (as usual).

    The question is whether Hillary (none / 0) (#113)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:24:49 PM EST
    is in the 56% or the 43%

    I really can't picture (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:03:17 PM EST
    Hillary running with New Coke.

    Riddle, that comment (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:41:24 AM EST
    cracked me up.  I hope she is somewhere in her Puerto Rico outfit, white pants and pink blouse, with her feet up -- sipping a margarita or maybe a beer.  And thinking about whether to side with the 56% or the 43%. . . .

    obama's finances (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by pompmom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:34:54 PM EST
    am i the only person wondering about an exact accounting of the sources of obama's campaign finances? i know we have been told that 90% of the donations are of $100 from the little people. but has anyone investigated whether that is true? he has an awful lot of money for someone who was raised by a single parent, yada yada yada. and whose wife grew up on the south side with gang bangers. what about the source of their personal wealth? i know anything is possible in america, but have they earned so much money from their work that they can afford a jet?

    I totally agree that this is an area (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by derridog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:39:38 PM EST
    worth investigating. He came out of the box with a gazillion dollars before he even got "little people" exited enough about his candidacy to give him money online. This sounds to me like another MSM lie to create the meme of that Obama is a populist and he "doesn't take money from lobbyists" (unless they are former lobbyists, of course).  

    2 words (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Left of center on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:00:29 PM EST
    Oprah Winfrey.

    Where is it... (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:37:45 PM EST
    Obama's backers are dropping like flies.  Buyer's remorse has set in.  His May haul was half of his April haul.

    He's flip-flopping on just about everything.  Hillary voters continue to be insulted, and consequently refuse to vote for him. The Nobama websites are growing.

    And...He may not even be eligible to be prez.

    Obama's Birth Certificate: The Problems

    My first post on this subject, Obama Birth Certificate, Fake?, included an analysis that I came across by a blogger named Polarik, who concluded based on "20 years of experience in computers, printers, and typewriters" that the document provided by the Obama campaign (and published by Daily Kos) was manufactured.

    In a subsequent post, Certification of Birth from Hawaii: Where's the Seal?, I showed a `Certification of Live Birth' from Honolulu County for Patricia Decosta, which I found posted at Free Republic (thanks to reader shainzona). (And yes, I know it's a "right wing" publication but that does not make the information false).

    Here is the document posted by the Obama campaign on its Fight the Smears website as evidence of Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961:

    And here is Ms. Decosta's certification:

    Now, compare the two documents. Polarik's technical analysis notwithstanding, my lay person's eye noticed three differences right away:

    1. Ms. Decosta's certification displays fold marks, which you might expect to see on a document sent through the mail.

    2. The certificate number on Obama's document is blacked out; Ms. Decosta's is not.


    3. An embossed seal is visible on Ms. Decosta's certification; there is no embossed seal on Obama's. (You can see the embossed seal very clearly on the larger image at FR here.)

    The Vital Records office in Hawaii has confirmed the following with respect to requests for certified copies of birth certificates:

    1. Certifications of live birth are always mailed from the VR office, and never transmitted electronically.

    2. Certificate numbers are never blacked out.


    3. Certifications will always have an embossed seal.

    See the documents at www.noquarterusa.net

    4 months to create clarity (4.00 / 0) (#116)
    by WakeLtd on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:38:34 PM EST
    Name-recognition cannot be a factor at this point. With the media saturation of the Democratic primary campaigns - it is impossible to claim that any significant portion of voters have not heard of Senator Obama. Perhaps, and this is not really a "problem", they have heard more than they wanted to this early. For the other argument that voters don't know his positions,  well, to be kind, his positions on many issues have "evolved". It would seem only the most addicted of political junkies can follow the perturbations of immediate withdrawal of troops (Iowa) vs. "security conditions will determine" (sounding a lot like what Rumsfeld used to say), And then there is public financing, FISA,and trade agreements. Fortunately, Senator Obama has another 4 months to clarify his positions on these issues. Unfortunately, Senator Obama also has 4 months to further obfuscate his message. Being tall and good-looking may cover for a lot of sins. Or maybe not.

    The new Newsweek poll has (1.00 / 0) (#91)
    by dogooder on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:54:36 PM EST
    Obama up 15%. But thanks for the concern.


    Wow! 15 pts. (none / 0) (#94)
    by KittyS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    I have a theory that the general election comes down to looks.  Policies, schmalicies.  When was the last time the unattractive person won?

    actually (none / 0) (#99)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:50:04 PM EST
    statistical analyses have shown that what are often called "fundamentals" (state of the economy, incumbent's favorability rating, etc etc) is a much better predictor than polls in June and Sept, and is even a slightly better predictor than polls taken in late October.

    A very nice basic article about that appears here

    He concludes with:

    Based on this evidence, polls currently showing a very close race between Barack Obama and John McCain should be taken with a large grain of salt. The Electoral Barometer is currently pointing very strongly in favor of the Democratic candidate.

    In context he's essentially saying: ignore the polls this early, the fundamentals are currently simply awful for McCain.


    I have a bit of memory (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Salo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:59:03 PM EST
    troubling thing really.

    Gore had all the fundamentals in his favour, I even remember a sociologist go through a check list that suggested Gore had it sewn up. I was very impressed by his scholarly way of breaking it all down fo rthe ordinary observer.  He was so wrong.

    Gore was better looking than Bush, although he's a bit more stilted than Bush he had the issues, a successful record, good fundamentals, superficial good looks and wit...

    So please pay attention to Idoeology as well.

    yet we saw bush beat him.


    Well, Gore did beat Bush, particularly in the (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by derridog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:48:00 PM EST
    popular vote (but of course we all know the popular vote doesn't matter -either for Gore or Clinton).

    Newsweek shows Obama up by 15. (none / 0) (#95)
    by prittfumes on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:27:46 PM EST
    Buyer's Remorse? (none / 0) (#128)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:49:46 PM EST
    I don't think so. Two new polls

    Gallup/USA Today Obama up +6
    Newsweek Obama up +15