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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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'

    Map as reported to the Electoral College. . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:31:04 AM EST
    I know (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    Just sayin

    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.


    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.


    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."

    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.

    Gore won Iowa and NM (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    And MI of course (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    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.

    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.


    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.

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

    What sense can we make of the national polls? (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM EST

    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.


    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).

    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.


    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.


    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.


    Obama could lose... (5.00 / 1) (#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.

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


    A good slime machine will only (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.


    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.


    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.)


    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.


    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. :-)


    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!

    The polls are worth something. (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 / 0) (#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.

    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...

    What's this... (5.00 / 1) (#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.    


    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.

    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...


    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.  

    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.  

    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!

    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.  


    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.

    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.  ;>)


    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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. . . .

    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.

    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.

    As some of you know (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.  


    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."


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?


    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!

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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!



    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.

    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..."

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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...


    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?


    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.

    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...


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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...

    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).


    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!!

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

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


    Does this mean that (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    no AA really is arrogant?

    But if an individual AA were to be arrogant, let's say, how could we say it without being a racist?

    That's always the part where I get lost.


    The youth vote is easily confused (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    and Obama is becoming quite confusing to follow, with his flipflops.  I have seen before, and often, that young voters who want to participate can get, as you say, demoralized when what seemed a simple and straightforward choice becomes so complicated.

    So I agree on this -- and on the AA vote, as it was pointed out months ago on pollster.com that their turnout in primaries was about what their turnout has been in the general elections, and thus that it may be about as much AA turnout as can be.  

    BTD thinks that there is more to be found there, and perhaps so, but even so, it will not be enough in itself.  It will take both the AA vote and the youth vote, and both seem perilous . . . vs. the good ol' bitter, clinging base.  And if what we have seen so far and will see today is the appeal to us abandoned base voters, it won't suffice.


    So What Are You Accusing Us Of? (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:55:55 PM EST

    BTW, every been to a Spring Break event?  Are those the people we are supposed to trust to pick the next leader of the free world?


    Sure (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    Because maybe next year the spring breakers will be over in Baghdad or Kabul...

    What kind of silly nonsense is this--these generalizations about "youth"?

    Right up there with all the mainstream media manure about all of Clinton's 'angry older women' supporters, and just as telling about the people promoting them.


    Oddly Enough (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:08:57 PM EST
    The "youth" has, by and large, supported the military efforts in Bagdad and Kabul.  That would have, of course, been different had there been a draft.

    Corrction: (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    When I said "military efforts" I was referring to the decision to invade.  Of course, we all support the military.  But the insane decision to invade and occupy Iraq is another story alltogether.

    Please don't redefine bigotry (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by BoGardiner on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    Sexism and racism are bigotries, defined as actions or beliefs stemming from prejudice without a factual basis.

    Noting the inexperience of youth is not bigotry.  The correlation between youth and number of years experience in life is, I daresay, beyond dispute.


    Yes, people under 30 don't (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    deserve to vote.

    So What Are You Accusing Us Of? (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:56:19 PM EST

    BTW, every been to a Spring Break event?  Are those the people we are supposed to trust to pick the next leader of the free world?


    Try teaching thousands of them (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    over a few decades, as I have, and you'll see what I mean.  Or think back to your best profs and why they were so -- did they say one thing one week, another thing the next week?  Say it in such a way that you weren't sure what was said by the time you got to the test?

    And I have raised a couple of my own new voters, too, and know how seriously they took the task -- and how crushed one was whose first vote was in 2000, a vote for Nader.  Watching the 2000 debacle, it began to dawn on him just how used and abused voters can be in our process.  I barely could get him to vote again in 2004.  And this year, he engaged in much more information-seeking, with healthy skepticism.  That's the benefit of experience -- as a voter.

    Look, I talked with a lot of the new voters this year, and I always have to help a lot of them even find out how to register and where the polls are.  Now I've heard from several in recent weeks who are confused and discouraged and frankly a bit embarrassed.  I do not want to see more of them so disheartened as my new voter was in 2000.

