USAToday/Gallup Poll: McCain By 4 Among "LVs"

Here is a poll to tell me I am wrong that Obama is a shoo-in:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. McCain still trails slightly among the broader universe of "registered" voters. By both measures, the race is tight. The Friday-Sunday poll, mostly conducted as Obama was returning from his much-publicized overseas trip and released just this hour, shows McCain now ahead 49%-45% among voters that Gallup believes are most likely to go to the polls in November. In late June, he was behind among likely voters, 50%-44%.

Among registered voters, McCain still trails Obama, but by less. He is behind by 3 percentage points in the new poll (47%-44%) vs. a 6-point disadvantage (48%-42%) in late June.

More . . .

Likely voter models this far out are crap imo. And Gallup's Frank Newport agrees with me -- "Gallup editor Frank Newport tells Jill that "registered voters are much more important at the moment," because Election Day is still 100 days away. . ." but that still does not explain how Gallup's tracker has Obama by 8 and a poll in the field the same 3 days has Obama up 3. Moral of the story - all polls stink. and Obama is still a shoo in, imo of course.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Novak Has Brain Tumor | The Veep Pick: Gore In 92 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's only anecdotal (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    but the woman who called me from Gallup last night (Sunday) was very nice...and competent in doing her job.

    I'd vote for her.

    I told a pollster (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:08:36 PM EST
    the other day that I'd vote for Mayor McCheese. He thought I said Marty McFly. I said McFly isn't up for reelection this year. Okay then, he said, McCheese it is.

    This is going to be (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:27:21 PM EST
    a loooong 99 days.

    I'm working on the 'locals' campaigns where I can actually make a difference and take my mind off of 'the big (ugh) picture.'



    So what's your definition (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    of "shoo-in" so we can hold you accountable in November?

    Serious question.  Does "shoo-in" mean he will win easily and by a large margin going away, or that he might eke it out but is certain to win?  (Personally, I don't think he's a shoo-in by either definition, but that's just me.  I think he has a fair to good chance of eking out a win.)

    Shoo-in...try this: (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:34:53 PM EST
    SHOO-IN -- a certain winner; a candidate who can only be defeated by a political miracle. Like front runner, bolt, dark horse, and many others this metaphor is taken from racing, but this one has a fraudulent background. When jockeys form a 'ring' and bet on a single horse, they hold back their own mounts and 'chase in' or shoo in' the horse selected to be the winner. 'Racing Maxims and Methods of 'Pittsburgh Phil,' published in 1908, points out: 'There were many times presumably that 'Tod' would win through such manipulations, being 'shooed in,' as it were.'...'To shoo' is a colloquialism meaning to urge gently a person or animal to go in a desired direction. It made its first recorded appearance around the turn of the twentieth century. 'Shoo-in' -- minus its crooked connotation, now only meaning 'sure thing' -- began to be used politically in the forties...The word was sufficiently secured in the political lexicon in 1967 to rate a turnaround. The 'Wall Street Journal' called the candidate hopelessly running against popular Congressman Adam Clayton Powell in New York's Harlem a 'shoo-out."

    Thanks for the history (none / 0) (#191)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:59:07 PM EST
    But I was hoping to find out what sense BTD is using it.

    Well, this is good news for me, only (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:46:02 PM EST
    in terms of MY predictions being correct.
    I said that McCain would be up in the polls by 10 at some point---I think  by the end of August, but I'm not sure.

    Your predictions are highly unlikely. (2.50 / 4) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:14:47 PM EST
    You think there will be a 20 point shift in the next 30 days?  

    You really need to let go of the hate.


    Ahem---a 6 point shift, per this poll. (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    We shall see.

    Hello? (none / 0) (#190)
    by eustiscg on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    Is anyone here familiar the concept of an "outlier"?  There is no confirmation for this number anywhere else.  In fact, Gallup's OWN independent polling (as opposed to this work-for-hire) has Obama ahead by a mile.  Gimme a break.

    "let go of the hate" (5.00 / 5) (#197)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    This comment is very tiresome.

    It's not really personal in that way. This election has to do with two people who hold various positions. I disagree with almost all of McCain's and Obama's positions.

    Obama seems like a very nice person. I do not believe that he is ready to be president yet. The thought of him as president concerns me greatly, but I don't hate him.

    McCain seems like a very nice person as well. Personally, I think he is mentally and emotionally and physically spent and should retire. The thought of McCain as president scares me for the futures of my children and grand children. But I don't hate him either.

    Forcing the issue of love or hate of the person into our discourse twists and skews it, distorting it into something personal that really has not place here. This is the problem with Obama cultists. They have fallen in love with the speaker's voice. Obama can do no wrong. Issues are acrobatically excused or dismissed altogether.

    For most of us here, this is about issues, not people. I have nothing at all against either McCain or Obama except for the positions they hold and the Supreme Court Justices that I fear both will put on the Bench.


    McCain up by 10 later in August? (none / 0) (#37)
    by bridget on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:16:49 PM EST
    Why do you think that, MarkL? Interesting.

    Could you please post a link to the earlier comments you made re McCain's poll numbers and chances in this race? I would appreciate it :-)


    Lol, I can't find that comment, but (none / 0) (#39)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    my assertion was not that McCain would win (I really have no idea) but that the race is so volatile that I expect McCain to have a decent lead at some point.

    One thing McCain is winning on (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Truth Sayer on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    currently is his energy proposals. I've long believed that when it came to energy taking a big hit on the wallets of the nation that the public would embrace off-shore drilling, nuclear, etc - even staying in Iraq if they thought it would keep oil prices down. Obama has no comeback for what McCain is saying nor will he because he is all about 10 years from now.

    And remember right now energy and  specially gas prices are numero uno when it come to the economy in the minds of votes. In ther last ABC poll a few weeks ago Obama only had a three point edge on the economy with LV's. I bet he has lost that lead now.

    The other area McCain is leading and will continue to lead in is National Security. In a poll over the weekend a pularity of voters said Obama's trip did nothing to bolster his NS credibility.


    I agree that the Dems have (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    a serious problem on their hands in respect to offshore oil drilling. What's sad is the Dems are right. The whole debate is a shell game for the oil execs, but most Americans only take the time to notice the gas prices, not the reasons for them.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Truth Sayer on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:55:13 PM EST
    I'm not for offshore drilling but a guy has to look at the realities of an election and what the voters are focusing on and what they are willing to do about such problems.

    welcome to the bus both of you (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:59:00 PM EST
    I have been saying this for a couple of months.

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by tek on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:37:04 PM EST
    McCain can say this with no fear because he knows it's what oil companies and conservatives want to hear, but he also knows it would take a Congressional vote to allow it to happen and that isn't going to happen.

