LATimes Poll: Obama "Underperforming"; Only Up 2

Update [2008-8-19 17:23:39 by Big Tent Democrat]: LATimes poll has Obama 15 point lead evaporating, now up 2, 45-43.

Have no idea what "underperforming" is supposed to mean, but the LATimes blog says that is what its new poll shows Obama doing:

Which White House contender had the better summer? A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of registered voters across the country leaves little doubt about the answer.

We can't reveal the precise figures yet; for that, check back at LATimes.com about 2 p.m. PDT (5 p.m. EDT). Suffice to say that the results will not alter the perception that -- given a seemingly sunny political climate for Democrats -- Barack Obama is under-performing nationally.

We'll see what it means at 5 EDT. I'll update this post then.

By Big Tent Democrat

< NATO Issues Sternly Worded Letter To Russia | More Convention Speakers Added >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What it (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    means is that Democrats all across the country are going to win senate seats, house seats etc. while Obama is going to get walloped nationally.

    I'm hoping that Obama won't pull down Jim Martin here in GA. He's running against the odious Saxby Chambliss and hasn't really identified with Obama. The candidate that identified with Obama lost in the primary.

    Since I'm in neighboring AL (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    I'm pulling for you guys.  Suppose I will be able to find a couple of bucks around here too to send to Martin.

    I'm here in West Georgia and (none / 0) (#70)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:36:17 PM EST
    do not think Martin has a snowball's chance. Too bad, cause I still hold a grudge (even though I was still in Wis then) over the way saxby won in 2002. Disgusting and low class.

    Howdy neighbor! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Romberry on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    You're in West Georgia. I'm in extreme East Alabama. We're practically neighbors...and surrounded by red.

    Well (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    it depends on how many people split their tickets I would say. Or how many McCain voters will abandon Saxby. I haven't seen polling but Saxby really isn't that well liked among the GOP base here.

    And I hope he doesn't (none / 0) (#100)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:35:20 PM EST
    pull down Kay Hagan who is running against the absentee Elizabeth Dole here in NC. Dole is really a zero.

    Even his biggest supporters (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:37:43 PM EST
    are beginning to have major doubts. Check out Steve Soto's post today - sounding a bit fatalistic, hopefully overly so.

    Obams is the most seriously flawed (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:44:13 PM EST
    presidential candidate I can remember.
    I have always thought it odd this was not obvious to everyone.
    just MO.

    Plus, I can't figure out why he went on vacation (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:52:06 PM EST
    at such a critical time. He seems to be getting some pretty bad advice lately. Hope he starts swinging soon. The best he has going for him lately is that McCain is sounding more and more crazy by the day.

    McCain does sound more and more (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:55:50 PM EST
    crazy, but.
    have you noticed, the Saddleback thing being a perfect example, that McCain is able to speak without sounding like a "Senator"?
    senator speak is deadly to presidential candidates.
    see our previous candidate Lurch for a perfect example of this.
    Obama sounded like he was channeling Lurch in that forum.

    Yes, I noticed (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:09:52 PM EST
    McCain can connect and be folksy. Obama is more Kerry or Bradley than WJC in his speaking style. But at least he says things that are less horrifying than Folksy McCain.

    That's about all I can say anymore - he's not McCain. And I'll have to vote for that.


    not only folksy but he is very good (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    off a teleprompter.  
    I fear he is going to eat Obamas lunch in the debates.

    He will (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    McCain will get some good zingers in that are fabulous soundbites.  Obama will pontificate and hem and haw.

    BO went on vacation (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    because he wanted to demonstrate he's not worried about being down in the polls

    I agree, (none / 0) (#85)
    by Romberry on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:26:55 PM EST
    Read Steve Soto today. And especially read the comments.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#91)
    by eugene on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    I moved from an undecided ABH (anybody but Hillary) voter to an Obama supporter around the first of the year. I always knew Obama had his flaws and wasn't the progressive leader we needed and deserved. But neither did I ever expect he would run such a terrible general election campaign, one that draws from the worst of both Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004. In fact, one of the main reasons I supported Obama was out of the belief that he would run a much better campaign against McCain.