    They need straight talk, whether in the classroom or in a campaign.  We all need it, but we've been through it.  New voters are too important for their potential as our future voters for decades to be given confusing info that can cause them to feel that they flunked the test in November -- if it really is their leaders who flunk the test.

    So it's up to us, as the experienced voters who have been through a lot of campaign promises before, to push our candidates to be straightforward.  Or not, if all you want is a vote now . . . but a voter lost for a long time to come.


    Planted Future Memory Syndrome (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:56:09 AM EST
    Ex Rectum: Going by the best and worst of them (online and off) they're willing to overlook (or contort into rationalizing yoga positions) Obama's own words and actions, irrefutably on the public record, in favor of being part of a movement.

    It's like (Twain's) definition of a classic as a book everyone wants to have read.

    Observation not a judgment: As someone whose No. 1 "special" interest is global human rights and franchise, I'm thrilled when people want to exercise theirs however they damn well choose.


    College vote (4.50 / 2) (#143)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    the raw enthusiasm of the primary season has been depressed by Obama's recent flip on FISA. I think he will not keep enough of this sector of his "colation".  

    While I agree with the general sentiment (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:37:33 PM EST
    of your comment, I don't think he'll lose much of his college support. I see the students here around town from GWU, Georgetown and American, with their clipboards trying to sign up voters for Obama.

    Their spiel is all the same, and they almost seem possessed by him and his message, ideas etc. It's quite scary how they walk and talk like robots and when you say you're a Hillary supporter, they'll have this blank look.

    But it's not a blank look. Their brains are actually looking for and loading the Hillary supporter script: first it starts with niceties, about how they are essentially one and the same, before they launch into a hate-filled tirade about her before lumping her with Bush & Co.

    So, my point is, the average college Obama supporter is not only in the tank for him, they have anvils weighing them down inside. They are so invested in him, whether they know what he stands for or not, and will say and do everything to get him to win.


    What (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    you are describing doesn't sound very helpful to his chances of winning imo. They sound like an absolute turnoff.

    Certainly some (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    or many college students will support Obama to the end; but those for whom FISA bill is important, who have lately been forced to realize Obama is a pol, are disillusioned. It is hard to know how many of the college student backers fall into this category, but we have several more months to go.  

    AA voter turnout MIGT (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    help him in Ohio.  As I recall, there were many AA voters in Ohio that voted for Bush in 2004 because of the gay marriage ammendment on Ohio's ballot.  And, they were blamed for Kerry's loss in Ohio.

    Interesting; I had not heard that (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:34:00 AM EST
    amid all the discussion that the loss was due to Blackwell, to voter suppression, etc.  Thanks for the tip to watch this constituency in Ohio polling.

    Bush got 16% of the (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    African American vote in Ohio, up from 9% in 2000.

    Here is CNN's exit poll for 2004 in Ohio--which also shows the comparison to 2000.

    Also, African Americans tend to have lower rates of voter registration than whites; so, there is room to grow the African American vote....

    But I agree that Obama should also try to maximize the LIW vote.


    It's not the percentage that's interesting (none / 0) (#204)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:01:57 PM EST
    as I knew that.  It's the potential for more turnout, when some pollsters think that it already reached, in the primaries, general election levels.

    That's My Take Too (none / 0) (#121)
    by flashman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:50:27 PM EST
    I don't know anything about black voters going for Bush.  That sounds suspect.

    I did voter protection in Columbus (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    AA wards in 2004.  Anti-bush sentiment was so strong you could cut it with a knife.  Based on the RFK, Jr. piece on Ohio vote as well as many other studies and what I saw, I don't think we have any reliable numbers for Ohio from 2004. I would look at AA turnout during the primaries and compare it to pre-Blackwell years for a better "sense" of where the voters are in that state.  

    You might also want to look at this essay (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by derridog on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:36:16 PM EST
     on the Black Agenda Report.   Not all black people want Obama and these people have some pretty astute and pointed critiicisms of him that could spread as he keeps throwing everyone "under the bus."



