home

Polls! Polls! Polls!

What sense can we make of the national polls? Newsweek says Obama by 15. LATimes says Obama by 12. Gallup tracker says it is tied. Ras says Obama by 4. And today, the Time poll says Obama by 4. What can we believe?

Let me assure you of one thing we can believe, Obama will not win this election by double digits. Period. But let's see if we can makes some sense of the numbers. Setting aside voter screens and other polling anomalies, let's look at the ranges each candidate scores in these polls. Obama ranges from a low of 42 to a high of 51. Much of the divergence is likely due to the inclusion or exclusion of leaners. RCP's average has Obama at 47 which seems about right.

More . . .

McCain's range runs from a low of 36 to a high of 45. His RCP average is 41. That seems to be where he is right now.

That leaves 12% up for grabs theoretically. Time writes about its poll:

Thirty percent of those who remain undecided said they lean towards McCain, 20% said they were leaning toward Obama with 46% citing no preference.

Where will those voters go? Here is the bottom line - this is Obama's election to lose. And please remember that every vote counts - whether it is the "wild-eyed" liberal" to the proverbial swing voting soccer-security Appalachian NASCAR suburban/exurban/rural young/senior mom/dad. All votes count the same.

If Obama increases the youth vote and the African American vote by huge numbers, he does not need to do better with any of the aforementioned swing voters than Dems generally do. But what if he does not? Then he does. Is it impossible to do both? I think not. It's funny, because for all the talk of confidence that the "Dem base" will come home, I am actually much more confident that Obama can get out record numbers of young voters and African American voters. To me, that is what he has in the bank. I think he needs to work harder to make sure he gets the Dem base - the Hillary Dems.

I have said before that Obama guarantees himself the Presidency if he picks Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Of course he can, indeed is likely, to win even if he does not. But she is his best bet. I stand by that.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Feet Of Clay | Another Exoneration in Dallas County >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Seems like he has about a 4-5 pt lead now (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    But once again it will likely be all about Ohio. If he wants to win there, he needs to start talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. . .

    Frankly, I think he has a better shot at the Gore map plus NH and CO. That puts him at 273.

    Gore won Florida (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    Just sayin'

    [ Parent ]
    Map as reported to the Electoral College. . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:31:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I know (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    Just sayin

    [ Parent ]
    I like the Kerry map better (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    I think he's got a more-than-likely chance at winning MI and NH, so add to that IA, CO, and NM and you're there, aren't you?

    [ Parent ]
    Gore won Iowa and NM (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And MI of course (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, the Gore and Kerry maps (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:36:56 AM EST
    are quite similar. If you keep the good parts of both, and add CO, you win.

    [ Parent ]
    Pennslyvania may be (3.00 / 2) (#148)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    a problem for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    D'oh (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    I had little sleep last night.

    Let's go Colorado then. And Virginia, which I still say could be in his pocket this fall.

    [ Parent ]

    It's an interesting question (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    Which flips first, Colorado or Virginia. Honestly, it's difficult for me to imagine Obama winning either. And yet, he's ahead. . .

    He's also ahead in Ohio.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't jinx Ohio (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    But one thing that is interesting to me to watch unfold is the very, very impressive organizational advantage Obama is unfolding over John McCain in certain states. The Organizing Fellows system is in full force, there's lots of brainstorming going on at the grassroots level, and lots more visual aides like free signs and stuff like that.

    You'd think it would be ad overkill, but you know how America is--the shinier you can make a package, the easier they'll bite, no matter how long you shove it down their throats.

    When I drive through VA on my way to visit my sister in NYC, I'm amazed at the increasing number of Obama support stickers, signs, even a billboard, I think... and no sign of McCain.

    The cash advantage is something to watch this fall.

    [ Parent ]

    All I see is old Bush/Cheney stickers. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    I have yet to see Obama or McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    273? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by talex on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:17:13 AM EST
    You think a 3 vote cushion is a good strategy?

    If he targets a 3 point win he will lose for sure.

    [ Parent ]

    Um, that's not the plan. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Pegasus on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    They're targeting states that would push them well over 300.

    andgarden's just speculating about the outlines of the map, as are we all.

    [ Parent ]

    Was just responding to: (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by talex on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    "Frankly, I think he has a better shot at the Gore map plus NH and CO. That puts him at 273."

    [ Parent ]
    The game (none / 0) (#82)
    by 1jane on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    plan is calling for 309 to 320 for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    What sense can we make of the national polls? (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM EST
    Nothing.