    After BTD's lament that a lot of people on the blog just don't like Obama and come here to diss him, I realize I fit that bill.  I not only believe Obama is a bad candidate, but a very bad person.  I will not vote for him, so I guess I shouldn't come to this site.  It's down to No Quarter!


    Nah....lots more sites (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:44:30 PM EST
    than No Quarter which I rarely visit...almost never, infact.  TL links to Anglachel's Journal and  Riverdaughter's Confluence.  Go visit.

    While I don't disagree with your assessment of Obama, I don't come here to diss him - or his supporters.  I come here to track reasonable assessments of this race from commenters whom I (for the most part) trust to say truly what they think...and who are actually thinking it through.  I have to respect that...and want to know which way the wind is blowing...and why.

    Besides, TChris and Jeralyn raise lots of other issues worth note and consideration...good distractions from the campaign and reminders of other realities.

    Don't drop out...drop by...and engage!


    I do not approve of (none / 0) (#203)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:42:56 PM EST
    people who straddle both sides of an issue as BO often tries to do. But I think it is a whole other leap to say that because BO does that that he is necessarily a bad person.

    BO is painfully inexperienced and seems to lack the necessary patience and judgment to gain that experience. At the same time he has been gifted with a strong stage presence and a powerful speaking voice. He has made the horrible mistake of believing that this stage presence and speaking voice qualify him to be POTUS. They do not.

    But this presumptuous error does not make him a bad person. It only makes him a deluded and an imcompetent person.


    Al Gore is just terrible on this---his (none / 0) (#136)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:01:46 PM EST
    disregard for the real pain and suffering caused by high gas prices evinces the worst of clueless Dem. elitism.

    and we are only at <4 bucks a gallon (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:06:54 PM EST
    it cost me 73 bucks to fill up today.  that is just absurd.  what  happens when its 6 bucks or 8 bucks?
    the republicans may be evil but they are not stupid. they know they can ride this all the way to the white  house.

    I think his ads are working too (none / 0) (#168)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:59:22 PM EST
    I can see that happening, too (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by bridget on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    It is way to early for Obama to remain in the lead until election day.

    I don't know who will win BUT
    Come fall the GOP will strongly beat the powerful scary "national security" drum again and there is no way that Republicans will vote for a Dem. It's just not what they do anyway. McCain has his loyal voters no matter what IMHO.


    Personally... (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    I think it's way too early to determine "shoo-in" status.

    November 3 (none / 0) (#94)
    by Truth Sayer on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:02:05 PM EST
    That is when the shoo in will be known.

    or (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    the other shoo will drop

    I wish I could have your faith, or rather (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Joelarama on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    fact-based certainty, that he is a shoo-in.

    I'm not a big fan, but we need a Dem president.

    I think any other Democratic candidate (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:52:47 PM EST
    would be a shoo in but this guy is different.  I think one problem is that he has made the campaign about himself.  While his most ardent supporters like that and continue to worship him, I think the average voter doesn't.  The average voter just wants the GOP out.  The focus on McCain being the same as Bush was working quite well, these other campaign tactics make voters think about Obama.

    Thank you. This is crucial. (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:20:19 PM EST
    Because, of course, the campaign is about me.

    Okay, it's about us.  The voters.

    But it's just like I was taught about broadcasting: Talk to one listener.  The rest will listen in.:-)


    To be effective.... (none / 0) (#188)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:48:25 PM EST
    absolutely right.

    Edward R. Murrow School for me.



    More the Edmund Arnold School (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:25:18 PM EST
    for me, as my love was/is copyediting, page layout, etc.  And writing, writing, writing . . . stuff that requires more than S-V-O sentence structure and can be summed up in 90 sec.  So I didn't go the broadcasting route; I just took a course or a couple.

    And then I went more into media history -- so you can bet I've read everything on Murrow.  And I have a lot of the primary sources, as it were, as I have my dad's complete collection of "I Can Hear It Now" on LPs.  I kept a phonograph around, too, to be able to play those -- and his Louis Armstrong records and more.  

    But the Murrow platters were what my dad would spin for hours.  My parents were of the WWII era, and dad was a veteran, while mom waited by the radio many an hour to hear how so many men were doing over there, and there, and there -- such a war with so many fronts, it was.  So I knew from an early age just what Murrow meant to that generation, whether journalists or otherwise.

    Hmmm, the way the media behave today, I think I need to haul out the phonograph and give ol' Ed a spin. . . .


    As I stated in the earlier post, the polls (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    in the summer matter less this year for a couple reasons: the VP matters this year (my hunch) and the
    AA and youth vote is gonna be galvanized like never before (assuming little BO doesn't turn them off between now and Nov.) Trust me, the polls will ebb and flow, but only for Obama. Study the poll trend- McCain HAS NOT broken 43% consistently.

    I agree that the (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:03:41 PM EST
    AA vote will be galvanized this year and that VP choices matter but I still have doubts about the youth vote. BIG DOUBTS.

    Youth vote? Do you want to bet on that? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    Any Democrat will win 57%-60%+ (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:53:48 PM EST
    of the youth vote and there will be a large youth turnout.  The question is, is it enough for Obama to offset losses everywhere else?

    MarkL what were you (none / 0) (#31)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    puffing on during the primaries? Whatever it was, i want some, and I don't even smoke. HRC and BHO got a record # of votes for the primary, and voters under 30 overwhelmingly went for Lil BO.

    Where were you in 1972? (4.71 / 7) (#33)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:15:44 PM EST
    36 Years Ago (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    is more than just a different election cycle.

    Different socio-political/cultural era. So not easily comparable.

    And McGovern's organization can't compare for effectiveness with Obama's (so far).

    But the youth turnout always seems to disappoint so only time will tell.


    So let me get this straight Mark, all (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    the stories about the "legion of crazed young cult of Obambots" are overblown, most of Barack's support are actually people over 30 and BO's youth support is comparable to that guy from more than 30 yrs ago that at least half the country can't even remember off the top of their heads? Right. And they call me The Joker.  :D

    well since (5.00 / 10) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    I am the one talking about crazed Obamabots let defend him.  I think he is only pointing out that the youth vote has seemed sure before and did not show up.
    it could happen.  particularly if Obama keeps steering to the right.  the downside of falling in love is how crappy you feel when you find out what you really bought.

    Now THAT'S a good point (none / 0) (#84)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:54:13 PM EST

    Exactly. It is not exactly about enthusiasm (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    which certainly was there.  It is about endurance tests -- and attention spans.  I teach the "youth vote," and I do not seem them as any different in this regard as the age group in '72, when I was in it.  I.e., there is a core group that have great constancy, organizational ability, etc., and they are -- as ever -- the future leaders of tomorrow.

    But ask me about how many are capable of time management to get term papers in on time. :-)


    on the other hand (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:24:21 PM EST
    we old farts are as dependable as death and taxes.

    Both of which (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:52:52 PM EST
    are on our radar...