    I think record youth and AA turnout (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    for O is likely, but given the Repub track record lately of suppressing the ability of these discreet groups to actually cast a vote, I remain only guardedly optimistic at best.  Political changes in a key state like OH give hope though.

    This contest will come down to people's tremendous dissatisfaction with the party in power in the WH and the Repub Recession, and not about NS or negative Repub memes about the Dem's character.  People want a change, and so long as O doesn't further seriously erode his winning message of Change with changing his positions too often to position himself as a centrist for November, he should be okay to take the keys to the Oval.  

    Right now he needs to stop doing either 180s or 135s on certain issues and stand his ground on nearly all the rest.

    2004, with a basically okay economy and not entirely unpopular war, was more about NS/terror fears and people not feeling comfortable about Kerry personally (though I firmly believe he actually won the election, OH being stolen) because JK failed to step up and battle back quickly against the Swifties.  Thanks again John and Shrum.  

    O, by doing an anti-Kerry and not accepting fed funds for the fall, is very unlikely to sit back and take it in the shorts.

    It's Obama/? (just about any Real Dem)  vs McCain/Bush, with McCain doubling as the aging and uninspiring Bob Dole character this year.

    Obama prevails by about 52-45 in the PV.


    Negative (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    memes about character always work against undefined and unknown candidates. NS will play a role. This is the fatal error that Dems always make: NS won't matter. Well, newsflash!, there is a war going on and it will matter. Even Obama apparently thinks it will matter judging by his own flip flops.

    The party in power is not only the GOP. You guys KEEP IGNORING the fact that Dems control congress and the senate and they are hated even more than the GOP.

    Obama seems to be following the exact same Kerry model with responses down to the phrase "I'm disappointed with x".

    I don't think your view is being realistic. If you think attacks on McCain's age are going to win you points. Bob Dole ran against a fighter and a popular President with a united party behind him. Kerry at least had a united party. Obama does not have a united party. So far he hasn't shown himself to be much of a fighter. Character attacks and race baiting may have worked in the Dem primary but don't expect it to work with the general public against McCain. Rightly or wrongly people think they know McCain.


    Wrong. Negative attacks on character (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    always work -- when the attackee fails to rebut (Gore, Kerry, Duke).

    As to NS creds, it's not an unimportant matter, it's just not the large issue it was in 2004, and it will be trumped by the Repub Recession.  Further, our nominee is with the people with his stance on withdrawing.  McCain will continue to be painted as someone who wants Unending War.

    Re party in power, history shows that when a party has been in office 2 terms or more, as with this election, it becomes about that party's performance in the WH, and not about the oppo party's performance in Congress as you would have it.  Further, more and more people are self-IDg as Dems these days, and the # of people registering or IDg as Rs has gone down since 04.

    As to McCain/Dole and Age, this is obviously something that the principle won't be directly addressing.  Mostly it will be an issue people see whenever they see the 72 yo McC on the stump, speaking slowly, not smiling, seeming to struggle to find the right word, seeming to confuse or conflate issues, looking hunched over and well past his prime.  Ds won't need to say much of anything.


    Right re fast, effective rebuttals -- but (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:47:03 AM EST
    when Obama did so with teh best speech ever, blah blah, about race -- he then undermined it almost immediately by tossing grandma under the bus, and then completed the undermining by tossing the rev there, too.

    That just seemed so Kerryesque that it does not inspire confidence in Obama's ability to stand firm again.  Hit with 527s, he will head into his intellectualizing, which can be confusing enough in a classroom but is really the worst way to go in politics.  Especially if he's off the teleprompter -- as those hesitations in his talk off the cuff are off-putting, at the least, and can come off as signs of duplicity.


    Actually, the age thing seems to be (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:11:47 PM EST
    declining in importance.

    Rasmussen tracks the numbers on what percentage of reg voters think McCain's age is a problem vs the number who think Obama's inexperience is a problem.  Not on each daily poll, but periodically.

    Near the beginning of June, 30% of voters thought his age might be a problem.  In yesterday's polls, it was down to 22%.