    It's only June 27.
    More than 4 months away from Election Day.
    That is like 4,000 years in political time.
    Neither of them have chosen a running mate.
    They haven't even debated together yet.

    Best to just ignore these polls.

    IMHO: These extremely favorable polls for Obama at this juncture could actually hurt him more than help him. Just saying.

    Fortunately (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:32:32 AM EST
    few people seem to believe the really favorable polls.

    I like state-by-state better anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    State by state... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    ... is useful only because it helps to identify which states are close enough that it's worth spending money there and which are so far ahead or so far behind that it is unlikely to provide much benefit. National polls are worthless and will be worthless as anything more than "hey, isn't this cool" headlines makers even on election day (unless somebody finds a way to make the electoral college obsolete between now and then).

    [ Parent ]
    National polls do mean something (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    They can show trends and give you an idea of demographic support. Any candidate who has a national poll lead of 6 points or more is almost certainly ahead on a state-by-state basis.

    Some day there will be public IVR tracking polls of most or all states. I would subscribe to such a service for a nominal fee. But that's only because I'm a polling junkie.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed -- and national polls tell me (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    as much about whether the media are buying into a campaign image as about whether the public is doing so, maybe more re media.

    If so, the trend would seem to be that the media honeymoon may be over soon.

    [ Parent ]

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:58:07 AM EST
    If Obama gets really popular in California because of some local political issue, that will skew the national trend upwards, but it won't effect the electoral map because California doesn't increase it's electoral impact even if Obama support goes from 55 to 75%. Likewise, if Obama gets more support in red states but doesn't cross the 50% threshhold that doesn't effect the electoral map, although it might effect the national trend and his campaign plans to advertise in that state.

    It's a lot like generic Congressional polls. People may hate Congress in general, but they generally like their particular representatives and plan on voting for them again. National polls simply don't tell us anything about how a candidate - or a party - will perform in an election that will be determined by regional results. If you want to get ideas of how the election is going, look at the electoral college/state poll maps that are widely available.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama could lose... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by sweetthings on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:31:57 AM EST
    But it would require that McCain actually get a decent campaign up and running...with a good slime machine to boot. And so far, I haven't seen it.

    Heck, Republicans seem to be infected with some kind of malaise all the way to the grass roots. I live in Texas, so I'm surrounded by a LOT of conservatives, and they're just...resigned. It's like they don't really care who wins anymore. Sure, they don't like Obama, but they don't really like McCain either. And they just seem convinced that they're going to lose no matter what happens. I've never seen this kind of attitude from them before. They were fired up and excited in 2000, cocky and full of themselves in 2004. Now? They're just depressed.

    McCain has a lot of work to do if he wants to pull this out of the fire.

    You (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:39:09 AM EST
    aren't going to see the slime machine in action until after Labor Day. Reference 2004 and prior election years.

    [ Parent ]
    i.e. the October Surprise? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:40:49 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Likely a late-September surprise (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    based on the 2004 August surprise timing in terms of how soon it came after the convention.

    However, I think we have seen signs already with Wright, etc., that some in the GOP are jumpy and may not want to wait so long, with the lateness of the conventions.  If today's unity in Unity pseudoevent reassures them that Clinton really is out, who knows?  The 527s already were written, after all -- by the presumptive Dem party candidate.  Ouch.

    [ Parent ]

    A good slime machine will only (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:56:07 AM EST
    be minimally effective this time.  That's because our nominee wisely declined the restrictive fed funding, unlike John Kerry, and also because the sorry economy is going to trump all character considerations.  Of course, it's also likely the R slime machine will go so far into the muck that most people will react adversely to the smears.  

    O has a likable (enough) personality, not unlike Bill Clinton in 92, and so will be the beneficiary of a sympathy backlash among indies in the middle.  Kerry was, alas, not so likable.  Ditto for Dukakis.

    We also, as you suggest, have an enthusiasm gap working for our side this election.  That translates into far more people for O showing up to vote, and it also means more people on the R side deciding to stay home -- shades of 1992 with the lukewarm R attitude towards Poppy.

    McC, even if he runs a near perfect campaign, is unlikely to overcome the Bush/Repub taint on his campaign and the tanking economy. People are fed up and quite nervous about where things are going domestically.  They're also not thrilled about the unending and costly war in Iraq.  