    The main problem is that he and his campaign staff are convinced all is well and that they don't need to make any changes. What's going to happen is they'll wake up on October 20 behind by 5 points nationally and behind by 5 in the key swing states, start to think "hmmm maybe we do need to change tack" and find it's too late to do so.

    I'm even at the point where I wonder if maybe Hillary would have been the better nominee after all, if only because she would never have let McCain outflank her on domestic issues the way he's done to Obama.


    Why Oct. 20? What's the significance, if any? (none / 0) (#96)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM EST
    2 weeks from the election (none / 0) (#97)
    by eugene on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:33:23 PM EST
    By which point they need to be in all-out GOTV mode.

    But he has no excuse (none / 0) (#101)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:40:43 PM EST
    The media hated Gore and were not too keen on Kerry so they had a much harder time getting their message out. Obama has been a media darling as well as a Democrat at a time when the Republicans are disgraced so it is really shocking to see just how weak he is.

    Why the party didn't lean on Obama to get some experience and actually do the job he had (such as holding meetings of the Subcommittee on European Affairs - funny that he hasn't held a meeting even with this mess with Russia and Georgia) before running for president is beyond me. They seem to have overlooked his ho-hum attitude about his job as senator just the way many parents of precocious children do. They did not do him, the party, or the country any favor.


    Did I read it right? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    he only has 63% of the Clinton voters?

    I Expect That Number Will Rise (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    when Hillary is not named the VP nominee.

    That's the surest "bump" that the Obama campaign can count on during and after Convention week.

    Any other "bumps" remain to be seen.


    Where did you read it? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    The Q poll says 63/23 (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:41:08 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    That's not good.

    think it might make him change his mind (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:52:55 PM EST
    about Vice President Clinton?

    No (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:54:00 PM EST
    you are probably right (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    but why wouldnt it?

    Cuz Obama (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    don' wanna

    *SHE* probably doesn't either (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by goldberry on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    Why should she make life easy for him?  The bounce would be short lived once voters came to their senses and realized she would be relegated to an undisclosed location for four years.  
    Nope, if I were her, I would be immovable onthe issue of a fair, open and transparent convention with a real roll call vote.  Let the chips fall where they may.  There's no unity anyway so why pretend there is?  
    Broker the damn thing in some smoke filled room and make her the nominee already.  Offer him VP and let's get on with it.  

    from what I have read (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:05:43 PM EST
    about the dem convention it would have to be a smoke free room but whatever it takes.

    Q poll. Forgot where I clicked! (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    I heard a similar number (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:41:54 PM EST
    on teevee last night.
    if true, yet another reason.

    37 Percent of wrongheaded nuts (none / 0) (#66)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:25:20 PM EST
    don't forget the "bitter" (none / 0) (#82)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST
    Yikes (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    That's lower than what I've heard, so perhaps the number is dropping.

    Equally worrisome (to team Obama at least), he only gets 75 percent of support from likely Democratic voters. Holey moley!

    And right now polls are showing only a single-digit lead for Obama in New York. Yes, you read that right. New York. New York!

    Ai ai ai. Next they'll be telling me Maryland is looking bad! But that's OK, I guess, because Obama will win Virginia! And North Carolina!

    Maryland, at least, (none / 0) (#28)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    is safe, because of the huge Baltimore AA vote. Remember, it was one of only 6 states to go for Carter in 1980--while NY went for Reagan.

    He'll win ID where he got (none / 0) (#69)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:30:45 PM EST
    great caucus showing.  No, wait, GA.  He won that primary.