    ...death and taxes, I mean.


    The article with the poll (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    says that Obama's trip may have energized Republicans, because of the repulsive effect of all of the lauding, fawning media coverage.

    I tend to agree.

    Republicans might also have been ..... (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:10:12 PM EST
    ...energized by large crowds of fawning Europeans. That kind of stuff tends to tick them off.

    I agree too. Repubs aren't exactly (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    shy about their xenophobia and snobbery.

    dont think its just republicans (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:28:57 PM EST
    you're right (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    my solid Dem friends who were on-the-fence when it came to Obama -- don't like him and are disgusted with the DNC, but were willing to hold their noses and vote regardless -- are now planning not to vote at all after Obama's premature Victory Lap through Europe.  Even my expat friends are now turned off by him.

    Arrogant, presumptuous, cocky and elitist are all words being bandied about with regards to The One in my circle these days.


    yeah! (5.00 / 8) (#93)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:00:49 PM EST
    I got a 2 rating by sher.  Woo-hoo!  Yeah for me!  Nothing like hitting a raw nerve to spice up one's afternoon.



    ccpup....here's a beer...let's toast. Don't (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:14:58 PM EST
    be jealous, but I usually get "1's" :)

    You Can Say That Again... (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:52:31 PM EST
    Arrogant, presumptuous, cocky and elitist

    No one will believe me, but I was talking to the manager of my building when I got back from work today, and she said those words and a whole lot more to describe Obama to me.

    And she was furious that he had the "balls" (her word) to "fill his hoopty campaign plane and fly on out to Germany and France and the UK" when the problems he needs to deal with are right here in the U.S.

    She said he had to go to Iraq/Afghanistan, but then, "you got to fly yo' a$$ on back home and clean up your own backyard, mister!" (her exact words)

    So, by now, you can guess that my building manager is a black woman. And she said she and her friends and family are going to sit this election out. She said they are furious with him and his wife for taking their Primary votes for granted.


    Interesting. I'm wondering how many more are (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:56:25 PM EST
    thinking the same thing.  And if some think that maybe he's not the right AA to represent the country as the "first."  

    those I know who are AA (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:14:51 PM EST
    are not pleased that Obama is the first AA to run for President.  They had hoped for someone with more experience, some impressive legislative accomplishments and a man (or woman) who didn't have the yolk of a Rev Wright hanging around their neck.

    They're not very optimistic about his chances for the GE.  But they all look forward to a Hillary Administration in 2012.



    Hillary 2012. (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:19:32 PM EST
    We have not heard the last of Reverend Wright (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kempis on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:35:38 PM EST
    ...who didn't have the yolk of a Rev Wright hanging around their neck.

    And Reverend Wright is a major reason why it's premature to think Obama will surely defeat McCain on November 3.

    He may. And I'm so damned tired of the GOP's corruption and incompetence that I hope he does (though I'm not thrilled with the DNC's own corruption and incompetence).

    But I'm not so sure he will.


    I had an interesting (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:18:05 PM EST
    conversation with one of those Ol' Salts who has been around politics for an eternity, it seems.  Her Dad was a Southern Governor before the South went Red and her husband was a Lieutenant Gov of a Northeastern State years ago.  She's a major-league Dem fundraiser and has some interesting folks on speed-dial.

    She believes that Obama's downfall is his penchant to peak too soon.  He did it in the Primary Season (his best months being January and February with March, April and May being one arduous struggle to crawl across the Finish Line) and she believes that he's peaking too soon now.

    To be considered a shoo-in in June and July is dangerous as the only way to go from there is down.  The Electorate gets bored and tunes out that candidate, hoping for something "exciting" to happen.  

    But to be considered a shoo-in in September and certainly October is preferable.  Of course, the only way to get to Sep/Oct shoo-in status is to come from behind ... which is what McCain is beginning to do now.  That narrative won't begin in earnest until late-August, but she's dead certain that's the direction it's going.  September/October will see Obama on the defensive with McCain experiencing a "remarkable comeback" much like he did in the Primary Season.

    She also thinks Obama won't win re-election in the Illinois Senate in 2010.  Too much baggage and very little legislative accomplishment to make sense of sending him back.

    Interesting insight I thought you guys might appreciate, for what it's worth.


    some here (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:40:34 PM EST
    still like Jesse.  and they think he was right the first time.

    I'm one of those AA not supporting Obama (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by stefystef on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:06:08 PM EST
    and I can assure you many minorities have concerns about Obama.  It will mean something as the election gets closer.

    To be honest (none / 0) (#166)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    I've met some African American Hillary supporters who are refusing to vote for Obama in the general over their anger during the primaries.  But this one black woman who was a major Hillary supporter once said to me last December "there's no way a black man will ever win the presidency."  It leaves me to wonder, is her blank vote or vote for McCain kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy?  

    Eventually, the USA will have a black (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:31:54 PM EST
    president AND a Latino president AND a female president...  I just don't think it is going to be this year.  

    The Democrats and Obama blew it by running him too soon.  He should have put in a complete term in the senate, gotten re-elected, and then run - just like Hillary did.  

    I could be wrong about his chances for this year but I don't think I am.  I think it's going to get down to experience as we get closer to the actual election.  


    I am particularly fond (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:01:21 PM EST
    of the adjective "hoopty."  Haven't heard that in years, since my grandma is gone.

    You have a good ear, as they say, for dialogue. :-)


    Many have mentioned there might be (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:58:13 PM EST
    backlash from the Network Groupie/I'm Too Sexy Tour by obama. This could be it, but time will tell the story.

    The Network Groupie/I'm Too Sexy Tour (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by JimWash08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    falls off chair with laughter

    Oh Psstt, you're too funny! :) Love it!


    JimWash....we must laugh, so we don't cry :) (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:39:19 PM EST
    Yep. Even Obama said it. (none / 0) (#101)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:06:08 PM EST
    "Energized Republicans" (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by creeper on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:29:37 PM EST
    Maybe so.  But I'd give you ten to one it also repulsed independents.  

    Delusional (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:07:37 PM EST
    I've always felt the the Obama camp believed all their hype on the Ind voter falling in line with him. McCain has a long history of doing well with that group. Obama has none (other than the primaries) He's the Senator from Illinois because of Alan Keyes, not because of the independants.

    So right (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by stefystef on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:09:42 PM EST
    Obama won Illinois because of the Jack Ryan scandal, which was a NON scandal to me.  The Republicans shot themselves in the foot with that one.

    Obama has not have any real challenge to get into public life.  Please read the New Yorker article about his start in Chicago Politics. It says alot about him.  And you can see why Obama blocked the New Yorker for coming with him on his world our.


    If Obama's such a shoo-in, (5.00 / 12) (#28)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    his numbers ought to be a whole lot better than this; I would even go so far as to say that he should be up over McCain by a margin in the mid-teens.