    Not much favors McC except on the narrow matter of being perceived as stronger on NS matters.  But that perception can change as TeamO, in ad after ad, works to remind voters of how unwise McC was to so enthusiastically embrace and enable Bush's War.  

    People may like tough talk about terrorists and the like, but that doesn't mean they want war or at least one which seems to have no end in sight.

    [ Parent ]

    Good arguments (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Maggie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    And I would add that the slimes work better when the slimers have some standing themselves.  But this year, the Republicans are viewed as slime.  To be slimed by slime is not so costly to the slimee, I think.  

    Indeed, I've come to think it would backfire very badly on McCain.  In a year when it is very bad to be Republican, every negative attack out of his mouth that is predicated on Republican principles reminds voters that he's a Republican.  And that's what he can't be seen as if he wants a shot at winning.

    [ Parent ]

    538 (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    They've got a real good discussion about regression analysis, and projections for November always favoring the trailing candidate early on, even if they don't wind up winning. I'd link, but my browser won't let me click the button and my HTML is sketchy. I found it to be one of the most informative pieces I've read thus far on the matter of early polling.

    And I'm not so sure anymore he has to pick Clinton as VP to appeal to Clinton Dems. I've been seeing polling out from various sources (Ras, SUSA, QPolls) that say he's got about 75-80% of the base, so that means at least half of Clinton supporters. I think a pick like Bayh or Gen. Clark or someone along those lines would appeal to another 8-10 percent of those disaffected voters, putting Obama where most Presidential nominees wind up being with their party -- 85-90% approval.

    Bayh isn't going to excite anyone (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:33:49 AM EST
    Though he might do something interesting with Indiana.

    [ Parent ]
    No excitement (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    I agree with that. But I think he would add an element of substance or earthiness to the ticket (maybe Biden would as well) that I think remaining parts of the Party that don't like him might come to vote for in November.

    [ Parent ]
    No one outside of Indiana (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    has ever heard of Bayh.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm a no one (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Prabhata on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:46:14 AM EST
    Because I've heard of him and I'm from CA

    [ Parent ]
    Relatively speaking, of course (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:49:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    But there are reasons to pick a nobody (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:05:48 PM EST
    as has been pointed out in numerous comments about not picking somebody who outshines Obama on experience.

    [ Parent ]
    These polls are useless (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    the GE season hasn't even started yet.  The 527s are lurking until after Labor Day.  The VP's aren't chosen.  The Democratic presumed nominee is still not the nominee.  I feel that the events at the convention in Denver, however sanitized they will be, will be a flash point for Dems.  

    The R's are just as unhappy with their candidate as some are with Obama.  For the country being in such dire straits, we have a segment on both sides of the political aisle just disconnected.  I think people are telling pollsters whatever they want.

    I was actually polled last week and I gave them the reverse answer for every question.


    HA, You Too? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    Ever since I started getting hounded by pollsters (just before Super Tuesday, right after N.H.), I've been giving them erroneous information too.

    I absolutely HATE pollsters and polls, and will do anything I can to skew them. I don't care for them, and they have never spoken for me or the general sentiments of the people around me.

    Polling is a money-making business and you've got to believe the pollsters are dipping their grubby little fingers into the pie themselves.

    One of them, John Zogby, has shamelessly been shilling for Obama on CNN from the get-go.

    [ Parent ]

    Getting polled a lot lately in Wisconsin (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    and it seems most are GOP/McCain pollsters, with Wisconsin being taken for granted by Dems/Obama.

    (I'm in the most popular zip code for polling here.)

    [ Parent ]

    What is your (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by eric on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    sense of things being there in WI?  Is it going to be competitive?

    I have been saying that I don't think Minnesota is as safe as is assumed, and I really don't think that WI is safe.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree -- but not based on polls (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:36:34 PM EST
    and I couldn't predict the primary worth a darn here, owing to lots of odd factors (@$#%! weather, Clinton's campaign manager mess just then, etc.) that intervened in waning days in Wisconsin.

    That's the reason to not trust the polls here yet, at all -- plus that there has been little from the local pollsters who have been best in past.

    Plus, neither candidate has started to work Wisconsin yet.   What we see now is essentially just leftovers from the primary season.  And I wouldn't touch leftovers from months ago. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    i trust most polls about as much as i (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    now trust the media. as always i hope i am proven to be wrong. growing more cynical by the day!