    I don't have a link because I can't seem to find the previous day's (or days') detailed polling results on Rasmussen -- I think you have to be a premium member to do that.

    But the thing that's interesting is that I have started to hear more noise being made about McCain's age on other sites, it's clearly a theme the Dems would like to push.  But it really doesn't seem to be working so well for them.


    There will be an October surprise (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:24:13 PM EST
    that will put the national security issue front and center once again.  Obama actually thinks national security credentials are important, otherwise why would he try to bolster his by flipping on FISA?

    Obama (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:17:50 AM EST
    doesn't or hasn't rebutted either.

    Obama has waffled on withdrawing from Iraq stating "there will be no timeline" so I think he's not going to be able to push that issue.

    Running against congress, see Truman, Harry, can be an effective tool. Don't forget that. As far as self identifying as Democrats, you have to realize that just because they are identifying that way doesn't mean that they will vote for the Democratic candidate. I think those numbers are more indicative of how down ticket races will work.

    Well, then if you think McCain's stuttering is going to hurt him then you have concede that Obama's deer in the headlights look and stammering about issues is going to hurt him too right?

    All of this is why I think it's going to be a close election. Both candidates have lots of negatives going for them. It's going to end up being a lesser of two evils and who's less toxic kind of election. Just because you believe that Obama is the lesser of two evils doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people who see McCain in that same category.


    excuse me but obama did some (none / 0) (#124)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    of the same things you attribute to mccain's age in primaries. so i don't think that will hold water.

    Ga6th....after obama officially uses Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:46:57 AM EST
    up, then tells the electorate he is not picking her for VP, I believe you will see a shift in the numbers where he loses Clinton supporters.  Overall the electorate is always optimistic, but his overlooking Hillary, might be the last straw for many.

    yeah (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:05:56 AM EST
    I've seen anecdotal occurences of this. People are saying that they'll vote for him if he picks Hillary as VP.

    but just as many (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:12:25 AM EST
    if not more, say her place on the ticket would turn them away from him.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    I'm sure they are the same group of people who were okay when Obama flip flopped on FISA. They would swallow hard and make excuses for him. In the end, it's a moot point, I believe, because Michelle won't let it happen.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:06:40 PM EST
    There a lot of voters out there who assume, especially when seeing events like this, that Hillary will be on the ticket. when it becomes clear she will not be you will see his numbers take a hit. How big of a dive remains to be seen but if you cannot objectively see that it will hurt him then you are not watching.

    hillary will not be on the ticket. if she is, (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    that will be a hugh shock to me.

    what on earth (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:11:44 PM EST
    makes you think that you have the ability to see things "objectivly"?

    Personally, and entirely subjectivly, I think there is a slim to none chance of her being on the ticket, and it doesnt matter electorally. His choice will probably help him marginally, which is all you can ever hope for from a VP.
    Choosing her might help, might hurt - again a marginal effect.


    Objectivity (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    is in the eye of the beholder.....

    Polling data would be helpful....


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    BTD has blogged on this very subject and has found that Hillary actually does help Obama. That's why he's a big advocate of a "unity ticket". Anyway, like I've said before, I think it's really a moot point anyway.

    the comment about Michelle (2.00 / 0) (#135)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    is just dumb. And the people I was referring to are the independents out there. They dont like Hillary and a fair number of them would be turned off to the ticket by her presence on it.

    Michelle (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    has made her opinion on the subject quite obvious. BTD, iirc, has even blogged about it.

    Oh, please not the independent talking point again. Obama is tied with McCain in that category. All of this was valid back in Feb. but not so much anymore.


    huh? (none / 0) (#166)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    so what if BTD blogged about it? I was not disputing what Michelle might have said, but whether she had the ability to veto a VP nominee based on what she once said. Thats dumb. Beleive me, they will make that decision on a more rational basis.

    And what relevance is it how Obama and McCain stand with independents. The issue is whether Hillary helps or hurts with independents. The evidence seems to be that she hurts his chances a bit. Though the VP will not have a big effect either way.