    No amount of beating... (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by goldberry on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    ... is likely to improve morale about him.  
    All I can think of is that the people who put him out front were mostly white guys in their 50's and 60's.  Guys like Steny Hoyer.  They just figured that women would cave because they have had no experience that says otherwise.  It just never occurred to them that they couldn't whip us into line and we would obediently demure just like we did in the past.  
    And then there are all of the people who think the DNC is just plain fricking nuts to put a guy as new as he is in the position of the most powerful man in the world.  Seriously, I don't know what dope the DNC was smoking but it's the most illogically thought out strategy I have ever seen.  MORE so because they left more than 2 months between the end of the primaries and the convention.  If they really wanted to sow this up and make Obama a done deal for the Democrats, they should have had the coronation in July.  What they have now is an opening and a slim chance to save themselves from electoral disaster.  
    Making him the nominee is not going to make us want to vote for him in the fall.  I would no more vote for Obama than I would for a third George Bush term.  Nothing is going to make me change my mind.  
    The DNC boys have completely misread things this year.  

    the talking heads (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:08:37 PM EST
    have made it very very clear over the last week or so that IF he loses it will be all Hillarys fault.
    or at the very least the fault of Hillarys supporters.  which she will be blamed for.
    I have heard at least three Obama talking heads say this almost directly over the last week or so as it has become clear that we are not "coming around".

    So what? (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by goldberry on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    They're going to blame us for saying we don't like the guy?  They're going to blame Hillary for the party's bad treatment of her?  
    Who cares what the media says.  

    Hillary might have been ahead by July (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:09:13 PM EST
    The campaign could adjust (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    or it could deny a problem. What does it say of a leader who cannot/will not adjust the plan? To me it says he is not ready to lead, to be president. I hope that's not the case here, but confidence is waning.

    So (none / 0) (#54)
    by Fen on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:09:13 PM EST
    Is there anything Hillary can do about it? That door is closed shut right? No way she can come out of the convention as the nom?

    Hillary (none / 0) (#64)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:24:03 PM EST
    is doing what she promised, which is support BO. Is the door shut? I believe it is.

    Gallup Weighs In (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:19:45 PM EST
    Re-Assessing Obama's "Under-Performance" in the Polls (Jones, Gallup, 8/19).

    One of the more puzzling questions in election polling this year is why isn't Barack Obama doing better in the polls? In a year when outgoing president George W. Bush has an approval rating around 30%, when less than 20% of Americans are satisfied with conditions in the United States, when Democrats have had the largest advantages in party ID they have enjoyed in recent memory, ....


    It's possible that it's not Obama's performance in the polls that is lacking, but that the expectations for how he should be doing are too high. The high expectations for Obama are based largely on an assessment that the political environment is very favorable for the Democrats, but maybe that will not be as big a factor in this election as in other elections.

    (emphasis mine) Uhhh, or could it be possible that Obama himself raised the expectations bar too high with his Hopey-Changey schtick that he can't even touch it on tippy-toes? And so now, he's turning out to be the flip-flopping, old-school, dirty Washington politician that he claimed not to be?

    Re-Assessing Obama's "Under-Performance" in the Polls (Jones, Gallup, 8/19).

    If generic dem nominee (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by DJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:25:35 PM EST
    polls plus 12 points but actual dem nominee polls plus 5 I would say he is underperforming.

    Actual candidates normally underperform ... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    ... generic candidates. (Actual candidates have more concrete negatives.)

    That said, it's not going well for Obama's party ... but it's still a race to the bottom, which either sky-diver could win.


    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Miri on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    McCain is performing better than the generic GOP candidate.

    excellent point (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:35:33 PM EST
    as the republicans knew he would.

    Is he? (none / 0) (#94)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:16:28 PM EST
    He's at 41% in LAT/Bloomberg when Nader and Barr are included. What's your "generic Republican" point of reference?