    [ Parent ]
    The polls are worth something. (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:47:35 PM EST
    They are a starting point.  They are by no means an ending point.

    So right now Obama has an edge, a cushion.  If he's smart and very lucky, he'll keep it.  But the GOP never seems to be happier than when they have a Dem candidate to drag through the mud and the media loves nothing more than controversy to suck the viewers in.

    I'll be looking for the tipping point re: when the media coverage starts focusing on the mudslinging.  It's not happened yet.

    [ Parent ]

    actually, the Republcans are (none / 0) (#30)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:43:13 AM EST
    a LOT more unhappy with their candidate than we are.
    I saw recently a poll that showed Dem satisfaction/unsat numbers for Obama at around 80/17 or something like that, while for Repubs and McCain it was 45/45, roughly.

    [ Parent ]
    actually that poll (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    was for enthusiastic /not enthusiastic, and the numbers were 81/17 for us, 45/51 for them. Most recent LATimes poll.

    [ Parent ]
    Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by themomcat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    are more likely to vote for a Republican candidate that they are dissatisfied with than Democrats are. Even though Republicans are not thrilled with McCain, they will vote for him. Dissatisfied Democrats, however, will vote Republican, other party or not at all. The 1996 election was the aberration, with Perot in the mix and it put Clinton over the top.
    What effect a Barr or Nader candidacy will have is still a wild card for both candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    naw, there isn't that much division in (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    the republican pary. they also have a history of coming home to their candidate. they are more disciplined that democrats. so think that at your own risk or i mean the campaign's risk. don't under estimate them.

    [ Parent ]
    My theory (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:34:55 AM EST
    The race should be the Democrats to lose. Obama is behind the 'generic' dem in the polls. Not good. The republicans have not started the attacks yet.  They will.
    The big gorilla is the economy. Oil prices, the mortgage fiasco, huge inflation for basic stuff (fuel and food).  States are already cutting programs and staff in anticipation. The dollar can fall further.
    I think we are in for a really bad time. Can Obama deliver confidence?. It's the economy, stupid. (That should be a mantra after every republican administration).

    Do all votes count the same? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:37:54 AM EST
    Just one quibble.  The undecided wild-eyed liberal in solid blue California and the undecided "bitter gun clinging" white guy in purple Ohio or Colorado do not exactly count the same, since we have the electoral college system.

    I expect a lot more resources and love will be directed at the latter, though it sure would be nice to have them courting 4th amendment loving me for a change.

    I hope that all of the hopes do not rest on the GOTV effort.

    that's a good point (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:44:06 AM EST
    But in terms of the popular vote totals, the subject of this post, they are equal.

    [ Parent ]
    No question about it, also in national polls (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:47:33 AM EST
    which of course was your main topic. My mind is wandering today...

    [ Parent ]
    What's this... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    ...unfounded "bitter gun clinging white guy" in Colorado stuff?  Where do you people get this stuff?

    Per the Rocky Mountain News...

    "Barack Obama leads John McCain by five percentage points in Colorado, according to a new poll that tracks the presidential contest in four key battleground states.
    The poll by the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Quinnipiac University found that 49 percent of Colorado's likely voters would choose Obama, compared with 44 percent for McCain.

    It also shows that independents in Colorado favor the Democrat 51 percent to 39 percent."

    As I keep saying over and over, the gun fanatics who think the Democrats--and it doesn't matter who--are going to take their guns away aren't going to vote for Obama anyway.  They are a very, very tiny segment of the population here.    

    [ Parent ]

    that's good (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    It has changed since I lived there then.

    [ Parent ]
    One thing that hasn't changed... (none / 0) (#59)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    ...is that the Front Range decides elections.  Not the Western Slope or Colorado Springs.

    There are more self-identified independents than Democrats last I saw, so if he maintains that healthy advantage with them it shouldn't be a problem to win here.  

    Especially when you add in the bad shape the state R party is in, the votes Bob Barr will take away from McCain amoungst the Libertarian leaning Repubs...


    [ Parent ]

    Anecdotal opinion from a CO resident: (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    Lots of people moving to CO from big cities elsewhere.  More minorities.  Great distaste for increased mining/drilling in Western CO.  

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:16:34 AM EST
    ...and those "bitter, gun clinging whites" on the Western slope are p!ssed as heck about the drilling and what it is doing to the enviroment and recreational (reading hunting/fishing) areas.  

    [ Parent ]
    i have to wonder about the distaste for (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    drilling including oil as the cost of living goes up. that's a big unknown!