    Okay (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    point taken then. I thought you were disputing the fact that she didn't like Hillary. Anyway, I happen to disagree on her influence on Obama. I don't think that he would pick anyone that didn't have Michelles approval.

    What Evidence? (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    Open to seeing it, but the article you linked for me was only about Dems.

    This is about 'unity' remember (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    If she is on the ticket you will just have to 'get over it' and suck it up for unity.

    no problem here (2.00 / 0) (#181)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    Unlike the anti-Obama people, I am not a hater. I have no real problem with Hillary - I just strongly preferred Obama as our nominee. If she had won the nomination, I would have supported her and voted for her.

    If Obama puts her on the ticket, thats fine with me. If I were him, I wouldnt do it, but its his call.


    The problem is (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    (and bringing the topic back to polling) that none of the polls is really measuring the intensity of the for/againsts, and few have the right party breakdowns.

    In general polls, who makes up the percentage of people less likely or more likely to vote for BO if Clinton's on the ticket?  Republicans who weren't going to vote for him anyway?  Or Democrats who won't for him unless?

    Also, the argument we're been hearing for months, "they always come back in the fall", cuts both ways.  

    Which group is really likely to stay away -- the group made up largely of long time Dem voters who're considering (if not organizing) a no vote this year, or the Obama (new) core, which seems to jump to rationalize every thing he says and does, no matter how strongly it contradicts his previous statements?  If they can rationalize FISA, Clinton as vp should be a breeze.

    And this year, that talking point is ignoring that the kind of solidarity for Obama exhibited by the netroots can also be leveraged by the people who want Clinton on the ticket.  The only place I've seen that talked about is the WaPo article referenced elsewhere on this thread.  It's a big unknown that's not addressed in the polling as far as I can see.

    The closest I've seen in polls to addressing this question is all based on 'likely to vote for'.  That's not a very clear indication of the strength of those feelings.

    There's lots of opinions (some on this thread) that this year is 'different' -- it 'feels' different, the Republican attack ads won't work this year, etc etc.  If you buy those opinions, then why would another difference this year not be abandonment of the party by enough of the base to lose him the election?  Which, actually, would not be that different from the Nader-voters in 2000.


    The SurveyUSA polls (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    show Obama with a lead in women voters of upwards 30 points over McCain; and McCain has a similar lead among men....

    The weakness appears to be white men.....I'n not so sure that Hillary would help there...


    The weakness for BO has been white men (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    from early on in the primaries, when it was spotted in a great analytical essay on pollster.com.  It just was so much easier for the media, and many others, to presume that Clinton only got women.  Instead, women have been fairly well split between the two Dems, while men went more for Clinton (mainly older men, of course).

    That they may move to McCain now is not surprising, when you go back to the analysis and see why they went away from Obama in the first place.  (p.s.  No, it's not about race.:-)


    Who (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    would help there? I honestly can't think of anyone. Hillary certainly did well with the working class men in the primary.

    Edwards, Clark, Biden (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:29:53 PM EST
    would help with white men....

    Truthfully (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:17:32 PM EST
    I don't think so. People vote for the top of the ticket generally. Edwards didn't help Kerry so I don't imagine he would help Obama nor would Clark help. Biden might help.

    Right now (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:29:24 PM EST
    in SurveyUSA polling, Edwards boosts Obama tremendously....

    Could be just name ID but the data is out there...


    My guess would be Biden (none / 0) (#201)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:31:32 PM EST
    He fits the bill on many fronts....

    He can come up with a line or two--gaffes included, but his noun, verb, 9/11 & Rudy was a classic.


    Bidens (none / 0) (#209)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    not bad but it would many the heads of many Obama supporters explode though. It seems Biden is hated almost as much as Hillary by his supporters.

    I'm not the expert on polls that (none / 0) (#180)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    andgarden is, but SUSA's most recent Mass. poll shows McCain within 6 or so points of Obama.  Which I am really, really skeptical of, so it's hard for me to find their surveys overall particularly credible.

    you are missing the obvious (none / 0) (#141)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:18:08 PM EST
    third category. The independents who are the crucial voters. They tend not to like Hillary and her presence on the ticket would hurt. Whether it would hurt enough to counteract the slight help amongst Dems - who knows. Thats a gamble.