    That the numbers are see-sawing between these two candidates ought to be worrying both campaigns, but Obama's especially, given his media darling status - I shudder to think how much more fawning and obsequious the coverage will be as the media work to carry Obama over the finish line to yet another victory.

    Rule 1 about believing polls (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    They tell you very little about tomorrow, and nothing about 4 months from now. "Trends" are meaningless in a world where a media frenzy can change the race in a day. There is a natural desire to know the future, so we "read the tea leaves" whenever we can. Our neighbors the ultra-conservatives aren't voting for McCain? He's doomed! Our cousin who voted for Bush is supporting Obama? He's destined to win. But we can't know the future. Pollsters know that - polls are blurry snapshots of what is happening right now, but predictions. This is when reason is essential.

    I don't get it (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    Why presume to call Obama a "shoo-in" at this stage?

    For all practical purposes, the real general election campaign has not even begun. No one knows what the Republicans are going to be throwing at Obama. About the only thing the current polls might really tell us is that the race is reasonably close so far. Clearly, a distinctly negative turn for either candidate could easily put him well behind the 8 ball in the race.

    Obama has had a nearly two month run of press without any really negative content, and with much positive content. He's not exactly putting McCain away, is he?

    I won't pretend to know how this race will turn out -- whether Obama can ride the very positive Democratic brand to victory, or the Republicans can marshal an effective negative campaign on Obama's pretty extraordinary vulnerabilities to bring him down, I just can't possibly predict with any confidence.

    But I think a little humility in the face of the complexity of this prediction, and the uncertainties attaching to it, might be an admirable trait.

    the Democrat Brand (5.00 / 15) (#91)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:58:35 PM EST
    is not as positive as you think it is.  In fact, Congress' Approval Ratings are below the President's.

    Somewhere in a thread a few weeks ago said something which I'm now believing to be more true than not:

    The 2006 Midterms were the "Change" Election and, since the Dems were given a mandate by the voters which they've done absolutely nothing with, the Voters this time out are less likely to put the Dems in total charge via a Dem President.

    One can't underestimate the feeling of dissatisfaction and impatience people are feeling for those Dems in charge right now.  And now they're asking us to put an inexperienced First Term Junior Senator in charge?

    I suspect most will opt for the seemingly "harmless" and experienced Old Guy with a Dem controlled House and Senate rather than putting the Dems in charge of it all with an Inexperienced New Guy at the helm.

    The Dems haven't exactly earned our trust and confidence the last two years ... and certainly not via the DNC!


    Excellent Analysis. (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by creeper on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:34:05 PM EST
    Just excellent.  I'm glad you cited it here.  

    Dems have already squandered their best opportunity.  Why on earth would John Q. vote for more of what he's gotten the past two years?


    And may I say (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:07:41 PM EST
    that your Capitalization is marvelous.  Makes the point even more.  And a good point it is.

    Plus, the Dems are not only do-nothings; they're also being, well, boring.  Bumbly as McCain may be, Obama is not -- despite the media groupies desperate to pump him up -- an exciting candidate, after all.

    There were a couple of exciting candidates who didn't need rock bands to draw a crowd. . . .


    More Silliness (none / 0) (#176)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    That's because Congress isn't a person. Take each Senator by name, and get their approval rating in their home state, and there isn't a one in the Bush cellar dwelling neighborhood. In fact, among the 100 Senators you are hard pressed to find two or three below 50%.

    Congress Approval polls are the epitome of stupidity because no one votes for "Congress".


    Dynamics are still strongly in O's favor (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Jim J on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:18:17 PM EST
    Look at the voter enthusiasm by party. Look at the Latino numbers. Wait for the fundraising advantage to kick in after Labor Day.

    And the organization on the ground. That will tell the tale. Dem turnout will be massive.

    Sure, Obama's going to get trounced in the South. But bottom line is McCain is not going to steal a Kerry state, and it's highly likely Obama turns at least one Bush '04 state.

    I still don't think this thing's going to be close at all.

    what is that old saying (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:51:16 PM EST
    a week in a lifetime in politics.
    how long is 99 days?

    Why, it's 11 cats' lives long (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:10:13 PM EST
    now that you ask.  And you know what they say about herding cats -- a description of a Dem convention.:-)  That is, in the good old days, anyway.  The upcoming one is looking all too scripted to give us the unexpected idiocies worth watching hours of convention coverage.

    Now Jim, can you save us some time (none / 0) (#113)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    and cut and paste this comment on every thread in response to the very few people predicting Obama's impending doom? Obama's got to pick off ONE Bush state and only a moron would believe McCain is gonna
    carry a Kerry state. Again, Obama could lose but only if HE screws it up.

    Joker (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    Obama's got to pick off ONE Bush state and only a moron would believe McCain is gonna
    carry a Kerry state

    You're assuming Obama will keep all the Kerry states. Big assumption with 4 months to go and much more to be found out about a relative unknown.


    I'm from Milwaukee, and I oughta know (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:03:55 PM EST
    as the ad used to say.  Yep, free brewski and brats (preferably marinated in brewski in clean garbage cans:-) gets out a crowd every time.  And it is just such a commentary on our journalists that, no doubt while chomping on the freebies, they forgot to mention it in their coverage.

    Ain'a hey, I'm just glad he didn't try multiplying loaves and fishes to feed the crowd. :-)

    I guess brats are the European version (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:35:10 PM EST
    of cocktail weenies, and we know how the media love their cocktail weenies...

    Guess you (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by tek on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    didn't see the video Fox aired on that, made by some Brit satirist.  Totally hilarious, all about The One touring Europe.  "Then he walked across the Channel to France..."

    I don't watch Fox much, but I read that (none / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM EST
    and howled.  But it proves my point -- it was by a Brit, not from one of the Tribe of Media (I loved that term in the howler) on this side of the pond.:-)

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:12:34 PM EST
    One poll doesn't say much, but it would be wrong to discount it.

    The overall conditions favor Obama, and I'd say that he is the favorite. However, he will have to work hard for every vote, and his campaign's record since he became the presumptive nominee has not been good.

    He has been damaged by his FISA flip-flop, and his move to the centre on one or two things, which opened him up to the flip-flopper attack, which is always very damaging. Especially to a guy who has run in the primary on being a different kind of politician.

    Furthermore, McCain has been up in the air with ads more than Obama has, with claims and images that were left largely unchallenged. The retreating Dem response on the Clark broohaha has left McCain virtually untouchable as a "war hero", and leaves his campaign free to play that card whenever they want.

    It's definitely not over.

    Shoe in? It aint necessarily so (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Saul on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:17:05 PM EST
    You would think that this is the year of the democrats.  Terrible Bush administration, Iraq, economy way down hell any most any democrat should have have been  a slam dunk on the Republicans.  Especially against McCain.   So why is it so close.  One reason it so close for Obama is because  he has not passed the CIC smell test.  McCain does pass the CIC smell test.  Thats what people are worried about. Basically that's it.  If Obama could conquer that between now and Nov it will be a shoe in but don't bet on it.