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:54:55 PM EST
    ...we're pretty sensative about the land and water out here, hellothere.  The wells are polluting groundwater and destroying pristine recreation areas.  A great deal of the Western Slope's income is derived from hunting/fishing and tourism.  So anything that messes with that upsets people.  

    We're also not too happy with outsiders coming in and taking our resources to ship them back East.  We don't see any benefits in lower cost of fuels.  

    [ Parent ]

    smile, as i recall ya'll don't much care (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM EST
    for texans coming for ski season either. we do get loud i know.

    [ Parent ]
    Naw... (none / 0) (#153)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:34:34 PM EST
    ...it's not the loudness (Americans are genetically loud, I think), but the fact all ya'll can't seem drive in Winter conditions.  Then there's the seeming lack of skiing ability...

    We do like your $ though.  ;>)

    [ Parent ]

    i can't deny that. we are terrible drivers (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    on snow and ice. in houston or dallas, it is best to stay home on icy days. i'd rather drive in a roller derby on a day like that and probably have a better chance of remaining safe.

    [ Parent ]
    It was just starting to move that (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:18:42 AM EST
    way when I unfortunately had to move a few years ago for work.  Hope it is solid blue when I get to return!

    [ Parent ]
    We're working hard... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:26:02 AM EST
    ...to make that a reality!  

    Even Musgrave's opponent has a chance this year.  That would be icing on the cake in addition to a Udall win.

    [ Parent ]

    I would sure love to see that (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    I'll just be happy that Allard will be gone, almost no matter who takes his place.

    [ Parent ]
    Well now you're getting into the concept (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:40:58 AM EST
    of "wasted votes." It's pretty obvious that a vote in a close state is worth more than a vote in a landslide state.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup. I'm just looking at where (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:46:26 AM EST
    they will be spending their time and resources.  Looks like they are getting the 'wasted' states covered early - McCain was in California this week, and I think Obama was in Alaska, or is going there soon.

    Also will be interesting to see the next financial reports.

    [ Parent ]

    You're not in the 14-state focus (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:55:42 AM EST
    of the Obama campaign.  I commented with a link a couple of days ago to Obama's deputy campaign manager telling CBS that the focus is not a 50-state strategy or a 48-state strategy but a 14-state strategy.  Try googling CBS, 14 states, Hildebrand.  You might feel better by seeing which other states will be neglected.  Or, of course, you might feel worse if you find it a problematic strategy. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    i feel the more publicity that a 14 state (none / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    stragedy gets the more it will hurt the obama campaign. folks don't like being left out so to speak.

    [ Parent ]
    Count in terms of political importance (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    I meant to say.

    [ Parent ]
    As some of you know (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    I believe this is going to be a blow out.  I have for at least a year, regardless of candidate.  

    I believe that the polls will under-report the actual results we will see in November.  Why?  Because, as someone mentioned upthread, the Republicans are a broken party right now.  There is nothing the party can rally around.  They are split on what to do about Iraq.  The economy is in shambles and they have no one to blame but their own party.  

    I believe that on election day the win will be very close to double digits.  My prediction is 7-10 points.

    When you see people like Susan Eisenhower, Lincoln Chafee, and apparently Colin Powell endorsing Obama, it tells you that the party has lost its way and McCain will not be the guy to bring them back from the cold.

    Kerry (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    got similar endorsements in 2004. They really don't mean much in the scheme of things.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Maggie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:10:37 PM EST
    This election reminds me of 1980 more than anything else.  Polls swang back and forth, but at the end of the day, voters wanted change and so they went with Reagan.  It's worth remembering that Reagan seemed like a majorly unelectable guy -- he was old, he made a lot of gaffes, and he was way too conservative.  But the Democrats were saddled with malaise, and so people went with Reagan, who proceded to shift the terms of political debate such that "too conservative" morphed into being "totally mainstream".

    There's nothing I've heard from the Republicans that doesn't suggest that they aren't totally aware of how badly they are about to lose.  And what's really telling -- a good number of them think that's OK.  Even they know they need to regroup during a season out of power.

    All the arguments about whether Obama is or is not electable are just left overs from the primary -- which was hotly contested precisely because the winner was clearly going to be the prohibitive favorite going into the fall.  