    Steve Soto says the race is already lost.. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by rjarnold on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:25:05 PM EST
    Kerry at least lost his race in August, after the convention, whereas Obama lost this race in June and July, because he had a Sally Field-esque "You like me" moment over and over again. He believed the hype from his own Stepford cult about a new kind of politics, assumed he didn't need to define his opponent because it was beneath him, and gutted the ability of the Democratic Party and its infrastructure to hold McCain accountable.

    And them he took a victory lap tour overseas to get photo ops while McCain began to define him here at home, by trying out attack lines until some of them got traction. And then in typical GOP fashion, McCain found the ones that worked, hammered them over and over again, and turned Obama into a boring and iffy choice against a guy who should be ten points behind by now.

    Sorry, but that's how I feel. I'm bored by the Obama hype and see nothing now in his candidacy other than the fact he isn't McCain. The Supreme Court is enough to make us vote for him, but my feeling now is that Obama lost this race already, and it isn't the fault of bloggers (who he disdains and doesn't need), but rather himself and all the fawning Democratic Party lackeys who fell in behind him as he led them over the cliff.

    I don't think Soto really thinks that Obama can't win, he's probably just trying to get the Obama campaign and his supporters to wake up. And it seems impossible for Obama to win by more than 5% which is what should have happened.

    National polls are mirroring the state polls... (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:42:35 PM EST
    ...which are showing loss of support for Obama over the past couple months, like the MN and PA polls mentioned above.

    Rasmussen's NY poll released yesterday shows a 10-point drop in Obama's lead, from 18 to 8.

    Question: Has Obama improved his standing over the last month in any of the state polls?

    oh oh oh my God (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:02:50 PM EST
    A ten point drop in NY?  MY NY?!?  The always solid blue NY?

    If that doesn't strike terror in the hearts of those SDs who flipped -- assuming they have hearts, that is -- , then I don't know what will.  Perhaps McCain taking the lead in CA?

    And only an 8 point cushion of a lead?  That means McCain can actually make a play for the NY and cause Obama to actually have to invest time and resources holding it.

    Guess that'll mean less time and $$ for Georgia, Wyoming and Montana, huh.


    NYers are used to a different (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:16:24 PM EST
    kind of candidate style. Obama may have a problem if he actually has to compete outside of the city.

    Correction... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:40:22 PM EST
    ...it wasn't Rasmussen's poll, it was a Siena poll.

    I take 'underperforming' to mean ... (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:28:02 PM EST
    doing worse than the baseline political climate favoring Democrats.

    Might be worse than the topline suggests (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:11:00 PM EST
    This detail (from pollster.com)
    Obama 42, McCain 41, Barr/Nader 5
    (June: Obama 48, McCain 33, Barr 3, Nader 4)
    This is in fact how the race is run, in almost all states.

    Also, Obama dropped from a big fav/unfav lead to a near draw.

    Whatever (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by nell on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    Many of us saw this coming a long time ago. Anyone who believed that a candidate with no substance behind his name could last through not just the primary season (where he got softball treatment), but also survive the Republicans, was kidding themselves. May he still win? Sure, he has every advantage going for him. But it should be pretty clear to everyone now that he could still very well lose.

    Hard to be so hopey changey now...eh...

    At least the Repub is McCain and not Huckabee

    Underperform (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by facta non verba on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:38:37 PM EST
    is a Wall Street term. I was an analyst for 10 years. It means SELL.

    That's what underperform means. Sinking ship. Sell now, get your money out. Other stocks will rise faster than this one. David Gergen said the same thing the other day. The trend is for McCain. I've been on the fence as to whether vote for McCain or abstain. I will not vote for Obama under any conditions. I am now leaning to voting McCain based soley on how he handled Georgia.

    Obama's been playing rope-a-dope (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ennis on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    The campaign doesn't really begin until after the conventions.

    Polls don't measure voter registration, ground game, GOTV, etc. - where Obama is building a solid advantage with low key activities in 50 states.