    All that's missing is the At&T commercials (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:19:52 PM EST
    Oh wait........./snark

    Well obviously (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by SoCalLiberal on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    these voters and this pollster are both just racist.  I think also that they probably only polled people who haven't heard his speech yet.  I think we need to call these people out!  They're just bitter, angry old white people but he's doing much better among Latinos, yes they're stupid for not voting for him in the primary but shouting "Si Sue Puedes" at them is going to make things work.  Plus Obama will win 90% of the youth vote so this poll is just wrong.


    In all seriousness, could be an outlier.  It seems like the Gallup and Rasmussen fluctuate but Obama has remained ahead.  McCain seems to have made up some ground in critical states but is still in relatively bad shape.

    I stated this would bite him in the (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:04:16 PM EST
    you know what: The Friday-Sunday poll, mostly conducted as Obama was returning from his much-publicized overseas trip and released just this hour....

    Acting like a President before you actually are one is not good form.  

    Not only not good form -- not good politics. (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    Because we-the-people like to vote first.

    Let's try restating it, then. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:27:13 PM EST
    "He acted like a President" can mean "acted Presidential" -- so I see what you mean.

    But the way I read it, though the poster can clarify if it's what was meant, is that "he acted as if he already were elected."  And in a democracy, that's bad form.  


    Nope. Fine line between (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:30:48 PM EST
    confidence and over-confidence.  I don't think he carries it off carefully enough.

    Of course, it's all in the eye of the beholder.  Some of us behold it.  Some of you don't.


    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    The press carried stories of him being hailed as a prophet and an American hero who would save the country. Many Americans are not going to stand for that. I see more of a backlash than an increase in popularity.

    He spent days speaking of other countries problems and concerns when he has not addressed the same in the US.

    Yes...he has not been nominated and he is not the President..yet.

    And that will be the day that Obama acts anything like a cute little cocker spaniel.  


    Poll Data (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by liberalone on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:14:50 PM EST
    I agree that this poll is an outlier and does not point to any major changes in public opinion.

    As many of you can attest, some folks have already made up their minds and there is nothing anyone can say or do to change it.  Thankfully there are many undecided voters. So, yes, we can have a Democratic POTUS as well as a Democratic Congress.

    This whole election season can't end soon enough for me so that progressives can once again focus on policy rather than personality.

    A bad candidate (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:16:52 PM EST
    Obama is a terrible candidate.  This year was supposed to be the year of the Democrats, that was until the DNC and the superdelegates supported Obama after Reverend Wright.  The Democratic nominee should not be close to McCain, but Obama makes it close because he is a poor choice for many of us.  I don't trust any of his talk, but most of all, I don't trust his character.  I will never vote for Obama, and it pains me that I cannot for the first time in my life support the Democratic candidate -- that's how bad Obama is.  The poll probably reflects the defection of many Democrats to McCain or not voting.

    Maybe it was the overseas trip (4.72 / 11) (#9)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:56:44 PM EST
    He did very well, but some people might be looking at the pictures and questioning how a candidate can already be taking on a Presidential visit/role? It might have come across as a bit assuming. Like craming for Foreign Policy experience. He looks good in all the pictures but just as 5 years as a prisoner of war does not qualify you for President, a weekend in Europe could be viewed the same way. It might even be that the news coverage was very overwhelming and people think they are being played by the media.

    This Poll Comes After (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by creeper on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    Obama's Magical Mystery Tour of Europe.  It looks to me like Americans didn't like what they saw there.  

    Stunning numbers, whatever the reason.


    It could simply mean... (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by dianem on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    ...that it was a beautiful weekend and Obama's young and vigorous supporter's were out at the beach while bitter middle aged feminists who are reluctant to support Obama were sitting by the phone knitting.

    now that made me giggle... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    after I just finished grading a whole bunch of papers...I was just now debating whether or not to pick up my knitting or grab the mystery novel to go out and enjoy the afternoon sun before class.

    I knit. I quilt. (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:11:13 PM EST
    But I don't sit by the phone for anyone, anymore. :-)

    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by tek on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    I need to learn to knit.

    Means nothing (4.50 / 2) (#27)
    by nell on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    I don't think this poll means anything, it is way too early to draw conclusions.  

    As much as I dislike Obama (I am planning on skipping the top of the ticket in my red state, I reject both candidates), I think it would be nearly impossible for him to lose the election. It is a Democrats year, the country is ready to switch parties, and on top of that, Obama's ground game is FAR better than McCain's, FAR better. If Obama loses, it will NOT be because of anything positive about McCain or McCain's campaign, it will be because voters just did not feel like they could connect to/trust Obama. I am sure the McCain campaign will help push those doubts along. The foreign photo ops don't really help, I don't think, they just make him seem more concerned about Europeans than about Americans.

    That being said, never said never. I also didn't possibly think Kerry could lose given the nightmare that is GWB, and he did, much to my shock and surprise...

    I agree that Obama appears to be the (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    favorite now; however, I think the absence of very obvious attacks  by Republicans forebodes a vicious assault once he is the nominee; then we will have a better picture of how things will turn out in November.

    that has been my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:16:16 PM EST
    but I have to tell you.  they are going to have to do better than they have been doing.  I am surprised how ham handed its been.
    I said in another thread that it almost seems like McCain doesnt think he needs to run a smart campaign.
    maybe its because of a Dick Morris segment I saw on FOX the other day.
    Dick says the conservative is going to win in Israel and then if it looks good for Obama they will bomb Iran and scare the crap out of people to help McCain.
    just thinking out loud.
    I wish it sounded  unreasonable.

    The particular line of attack which is (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    missing know has to do with Obama's recreation habits of his teens and early 20s. There is no way the Republicans are going to eschew that attack; they are obviously keeping it in reserve for after the convention.

    we will certainly hear more (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    about Ayers and the like

    And that is a completely appropriate (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:28:28 PM EST
    line of attack, btw.

    Teens & early 20's??? (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by badguppy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    They can try that attack, but it would fall flat and rightly so.

    I hope you have a t-shirt (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    with one fish sniffing another fishes butt.
    if you dont get this dont worry its bit arcane.
    but it would be great.  I would buy one.

    I can't imagine why. I think it (none / 0) (#132)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:59:32 PM EST
    is  tremendously potent.

    Amnesty, Abortion and Acid (none / 0) (#49)
    by eric on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:28:02 PM EST
    I am not quite sure how they'll phrase it this time, but its coming.  LINK

    The source of the quote (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    on "amnesty, abortion and acid" was none other than Thomas Eagleton....

    So, the nastiest barbs come from "friends"....