    [ Parent ]

    Florida (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by This from a broad on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:53:40 AM EST
    The polls say Florida is in play, I don't see that.  I have two blogs in Florida, I hear a lot of feedback from democrats in Florida and many of them will not be voting for Obama.  I would love to know who the pollsters are talking to.  If Obama picks Clinton, I think Florida will pick Obama -- but by a small margin.

    Polling Veracity? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by fctchekr on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    Here's is one indication from WAPO in quotes and another on CNN last night by Candy Crowley who says that many loyalists are not jumping onboard, "A new Web site which has become a clearinghouse for the renegade forces (this is how WAPO refers to staunch Hillary supporters who won't cooperate) that are now confounding Democratic Party officials and Obama campaign operatives.

    Democratic leaders insist -- and polls indicate -- that the vast majority of Clinton supporters, including women, already have flocked to Obama or eventually will. But the effectiveness of the Internet as an organizing tool for dissent is creating concern and uncertainty about the scope and intensity of those unwilling to fall in line."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062604162.html?hpid=topnews

    Note: the polls indicate that a 1/4 of her supporters will cross to McCain. The Obama camp is not creating this whole unity show boat because the party is united. It's not.

    That linked story is far smarter (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:14:54 PM EST
    than Traister's piece a couple of days ago, as she could only think that it's all about Clinton and thus missed anger at the party corruption, too.  And thus presumes, as do too many in the party, that Clinton can fix it.  This reporter sees that:

    Though not all have the same specific grievances or agree on a course of protest, they are linked by their dissatisfaction with the primary process and its result, and are unpersuaded by the gestures of heroine Hillary.


    [ Parent ]
    New voters (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:26:16 PM EST
    The question of Clinton voters may fall by the wayside if pollsters stop asking if they will fall in line.  The Obama campaign is still running a strong GOTV to counteract this (even combing through consumer data).  Obama supporters have stated on this site, Obama should put his energy elsewhere.  They are trying to remake the party.

    Historically, party voters do fall in line, but this time is different IMO.  Voters are disgusted with govt as a whole (Dems too).  I saw the poll where Repubs are more satisfied with the Dem congress than Dems.

    Note: I believe the article said 25% of Clinton women voters.

    [ Parent ]

    If 1/4 of her voters say they're going to cross (3.00 / 0) (#102)
    by mbuchel on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    that would account for about 12.5% of the dem vote, not that different than standard for GEs past.  And this is 4+ months out from the election.  I think we're in better shape than I expected.
    Factor in that there are more Ds then ever before thanks to the party ID advantage and it looks even better.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM EST
    according to the ap it's 1/2 of Hillary's voters are either undecided or like you said above will cross over. So you've only got 12.5 definite right now but you are assuming that the other 12.5% are not going to cross over which could be in error.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll wait until after the conventions... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:35:56 AM EST
    ...to even look at a poll.  Then after the first debate.  As disappointed as I with Obama, McCain is infinitely worse.  Less intellect, less energy, less everything except the military-industrial complex erection he permanently sports.  

    Polls, schmolls, when's football start?

    Ahem.

    Did you (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    read them all? Okay not being a cheerleader is now defined as a hater. Whatever.

    List 3 positives about Obama. (none / 0) (#155)
    by Faust on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    It will be good exercise for you. Go!

    [ Parent ]
    he's (4.25 / 4) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    a good speechifier. There's one for you.

    [ Parent ]
    he's also tall and (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by sancho on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:46:57 PM EST
    under-50. beats kerry by one there.

    [ Parent ]
    He's not moderatly (none / 0) (#210)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:13:04 PM EST
    disabled through overuse of anti-psychotics.

    And he's not a cheerleader for pouring a few hundred billion that should be used for infrastructure into the pockets of double dealing contractors and for the purposes of putting fifty thousand or so more people to the sword.

    Whats the Ga short for, Zell?

    [ Parent ]

    Tall, thin and (3.50 / 2) (#192)
    by Grace on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM EST
    looks good in a suit.  

    That's three!  

    Oh!  And he has nice straight teeth and a great smile!  

    That's five!  Enough for you today!

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    It's not only "Obama's to lose" ... (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:06:58 PM EST
    McCain could win if he finds an effective way to counter Obama's chief arguments.

    But, frankly, Obama's "play it safe" strategy doesn't have much of a history of success in Presidential elections.

    Dewey is probably the best example of someone who squandered a lead by following this model.  

    However, the historic nature of Obama's candidacy currently hides his "scaredy cat" strategy.  Obama seems to be counting on that being enough.  I'm not so sure.  