    Yup - just ask Ned Lamont. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:57:28 PM EST
    57 states (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    but you are absolutely right (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    about the campaign not beginning until after labor day.
    I would recommend getting your anti depressant script now before the lines get long.

    This is really stunning (none / 0) (#1)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:25:04 PM EST
    and shows the stupidity of the party leaders who were so sure Obama would be so popular, being a rock star and all. Considering the terrible state of this country, the Democratic candidate should have a strong double digit lead - more than 15- 20 points, not struggling to stay ahead.

    (Pssssttt...it's not surprising (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Shainzona on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:43:43 PM EST
    to some of us!)

    Why is it stunning? (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:48:48 PM EST
    He couldn't close the deal during the primaries. What in the world made folks the GE would be any different?

    absolutely right (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by kempis on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:53:52 PM EST
    Superdelegates don't decide the winner of the general election; voters and (the resulting EVs) do.

    The GOP's winner-take-all primaries seem to produce more electable nominees. The DNC might want to consider this...that is, if they truly would like to win a presidential election rather than just control the process so that the party leaders can reposition and redefine the "brand" from time to time.

    I said in May that, apparently to the DNC, winning was secondary to rebranding under Obama. And they may succeed in becoming the "hip" party after all, but I don't know that they'll beat a 72 year-old Republican in a year when the GOP is utterly demoralized.

    The Dems SHOULD win. But it remains to be seen if they will. And that's becoming the story right now.


    Well, since we have the benefit (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    of several other similar polls, the most likely finding is that Obama is ahead in the single digits.

    Q poll found as much today

    Q Poll went from a 9 point Obama lead (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    to a 5 point Obama lead.

    Right, (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    the utility of the tracking polls is that we aren't shocked by any of these snapshot national polls.

    National polls (none / 0) (#14)
    by joanneleon on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    I'm confused.  Isn't it CW that national polls are not helpful in the Pres race, and that the state polls are the ones to watch?

    When it is convenient (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    Today might be one of those days.

    Other times, it is the reverse. Depends what people want to argue.

    andgarden and I argue about the utility of tracking polls, which I do not care for very much.


    My preference, of course, is for State polls (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    (Susquehanna looked at PA today, incidentally (PDF) ), but I'll take a national tracking poll if it's available. This isn't really a national contest--except it is.

    You're full of good news today (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:53:23 PM EST
    Only a 5 point lead in PA? I thought it was out of play?

    but wouldn't a 3.7 MOE (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:09:47 PM EST
    put them basically neck-and-neck?  

    The PDF also states that Obama's gotten no positive bounce in PA since clinching the nomination a couple months ago, basically holding steady at 46% while McCain climbed from 39% to 41%.

    I'd take the upward trend line over the static one any day of the week.


    Not as bad as Minnesota (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:56:05 PM EST
    See my comment below.

    Agreed on the utility (none / 0) (#37)
    by joanneleon on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:53:49 PM EST
    at least until the election is closer.  Right now, the general election campaign hasn't even technically started.  All the time and energy and money spent on these polls right now is a waste, especially given that so many people are hurting financially in this country.  Same goes for repetitive, expensive campaign ads run during the summer.  The tens and hundreds of millions spent, while claiming to care about the common man trying to make ends meet, is pretty shameful.  All of this campaign nonsense has gotten so far out of control, it's ridiculous.

    The concern is not over snapshots (none / 0) (#32)
    by Fen on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    What they're worried about is that, looking at trends from prev elections, the Dem nom has been farther out ahead than this and still lost in Nov.

    Obama may buck that trend, but the worry is that he's already peaked an has nowhere else to go.. and will affect turnout and downtickets.


    To me (none / 0) (#92)
    by eugene on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:57:15 PM EST
    The concern is that the only way you reverse a bad trend is by making some fundamental changes - as McCain did earlier this summer, to his advantage. Unfortunately all we get from the Obama campaign is arrogant stonewalling and a tense "we have a plan" statement designed to try and deflect criticism, and so that makes a lot of us Obama supporters worry that the campaign is dooming itself to failure out of an obstinate refusal to admit error.