    Unless... (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by mike in dc on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:25:37 PM EST
    ...this poll gets reflected by the two daily tracking polls, I'm going to consider it an outlier.  I expect aggregate polling at the beginning of September to show Obama up by high single/low double digits (i.e., by about 8-12 points, averaging daily trackers and other polls).

    Post-convention, there's basically about half a dozen obstacles between Obama and a landslide--the three debates, a likely smear ad campaign, any last minute Obama scandals (or some resurrection of the Wright thing), and any kind of October surprise event (another bin laden Video, a terror attack, bombing Iran, gas prices fall sharply, etc.).  As he maneuvers his way through each of these, I think it will become clearer to everyone that he's going to win, and win big.

    It does seem like a weird outlier (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:38:34 PM EST
    but I'll just point out that today's rasmussen daily is described there as a 'fading Berlin bounce' for Obama and the numbers are closer than they have been.

    Still doesn't mean much.


    Suppose Obama is down 5-10 when the (3.66 / 3) (#10)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    convention starts. Will he still be the nominee?
    Surely there will be strong calls for a floor vote with Hillary on the ballot.

    hes the nominee (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:00:34 PM EST
    unfortunately.  no matter what I think.

    I don't believe he is a shoo-in for a (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    victory by roll call vote, IF he is notably down against McCain. We'll see.

    last time I checked (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    Obama had taken care of that by making sure there is no votes on the floor.
    pretty sure that still the case.  no convention votes.

    Will he be in the position (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    to hold that line if he starts sinking in the polls?

    Are you sure of that?? Hasn't Dean (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    assured Democrats that there will be a roll-call vote?

    I think he said this weekend (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:19:55 PM EST
    there will be a roll call vote if Hillary wants one.  Way to put her on the spot, Howard.

    A roll-call vote is not enough (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:03:04 PM EST
    A name has to be put in nomination.

    could be (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    riverdaughter is a good source for this stuff.  but I have been busy.

    The good Captain's right (3.50 / 2) (#41)
    by Claw on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    He's the nominee.  I also don't think he'll be down 5-10.  Either way, Clinton is intelligent enough to know that switching the nominee based on polling data would be unbelievably stupid.  It would also be political suicide.  She'd lose the GE--she hasn't been out campaigning; the Obama voters would flee in disgust; we'd have nightly news stories (stupidly but seriously) asking: "Are the democrats racist?"--It would just be a horror show.

    Um, it's up to the delegates, not Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:24:17 PM EST
    or Obama. Switching votes in an extremely close race (in which the "loser" won the popular vote) makes a lot of sense, if Obama is sinking in the polls.
    The rage of Democrats against the Party for nominating a sinking ship will be unbelievable.
    But anyway, Obama probably will slouch once step closer to office in August.

    this situation seems (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM EST
    a lot more complicated than usual. as I am sure you agree.

    I agree. The DNC kingmakers should (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:53:25 PM EST
    stop trying to "manage" their candidate process.  It should be above board and honest and people would not be mad at them for taking sides.

    Hillary can stop it, though, by (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    declining to be nominated, or taking her name out of the running, or something along those lines.  At least, I'm pretty sure from my cursory reading of the rules about a month ago.

    Unless she gives them the go ahead, I doubt her pledged delegates would go ahead with the petition option.

    Frankly, even if Obama was 25 down the day before the convention, I don't see the DNC abandoning their current backing, I really don't.  They took their gamble and they're sticking with it to the bitter end.

    As for the Gallup poll showing McCain 4 up -- I'm not buying it (and I'm a committed nonvoter for top of ticket this year).  I would expect that there's be some backlash from the Rainbow Tour (any Andrew Lloyd Webber fans out there?) but not that much.

    And I don't agree that it's all Republican xenophobia.  That's an easy out, isn't it?  All those 'low-information' voters out there, after all.

    People are hurting economically here, now, and there's nothing on offer that's going to improve that any time soon.  Rockin' it up in Europe while people are hurting at home is a real turnoff for many people.


    Heh (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    I confess, I also thought of the Rainbow Tour.

    I remember watching the movie version of Evita, making a mental note of every time they changed one of the lyrics from the stage version.  It occurred to me that I might be a little obsessed.


    Ha. Bad movie too. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    I too wonder what would happen (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    if Obama was down 10 points or more at convention time. If he anounce his VP pick, and it isn't Hillary, that may indeed become the case. I have no evidence to back that up, just a feeling.

    The fix is in. He's the nominee unless something (4.33 / 6) (#21)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:06:21 PM EST
    major, and I mean MAJOR, happens.  The DNC will NOT let Hillary be the candidate.  

    Okay (3.50 / 4) (#54)
    by Claw on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:29:14 PM EST
    For the millionth time...unless you believe that the moonlanding was fake, you cannot believe the bumblin' stumblin' DNC put the fix in to get an AA, Secret Muslim, Carzy Pastor having, Junior Sen. at the top of the ballot.  The DNC couldn't fix a little league game.

    CDS. That says it all. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:34:47 PM EST
    Do you (none / 0) (#70)
    by Claw on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:42:11 PM EST
    Really believe that an actual "fix" existed?  Or is that just shorthand to indicate your dislike of Obama as nominee?

    First question: yes. Second question: no. (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:55:57 PM EST
    And I've read your comments so I think I know how you feel about this issue.  We are not in agreement.  

    Can you tell me where all the money (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    and push came from to get a newbie to run in 2008? He gave a speech in 2004 at the Convention and he sparked an interest in the leadership of the Party. He had little organization.  He had help, lots of help to get into this and it was calculated.  How and why? Some think it was to get rid of the Clintons, others answers were he made a great speech and had charisma.  Now you tell me.

    Clearly (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by eric on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:09:32 PM EST
    he was spotted by the "talent agents" from the party as someone with the star power it takes.  The reaction of the general public after he convention speech reinforced this.

    Was it to "get rid of" Hillary Clinton?  I doubt it was that specific.  But I do think that Obama was "picked" and got all of the help he needed from the inside.


    money (2.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Claw on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:46:35 PM EST
    Came from lots and lots of small donations and a better understanding of internet fundraising than the Clinton camp.
    Push came, I think, from votes and favorable media coverage.

    No, that came later. I mean from 2006 (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:18:22 PM EST
    to fall 2007 when the campaign started.  I ran a political action campaign on a local level.  We had to have "backers" who laid the seed money and floated our campaign at first.  In order to get the message out, there needs to be some backers who start the ball rolling. At the presidential level that is not cheap. And by the way, Obama has been called to task by the League of Women voters (as has McCain) for not releasing his big donors and who are part of the 'bundling' practises. If you really believe he is still riding on little donations from college kids, you are not keeping up.

    Of course, the fix was in. (5.00 / 9) (#99)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    Go to C-Span archives and look at the RBC meeting last August.  Look at the scheduling of caucuses vs. primaries, and where.  Etc.