    He wil (4.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    not pick Hillary as VP. You can take that to the bank. And I have to wonder if some of his support doesn't come from people who think Hillary will be VP?

    I'm sorry but I don't believe that "record number of AA's and youth" turnout stuff. I've heard it too many times before and it didn't happen.

    This election is going to be about who's going to be less toxic to the voters. It's going to be close and I remember the "It's Kerry's election to lose in 2004" mantra too. How did that work out?

    My honest opinion is that either Obama or McCain can eke out a win into the WH. And that right now things are pretty tied up. Gallup has the best record as far as picking general election winners so I'll go with them.

    Not Buying The "AA" vote either (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    In what states do they have the numbers to flip?  It's one thing to win a Democratic primary on the strength of AA voters, and quite a different thing to flip GE states on the same.  He certainly stand to win Southern states, where AA's delivered his the greatest victories.  Further, GE voters won't buy the race baiting as easily as primary voters did.

    [ Parent ]
    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    I meant to say "He DOESN't stand to win Southern states..."

    [ Parent ]
    We had (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:47:36 AM EST
    maximum AA turnout here in GA in 2004. Kerry still lost by about 17 pts. It think that AA's will turn out for him in masse but the problem is the same as it always is: there simply aren't enough AA's to base an election win on.

    The youth vote is easily demoralized and it's what I expect to happen when the 527's start.

    These statements remind me so much of the McGovern 1972 campaign. Obama has failed to put together a winning coalition. The only way he wins is by Republicans sitting home in Nov. which is a possibility.

    [ Parent ]

    Last Night (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    I held my nose and watch cable political coverage for the first time in weeks.  Same old thing; Obama doesn't need Hillary to win.  Support from "new" voters, blah, blah, blah.  And, oh yeah, the reason he hasn't won more of her supporters is because SHE hasn't convinced them.  

    If he and his supporters win an election by being arrogance, that'll be a first.

    [ Parent ]

    The arrogance (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    and condescension is a big problem for him. It's why people are willing to vote against their own political beliefs and vote for McCain. They feel at least McCain respects them.

    [ Parent ]
    That should get you... (none / 0) (#69)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:20:37 AM EST
    ...some very nice McCain blogging points!  What are you saving up for?  I like the fancy golf tool myself.

    PS, can you tell me again how McCain is going to win Colorado?  I like a good laugh in the morning...

    [ Parent ]

    Are (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:23:21 AM EST
    we supposed to throw objectivity out the window? Obama has a problem with this but according to you we aren't supposed to discuss his problems. Okay.

    How is McCain going to win CO? I guess the same way Bush did. The whole state isn't Boulder and Denver is it?

    [ Parent ]

    Hey Ga (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:43:32 PM EST
    I'm 6th Dist also.   Like your comments here.

    [ Parent ]
    TeeHee (none / 0) (#79)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    Yeah, that's good stuff!  John Sidney McCain III cares about me--LOL.

    As I said earlier--the Front Range does indeed decide who wins or loses in this state.  You just keep right on dishing out the chuckles though...

    [ Parent ]

    Do most (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    voters think Obama cares about them? The guy who lectures and intellectualizes issues? Do you think they can relate to that? Do tell, what has changed since 2004 that will make CO blue? That would be a much better argument for you to make instead of calling me names.

    Remember too that Kerry was leading in the polls in CO until the fall.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry... (2.00 / 0) (#101)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    ...but trying to change the subject doesn't cut it.  Why don't YOU tell ME how McSame cares oh so very much about me.  

    And, while you're at it, why don't you tell me exactly what "name" I called you.

    I remember a lot of things--but I don't live in the past.  It's not 2004 and Kerry is not running.

    You should take note that I don't presume to talk about GA politics.  Why do you seem to think you know everything about us?

    [ Parent ]

    MileHi you are trolling (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by cymro on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    It seems to me, your goal is just to be deliberately argumentative. First you write:

    PS, can you tell me again how McCain is going to win Colorado?

    Then after you get a (reasonable) answer -- there is more to Ccolorado than Denver and Boulder -- you write:

    You should take note that I don't presume to talk about GA politics.  Why do you seem to think you know everything about us?

    You are just filling up the thread without contributing to the subject.

    [ Parent ]

    There (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:36:58 PM EST
    was no mention of CO in the above posts until you brought it up. I was talking in general and you decided to talk about CO. I responded to you about CO but now you are saying that I have no right to discuss CO even though YOU are the one that brought it up?