    Hell, even Kerry understood the need to make a dramatic change, and when he did so in December 2003 it brought him the nomination.


    Their last poll was an outlier that had him up 15. (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    So, I'm sure he's underperforming that. My guess is it's somewhere around Obama up 1 to 5.

    Ahh (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    So Obama by 7 or so is what to expect I bet.

    Still an outlier.


    As they say, it's not so much the individual (none / 0) (#8)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    numbers but the overall trend. And he's clearly headed in the wrong direction there. Maybe the return from vacation/convention can reverse that trend.

    this is why (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:35:07 PM EST
    I still believe Hillary has a chance at VP.

    This thought of the Saturday in Springfield... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kefa on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    there is no way he is picking the Ill. Gov. for the VP pick is he.....that would be insane????? Right?????

    Insane, and also against the law. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:33:22 PM EST
    True--according to (none / 0) (#13)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    the Constitution the Prez & Veep have to be from different states (not sure why)--plus, Blago is in even deeper with Rezko than Obama himself.

    Not, it doesn't (none / 0) (#47)
    by dianem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:59:02 PM EST
    That's an urban legend.

    My mistake-- (none / 0) (#50)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    I stand corrected. Still, it could create awkwardness for the VP candidate in a close election.

    Then why (none / 0) (#61)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    did Cheney change his residency back to Wyoming when he and Bush ran the first time?

    Read the link (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by dianem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    The Texas delegates would not have been able to vote for both Cheney and Bush if they had been legal residents of the same state. Snopes explains it better than I did, but it has to do with the electors not voting for a President and VP from the same state - not the President and VP not being from the same state. Cheney did it just to give the electors the chance to vote for him, I guess.

    I think it's common sense, BTD (none / 0) (#11)
    by joanneleon on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    Though the LA Times should probably have some hard numbers for making such a claim, I think it's absurdly clear that Obama, or any Dem candidate, should be performing better in the polls this year.  The Republican brand is absolutely in the tank.  There are plenty of reasonable Republicans in the NJ/PA/DE area and in recent months quite a few of them have openly expressed their disgust with their party and their candidate to me and to friends of mine.  Look at the numbers of Independents and Republicans who changed their registrations for the Dem primary too.  Look at Bush's approval numbers.

    We should be running away with this race!

    Why is it unreasonable to say Obama is underperforming?

    Thanks for the info..... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kefa on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM EST

    There is a new (none / 0) (#29)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:48:28 PM EST
    Iowa poll out today by the University of Iowa that shows Obama up 48-42. They conclude that Obama is a strong bet to take Iowa from red to blue this november. He leads in every age group cept for over 60 and only lags in that group by 1.5 points.

    I always thought that LA/Bloomberg huge lead was an outlier. This will be a close election but very winnable for Obama.
    Time to re-claim the White House ,democrats.

    Iowa was always a lock (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    6 points is closer than I thought it would be.

    More "good" news (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM EST
    SUSA on Minnesota.

    I posted this yesterday and said "time to panic."


    And remember, the GOP (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    dog-and-pony show is in Minneapolis--that could give McCain a major bounce there. Doesn't look good.

    I was trying to tell people weeks ago (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:50:59 PM EST
    that Minn, Iowa, and Wis. would all be very close- especially if mccain picks pawlenty. Whoever wins these three, and they could all go either way, will probably win them by 3 points or less.

    Saw that one (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM EST
    Not sure why, but Minnesopta does not worry me. Probably because it has gone Dem forever.

    PA has always been a battleground.


    MN is one state (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 02:59:33 PM EST
    where Hillary would not help.

    I think this election is turning into a mess, honestly.


    So (none / 0) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    is the "new" coalition ready to say "uncle" yet? I guess we'll have that answer soon.