    Another name for it is strategic planning, and that's a good thing -- actually, a very good thing if shocking that the Dem Party actually got it together enough to plan anything at all, at last, rather than just being reactive to Republicans, who have excelled at strategic planning of this sort.

    Thing is that good strategic planning also requires midcourse review for possible corrections, if the result is not looking like a good thing.


    So Harold Ickes put the fix in for Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by nr22 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:13:53 PM EST
    Check who is chair of the committee (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    and co-chair -- and who really was running it.  And who she was backing all along.

    And then check how many members there are.

    And then come on back for a reasonable exchange.


    The bumblin' stumblin' (5.00 / 10) (#64)
    by pie on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:38:02 PM EST
    DNC should have kept its collective mouth shut until the primaries were over.

    I could NOT (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Claw on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    Agree more.

    Pie (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by tek on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    What you said.

    Sure I can (3.40 / 5) (#111)
    by sj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:23:28 PM EST
    Although I don't think the moonlanding was a fake, my grandfather did.  He swore he'd been there -- it was in Wyoming (or Wyooomin' as he pronounced it.  I miss my Grandpa).  But the DNC?  All they would have to do to tilt it to the candidate they wanted was make sure that the undesired candidate had some delegates stripped and tossed over to the candidate of choice.  Then spend hours/days/weeks strong-arming the "optional" delegates.  Can be done with a handful of people.  If they are people of influence.

    Heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:30:59 PM EST
    That sounds a lot like my argument for why 9/11 could not possibly have been an inside job.

    Maybe so. But I did see a post (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    here recently on the diabolic Diebold voting machines.

    Do you think Obama's campaign will (3.60 / 5) (#57)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:32:16 PM EST
    collapse in its on footprint by November?

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:37:25 PM EST
    there certainly are a lot of "theories" that suggest it will happen.

    I think it is clearly possible (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    however (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    I doubt he will be 5-10 points down.  I think it will be about where it is now or a little closer broadly.
    unless something happens we dont yet know about I think it stays close.  polling wise.

    Yes, that's correct. Obama has removed (3.66 / 9) (#60)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    the last vestiges of content from US Presidential campaigning.

    Outlier (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    There are just too many other polls that say otherwise.

    Now, if this had shown up a week ago, I might have believed it.

    Plus, RVs show Obama up (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    I don't trust an LV screen that would cause that kind of shift in July.

    LV's vs RV's (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Truth Sayer on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    Traditionally a higher percentage of LV's vote than do RV's and that is why LV's are and always have been a better indicator of elections. LV"s are also people who pay more attention to the candidates and pay attention sooner.

    I would not discount the LV voter polls if I were you because they are really the ones to keep an eye on as for accuracy of the 'voting public's' sentiment.


    RVs (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by creeper on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    Among registered voters, McCain still trails Obama, but by less. He is behind by 3 percentage points in the new poll (47%-44%) vs. a 6-point disadvantage (48%-42%) in late June.

    Obama may still be up with RVs but he's losing ground.

    Given the pathetic percentage of RVs who have voted lately I wouldn't take much comfort in those numbers, if I were you.


    If this were the only poll, I might be concerned. (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    It is not the only poll.

    Where are the other polls (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Truth Sayer on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    you talk about that show LV's polling different? Because if you can't site an LV poll that counter this one you are just wishing aren't you?

    Well of course they have to figure.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 02:52:06 PM EST
    ...that Republicans are going to vote in November, but I'm betting that R turnout will be dismal at best.

    Why? (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by esmense on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    The Republican base is made up of the most affluent and established voters -- voters who vote at much higher rates and much more consistently than voters of lower income, minorities, young people, working class women, etc. These people vote their interests (which they do not see Democrats as serving) not their enthusiasms -- they will show up to vote to protect what they see as their economic interest, whether or not they like McCain personally, and no matter their disappointment with Bush.

    Because of the difference in their constituencies, voter apathy is always a much bigger problem for Democratic candidates than it is for Republicans.


    The have been known (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:05:38 PM EST
    to sit on their hands. However McCain is driving towards his base (gay adoption, affirmative action, etc.)and if they forgive him his political sins (immigration among others) and if they think he's got a prayer, they may just show up. If they do it'll be close.

    Apathy (5.00 / 6) (#141)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:07:57 PM EST
    doesn't cover what will cause low numbers for Obama IMO. It is going to be the exact opposite. There are some really angry Democrats and they aren't "getting over it.(I hear ol' Dean has been greeted on his tour to register voters in the south)" The DNC did some real damage with their "historic first" kabuki show. Personally, I'm not feeling invested in either candidate. I have my two oldest doing research for me(14 and 16) on both of the candidates positions on various issues. I may just let them decide who I vote for this year IF I can get past what the DNC did(and that is a BIG if). They have strict orders to keep positions factual rather than engaging in the hyperbole that is oft seen nowadays. He's not McCain ain't gonna cut it. Nor is the argument that Barack Obama will destroy America as we know it rhethoric.

    I think Obama (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    gets a lot of Republican votes.  It seems like many of the same people who voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004 are voting for Obama this time around.  I don't know why this is and I think it's strange, but on the other hand, I hear more people who've always voted Democratic saying they'll vote for someone else.  

    This election is going to be weird.  I don't see anyone as a shoo-in right now.    


    Do you (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by tek on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:48:18 PM EST
    know any Republicans?  All the ones I know are voting McCain, even the fundies.  They're scared to death of Obama.

    There's definitely (none / 0) (#185)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    a group who voted lovingly for Bush and hate Gore but actually love Obama.

    How strange (none / 0) (#26)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    Considering every single poll seems to show Obama on the good side of the enthusiasm gap by wide margins, it's hard to imagine how he could ever lead with RVs but not LVs.

    All I can think of is that LV models are sort of wacky and rely a lot more on demographics than on actual poll responses.  For example, old white people tend to show up, so we'll count them all as LVs even though they aren't all that thrilled with McCain.  I guess that could be it.

    Either way, while I expect Obama to win, I still think it's silly to call the race over.  It's like calling the Super Bowl champ after week 10 - you might even be right, but everyone knows you're just guessing, so why project false confidence?  Actually, I seem to remember having this exact discussion on this exact site after Super Tuesday.  I hope I was on the right side of the issue back then.

    Strange? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by creeper on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:38:01 PM EST
    I don't think so.  I think this is proof that Obama's support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

    That's interesting (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:41:38 PM EST
    because I happen to believe the exact opposite.

    Obama won the primary by having a core of very very intense supporters (which showed up most notably in the caucus states) and the question was always going to be whether he could broaden that support to win a general election.

    In any event, I wouldn't necessarily take one poll at odds with all the preceding polls as "proof" of anything.