    I don't know if McCain cares about you or not. I do know that McCain doesn't give sanctimonious lectures to the voters like Obama does.

    And if you had an opinion about GA that would be fine with me. It seems that most people like you seem to think that Obama is going to carry GA. I usually try to disabuse them of that notion using demographics.

    Yeah, it's not 2004 but you still haven't stated what's different in CO this year from from previous years. And Obama is unfortunately more like Kerry that a lot of people want to admit.

    [ Parent ]

    Please... (2.00 / 0) (#118)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    ...every single polling thread the BTD puts up, you trot out your tired "Obama will not win Colorado" line.  

    I've stated over and over the reasons that Colorado is not the same as '04.  In this very thread even.  It's not my fault you choose not to pay them any mind.

    "It seems that most people like you seem to think that Obama is going to carry GA."  Please do tell me more about what "people like me" think.

    Still waiting to hear what "name" I called you.  If you're going to accuse people of things, you should at least back it up.

    [ Parent ]

    If (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    you check my comments yesterday I said I don't think that Obama will win CO because Kerry was leading in the polls in 2004 just like Obama is leading in them now. It's certainly a possibility just not likely IMO and all the polling right now is before the 527's have started.

    Look, you have brought up a subject that was discussed yesterday. Apparently you are still angry about that. Come back when you calm down.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm calm as can be... (none / 0) (#133)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    ...and still waiting on that "name" I supposedly called you...

    [ Parent ]
    Yes the word (none / 0) (#205)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    of the month is arrogant.

    The spreading of the meme through constant repetition that he's arrogant, I see as a big problem.

    Excuse me, PEOPLE see it as a big problem (Im just a messenger).

    [ Parent ]

    During Obama's "news" (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:30:53 PM EST
    conference yesterday(?), when asked about BC with every word he had to say about him, Obama's eyes looked down. Any body language experts out there? I agree with BTD on this, Hillary on the ticket is not only a win, but I believe a huge win!!

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't that mean he is unsure of himself (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    In all the Law and Orders, it means they are going to lie. I noticed it when he said Hillary is nice enough. And also, when asked about the house deal. I am not knocking Obama, so the knives need not come out, I am just saying I believe that is one of the body signs.Also from WikiHow:
    Lowered heads indicate a reason to hide something. Take note if someone lowers their head. If it is when he is complimented, he may be shy, ashamed, timid, keeping distance from the other person, in disbelief, or thinking to himself. If it is after an explanation, then he may be unsure if what he said was correct.


    [ Parent ]
    I think he was (none / 0) (#140)
    by mrjerbub on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    reading from a cheat sheet. When he has a teleprompter, he swings his head from side to side.

    [ Parent ]
    Unity, N.H. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    Just watched the big show, and as usual, Obama was higly-dependent on the printed speech in front of him.

    He spent 90% of the time looking down at it on the lectern, and saw the top of his head more than his teeth.

    When he looked up and around to the crowds, he slipped and stumbled on what he was saying. Not good. Not good at all.

    Teleprompters and printed scripts won't be available all the time.

    [ Parent ]

    He was terrible (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:47:42 PM EST
    but she was amazing. What a campaigner and candidate. She connected with the crowd immediately. Not written page or teleprompter for her.

    He was reading and it made for a painful speech although I did almost expect him to announce her as VP at one point.

    Today just solidified the need for her to be on the ticket for me.

    [ Parent ]

    being scripted worked (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by sancho on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    for reagan and the recent bush. i think sounding sincere is as important to voters as what you say. and obama, even when he contradicts himself, sounds sincere. i dont like that aspect of him but i do recognize its strength for attracting support. look at how it works on olbermann.

    [ Parent ]
    Democrats are doomed (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:24:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oops, now you're a racist... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by BoGardiner on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:30:24 PM EST
    ...according to John Ridley at HuffPo:  When Rove Calls Obama Arrogant, He Means "Uppity."  

    "Arrogant, of course," quoth Ridley, "is a euphemism."

    Not to defend the monstrous Rove, but does Ridley REALLY believe Rove meant, "How dare they think they can work jobs like ours or live in neighborhoods like ours or send their children to school with ours? Those people are just so damn arrogant."

    It's obvious to me Rove was just inadvertently revealing schoolyard jealousies of the in-crowd that he never got over.

    [ Parent ]