    Probably not worth it to find out.

    As to the base abandonment, I dont see it happening. Its a lot bigger world out there than what one would see by merely hanging out in places like this. The polls seem to indicate that Obama is well on his way to winning at least as many Dems as Gore and Kerry.

    People who are disappointed WILL come around, because in the end disappointment about the fate of ones favorite candidate is nothing compared to rational self-interest when it comes deciding how to vote.


    It needn't be abandonment (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    Just enough for Obama to lose the race.  In a close race, it takes relatively few people staying home or protest voting to swing particular contests.

    The people who are merely disappointed probably will go back.  Those are not the people I'm referring to.

    Your belief that they'll come back means nothing.  Isn't the big elitist-Dem meme and bitter-cling speech all about how people vote against their self-interest?  That's the hand-wringing in the Democratic leadership every 4 years.

    I've seldom seen longtime Democrats swear they'll not vote Democratic in a GE before.  I would have sworn I'd never say it myself.


    I've seen people swear (2.00 / 0) (#172)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    every four years. Irrespective of what you have seen (which speaks more to where you hang out), all the empirical data seems to show that 1) Dem dissatisfaction with our candidate is at the same level as it always is 2) Dem positive excitement with our candidate is very high 3) GOP dissatisfaction with their candidate dwarfs any such effect on our side.

    Cheer up, we will be fine.


    This ignores that disappointment (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:08:21 PM EST
    may not be just about the candidate but about the party.  You presume the usual switch from one Dem to the next -- but there seem to a lot of us unwilling to continue to support Dems, period, after the behaviors by the party.  There doesn't seem to be a useful precedent to quite measure that this time.

    It would be more beneficial IMO (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    if this sub-group was getting the most media attention rather than the die hard Hillary supporters.

    I'm at the point where I do not trust Obama or the Democratic Party to represent my interests or my values. It goes way beyond disappointment that a particular candidate did not win the nomination. I have never felt that Constitutional protections, the rule of law, counting votes, protecting Social Security among other things were negotiable items. A number of my personal boundaries on issues and values have been crossed to the point that I have no faith in the Democratic Party.


    According to the AP Article (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    you quote in your response to my question about this, more (28%) of Dems will vote for Obama if Hillary is picked while 25% say they will vote for McCain.  

    right (none / 0) (#184)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    but its very close, within MOE. Which was my main point - she might help, might hurt, wont be a big effect either way - both because of the even split, and also because VPs are not an important criterion in how people vote.

    Where do you get (none / 0) (#144)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    this information from?  

    just one of several that say similar things... (2.00 / 0) (#156)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:36:13 PM EST
    AP-Yahoo poll

    "The poll found that choosing Clinton as No. 2 would appear to be a wash for Obama's candidacy. Overall, 28 percent said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic ticket if Clinton were the nominee, 25 percent said they would be more likely to vote for the Republican ticket if Clinton were the nominee, and 47 percent said it wouldn't make much difference."


    Again, that poll says nothing about (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:53:20 PM EST
    which group Clinton as vp helps or hurts.

    If the 28% who say it will cause them to favor the Democrats is mostly overlapping with her supporters now going to McCain, then that's huge.  If they're in the group that's already moved to Obama, then it's not an argument for putting her on the ticket.

    That poll, btw, is also the one that shows Obama's only got 53% of Clinton supporters.  Twenty-three percent are going to vote for McCain and 16% are undecided.

    Me, I'm not voting for him even if Clinton is on the ticket, so it doesn't matter to me whether he puts her on.  But I tend to agree with BTD, who has posted multiple polls (not just one Yahoo one) showing she gives him a bump.  If the Unity shtick pays off for him the next few weeks, those numbers are likely to go up, not down.