    Obama won the Nomination (3.88 / 9) (#82)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:52:35 PM EST
    -- which I think you meant to refer to when you alluded to "the Primary" -- by running up his delegate count in Red State caucuses the Dems have zero, zip, zilch chance of winning in the GE.  

    Didn't win a "Big State" eg. those States necessary for an Electoral College win in the GE -- CA, NY, NJ, PA, OH -- and didn't win over those long-time groups which comprise the Dem Base and are easy pickin's for McCain but which we need this time around (rural voters, blue collar), but gamed an easily game-able system with the caucuses in the early Red States.

    And even after all that, he STILL needed the DNC to drag him across the finish line in a backroom deal.

    No wonder his numbers aren't as strong as they should be in what is, for all intents and purposes, a "Dem Year".


    Remember how people started looking (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    at Hillary differently after she was caught drinking a boilermaker?  Well, there was something really down to earth about McCain speaking in a German restaurant while Obama was speaking in Berlin.  The contrast was huge.  

    There is a certain percentage of voters that appreciate a President who is similar to them instead of one who isn't.  


    absolutely! (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    the success of Bush in 2000 was that he seemed like "one of them" while Gore seemed aloof and out-of-touch with the Average Voter's concerns.  None of it was true, of course, but the Branding of Bush was ultimately successful.

    Obama runs the same risk of seeming out-of-touch with the Average Voter that Gore and Kerry suffered.  The ONE Dem candidate who seemed to connect with Voters and got the majority of their votes is the ONE candidate the DNC stabbed in the back and kicked from the race.

    McCain will be branded the same way Bush was: as "one of you".  He'll also -- and you're seeing a bit of this now -- be a "David" to Obama's rock star "Goliath" and Americans love nothing more than a comeback for the underdog.

    Unfortunately, Obama is amateurishly playing right into the Media's Narrative by apparently believing his own Press and acting as if he's a shoo-in for the Oval Office.  


    You're on target. McCain (none / 0) (#108)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    will cry and moan some more about The New Guy getting all the girls and the the polls MIGHT shift in his direction.

    no, McCain won't have to do (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    anything but continue to show up and speak with the Average Voter.  Obama will topple over on his own due to the weight of his own favorable, fawning Press.

    If the Media continues on in this vein, I believe many will be decidedly underwhelmed once they hear Obama speak (or stutter, take your pick) during their first debate.  The risk is real that Obama the Man will not in any way measure up to Obama the Hype and, once that happens, I trust voters will tune him out in droves.

    No one likes to feel fooled or bamboozled and a stuttering, stammering, weak-on-policy Obama will be a poor, deeply disappointing substitute for what many are eagerly anticipating:  The One (as sold to them by The Press).


    The convention in August (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:14:24 PM EST
    is going to be very boring for you, with nothing to watch when they actually nominate the, y'know, nominee.  Of course, there are 99% odds that it will be Obama.  But as he was the first to tell you, words matter.  Precision matters.  So please stop criticizing those here who use precise terminology.

    It is those who are sloppy about terminology that can get this country in trouble.  See War, Iraq.


    I am curious (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:23:03 PM EST
    why you bothered to draw such a distinction between "the Nomination" and "the Primary."  Isn't the primary that thing that determines the nomination?  I don't understand what you were driving at there.

    If all it took was a/the "Primary" ... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by sj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    ... then Senator Clinton would have won in January when she won the NH Primary  -- the first primary in the schedule.

    A Primary is a state activity to determine allocation of electoral votes for that state (as is a caucus).  There is no such thing as a national primary.


    Wow (none / 0) (#120)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:39:56 PM EST
    Can it truly be the case that people this pedantic actually exist?

    Yep, (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by sj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:43:08 PM EST
    We're the same ones who know the difference between LVs and RVs.  Mostly because we've been doing this so long that we've probably been bitten/disillusioned by the reality of it.

    Uh (none / 0) (#125)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:45:54 PM EST
    I know the difference between LVs and RVs because, you know, they are actually two completely different terms.  But it would never occur to me in a million years to "correct" someone who said, for example, that Bill Clinton won the Democratic primary in 1992.

    [shrug] if you say so (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by sj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:54:21 PM EST
    It just seemed to me that this comment seemed to show lack of experience with the realities of it.  Maybe I'm wrong and you've been doing this a long time.  

    But regarding pedantry, I'm curious:  You asked the question.  Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?  


    I asked the question (none / 0) (#133)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:59:46 PM EST
    of what a particular poster meant by his comment.

    You are not that poster, so I really wasn't asking you anything at all.

    I have no idea why you think my earlier comment demonstrates that I don't understand what LVs and RVs are.


    I see (3.50 / 2) (#134)
    by sj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:00:33 PM EST
    Precision is not your forte.  



    Man (none / 0) (#138)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:04:43 PM EST
    "Pedantic" doesn't even begin to describe you, does it?

    Well, that's true (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by sj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 05:58:04 PM EST
    To do that you would have to add intelligent, insightful, witty, caring, thoughtful and -- oh! -- startlingly attractive.  

    Then you begin to describe me.  It's only when you continue to describe me that it kind of unravels.


    Sorry, delegates - - not electoral votes (none / 0) (#121)
    by sj on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:40:48 PM EST
    Now I'm getting ahead of myself.

    Allow Me (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by creeper on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    The distinction between "nomination" and "winning the primary" is that many states did not have primaries.

    Study up on the caucus process.  It's one of the least democratic setups you'll ever see.  

    From an Iowan who can't wait to be rid of these stupid caucuses.


    Yeah I agree this (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    race is far from over and Obama could still lose. But the polls as of now are clearly in O's favor.

    so what you are saying is (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    Why so serious?

    Exactly Capt. LOL (none / 0) (#87)
    by TheJoker on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    A fluke to be studied (none / 0) (#178)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:22:44 PM EST
    to determine if there is any ominous underpinnings to the polling results.  The foreign travels would appear to be a success for Senator Obama, but maybe it was seen as being presumptive by some; Senator Obama may have to be careful with overexposure, whereas, McCain is best served by obscurity.  Moreover, Senator Obama's "centrist" (i.e, rightward) movement, especially with his FISA vote, dampened enthusiasm and launched criticism by some of his staunchest supporters. If it looks like Mr. Obama will win big, some disaffected Democrats may feel that they can stay home. The vice presidential musings, such as Hagel (think Zell Miller as McCain's running mate to lure Democrats) or Ann Veneman (my goodness, what is that about?) as a unity ticket sound awful. Probably an outlier, as a number of commenters have stated, but it should be an early, let's stop and think about this.

    If Obama loses Obamabots will claim IACF! (none / 0) (#182)
    by Josey on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:30:08 PM EST
    and they're already laying the groundwork for that narrative.
    Even if Hillary campaigns for Obama every day from now until Nov., imo Obamabots will claim she wasn't REALLY sincere, etc.