    That's not (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by cardcarryingmember on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:56:30 AM EST
    in the bank at all, and I speak as an Obama supporter. I personally don't think it would be especially consistent in terms of his message for him to pick her as VP. But given that he's shown a pretty strong fire in the belly for wanting to win this thing, if he judges that selecting Clinton as VP will put it in the bag, I'd say he might do it. But ONLY after first getting a guarantee that Bill won't be at the White House every day, clamoring to be heard.

    Oh, Just Stop Already (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:55:06 PM EST
    I really think that argument about Bill Clinton being "at the White House every day, clamoring to be heard" is just absurd and nonsensical.

    He's got other pursuits, like his foundation and his sporting hobbies, i.e. golf to keep him busy. The only fact that he's become "a liability" to Hillary and her campaign is because the media and his detractors have sought to make him so.

    They write incriminating stuff about him in magazines and newspapers with quotes from unnamed sources, get people who hate him on TV to spew rubbish about him and go out incognito (HuffPo writer, CNN reporter) and ask him questions with the only purpose to get a reaction out of him as he walks the ropelines.

    As Hillary's husband, he had to stand up for her, and as a man who says it like it is (unfortunately), that gets him into trouble.

    I apologize BTD for going off-topic and I hope you won't erase this post, but this nonsense against Bill has to stop.


    I think Bill is a real problem (3.25 / 4) (#186)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    when you think of Hillary as VP.

    And I dont mean that as a knock on him. Its just a simple fact that, as a former POTUS, people around the world listen to what he says. As the spouse of the VP, people would also listen to whatever he said.

    As a result, he would have to not say anythign that wasnt apporved by the WH, because whether he liked it or not, people around the world would assume that he was speaking for the administration. If he ever said anything that wasnt perfectly aligned with administration thinking, then the WH would have to go around clarifying, distancing etc from his comments.

    It would be a royal pain for the WH, and would seriously cramp Bill's style. I dont know why he would want to be in that position. No power to make decisions, but a requirement to toe the line.


    this is (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:24:27 PM EST
    why so many people are having a hard time getting behind Obama. You are a perfect example.

    Are you a McCain supporter? I swear Obama's supporters sometimes do a heck of a lot more for McCain than McCain does for himself.


    what are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    How on earth can you take my comment as a knock on the Clintons or in any way something that would turn a Clinton supporter off? Its a simple statement of fact - people around the world listen to and respect Bill. He has a well-deserved position as global statesman, and he can address and opine about anything he wants to.

    Thats a good thing. But if his wife were VP, he would necessarily be constrained because people would assume that he was speaking for the administration. I dont think he would end up being a royal pain by saying things that were not cleared with the aministration, but that means he would have to do such clearnace. I doubt he would be very happy with that postition.

    Once again, why do you find this offensive, or whatever it is that motivated you to write this comment?


    I'm still waiting for any Obama supporter (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:14:36 PM EST
    to explain to me why Bill's first comment that was called racist was somehow racist -- his comment that Obama's claims re the war were a "fairy tale."

    If anyone can explain to me how "fairy tale" is racist, I might begin to see how Bill Clinton could be a problem rather than a bonus.  Until then, I still have to see comments about Bill Clinton as just more of the same old, same old that has turned me off.

    So -- can you be the Obama supporter who clarifies this for me?


    i think another important thing to look (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    at is the chances obama has had to stand out and has not done so. fisa, hillary donors, and just the unity idea in general. there is no there there as far as i can see. the word tepid comes to mind. if there is no sizzle now, will having sizzle after the convention impact? maybe but then again maybe not! the young voters with the exception of the truly devoted, will lose interest especially during a critical time like this. i think the aa voting block for obama will hold however there may be some defections if they start thinking that he is not so much in their camp. and if there is record turnout in the aa voting block, then i fail to see where it will substantially impact any major races. perhaps if a state is on the edge, then maybe then depending on voter dynamics.

    Best polling information (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by 1jane on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:36:34 AM EST
    is found at fivethirtyeight.com

    Hillary ran a great race! The sticky wicket is her high unfavorables among voters from all sides. The "not another Clinton in the White House" undercurrent continues to run strong.


    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    geez, the only people who believe that stuff are people like you. Obama's negatives are the same as hers. Should we deny him the nomination now?

    just not true (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:41:59 PM EST

    Obama 59/27
    Clinton 49/39

    Obama 62/26
    Clinton 53/43

    Obama 64/31
    Clinton 54/43


    Ras (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    tells a different story. I don't believe the LAT or Newsweek polls. Newsweek has a history of being way off in their polling.

    well first off (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by tben on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    saying "I dont like that poll" is not much of an argument. Especially when there are 3. But even Ras, last I checked had Obama net 10 pts better than Hillary, with Hill actually at a net negative.
    So let us all be thankful that we managed to nominate the far more popular candidate.

    Ga6th, Do you think Barr willl be a factor? (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:50:19 AM EST
    No (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:09:59 AM EST
    Obama is not likely to break 40% here in GA and that gives McCain a 20 pt. plus margin in the state. Besides Barr not only takes from McCain, he also takes from Obama. Voting for Barr is simply a place to register displeasure with McCain and Obama. Republican in ga's main issue with McCain is immigration. Barr pretty much has the same stance as McCain with regards to that. My husband has said that he'll vote for Barr simply because he can't stand Republicans (heh, he used to be one) and he thinks Obama's abjectly unqualified to be President. He doesn't trust Obama either. Barr also has gone to Dem party meetings to talk to the members about issues.

    I really wonder how this will play out.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:21:13 AM EST
    double digit win will not happen for obama, and he could just as easily lose.

    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.

    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.

    I'm a no one (5.00 / 1) (#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

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

    Why are polls different? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Prabhata on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:38:08 AM EST
    Question for BTD (none / 0) (#103)
    by mbuchel on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    In almost every analysis of polls that I see from you, you always make comparisons of Obama vs. Kerry or Gore based on the percentage of the white, black, latino, etc. votes and often use that as a means of dismissing polls showing Obama close in some states (GA, NC) or with (large) leads in others (OH, VA, PA, CO).  You clearly believe that it is unlikely that he beats the Kerry performance among whites.

    However, you never seem to account for the dramatic difference in party ID now as opposed to 2004.  I'm not saying that it means that Obama is suddenly going to win the white vote - dems never do, but I think party ID is a much better predictor of voting than race.  If I know someone is white I have a far less likely chance of guessing how they'll vote as opposed to if I know their party registration.

    Just wondering your view if you're willing to share.

    I agree, the so called (none / 0) (#109)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    new democratic party -- focus on youth, AA, and as I like to snarkely call them, the vapid yuppies, and don't focus so much on blue collar whites, etc -- can actually work. I have my doubts, but I do think it's possible.

    It's kind of interesting that I think part of the motive to shake things up has been because it's been hard to get those other voters (see Kerry, Gore, etc.). But I think they're trading one problem for another. It may be easier to get the new coalition of voters, but I think it's harder to get them to vote.

    But the bottom line is, you should try to get them all. The question is where do you distribute the resources.

    One nit with the post, not all the voters are so equal. We have a electoral college system, so voters in states that are very red or very blue don't count as much. Those of us purple voters, we count a lot. Yay!! It's good to be purple. :-)

    A lot of Obama's tunout came from demon Clinton (none / 0) (#161)
    by Salt on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    she now receives as many boos as he receive cheers at his gatherings.  So how will Obama maintain the anti momentum and inflame passions for turnout until Nov with Hillary waiting for 012 but appearing to be his biggest fan. A new demon is required for the Politics of Identity and grudge to work, the press isn't biting on McCain much the republican will use the race card had not takers last week and a really big mistake would be for Dems to adopt an anti ageism's attack informally or formally, that will just as it has with women cut two ways driving another splinter group to the puma movement.  Let's try to be for something and stop pitting groups against each other I hope it is only a coincidence that Michelle Obama has announced she will adopt the Gay Community as her identity group to champion, let's hope that is the actual intent this is a powerful empowered group that will not be victimized quietly either.

     Unfortunately, it's starting to again look as if turnout is dependent on which candidate can inflame the passion of groups against one another a bad strategy and ugly, our communities of course don't need more of this..