Quinnipiac: McCain Gains on Obama

While we're waiting for the LA Times poll results that Big Tent Democrat will write about, here's today's Quinnipiac poll:

American likely voters say 55 - 27 percent that Arizona Sen. John McCain is better qualified than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to deal with Russia and now trails the Democrat 47 - 42 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

This compares to a 50 - 41 percent Sen. Obama lead in a July 15 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

Even pro-Obama bloggers aren't happy with Obama's campaign strategy. Here's Josh Marshall: [More...]

With so many instances of corruption and influence-peddling around him and whatever problems with the candidate that are keeping the campaign from letting reporters interview him anymore, John McCain is now again charging Obama with what amounts to soft treason -- wanting to lose the war in Iraq in order to make himself president. The lack of any consistent lines of attack against McCain is becoming palpable.

Steve Soto at Left Coaster provides some analysis:

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 doubt putting G-d on their side and adding a Joe Biden or Evan Bayh type to the ticket is going to bring it home for the Democrats. How sad it will be if the operative word for the 2008 campaign turns out to be "squandered."

< Behind the Push to Add Religion to the Convention | Biden: "I'm Not The Guy" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "squandered" (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:45:54 PM EST
    cant be
    that was the operative word for the last election.

    Not squandered (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:20:43 PM EST
    To squander, one must first possess.  BO has not possessed a firm lead at any point.  During the primaries, Hillary had better polls against all the Republican candidates.  BO was always lower or close to the Republican candidates.  This was supposedly the year of the Democrats, but BO will have negative coat-tails for Democrats running this year. Coleman, a total loser is up by 7 percent in MN senate race. Incredible.

    This isn't quite true... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:18:58 PM EST
    I can cite one poll that I am very familiar with -- the SUSA 50 state poll from the end of February where both Clinton and Obama completely dominated McCain... but Obama did slightly better than Clinton.

    One of the most frightening numbers in the quinnipac poll is the 'generic democrat v generic republican' question.  While the Democrats lead the GOP by 12 points, Democrats only get 46%.  (and while a generic Democrat has that 12 point advantage, Obama's lead is only 5 points --47% to 42%)

    In other words, Obama is damaging not just himself, but the Democratic Party brand -- and Obama is getting virtually no support from the 20% of Americans who didn't have a 'generic' preference.


    So he was a loser from the start? (4.75 / 4) (#83)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    Why did the DNC pick him as the nominee?

    Maybe they should have let us voters decide.


    Looking around as people awake from (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:03:39 PM EST
    their slumber and realize the DNC stuck us with a loser....GO HILLARY!!

    Wow. (none / 0) (#8)
    by DCDemocrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:57:38 PM EST
    I missed the election.  Can anyone tell me how Nevada voted?  I can't find any information about the electoral college anywhere.  You would think someone would have posted the results somewhere.

    our nominee was Kerry (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:03:24 PM EST
    he lost

    Right. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by DCDemocrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:05:46 PM EST
    We lost in 2004.  We haven't lost in 2008.  All this damned hand-wringing.  I need to buy some stock in Curel.

    no hand wringing here (5.00 / 12) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    just wearing my Tshirt that says "I told you so"

    I think (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:19:02 PM EST
    we can call ourselves 'early adopters' of the I Told You So platform.

    I love it (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    Some of us adopted the platform so quickly we might be accused of having helped write it's manifesto.

    Of course we did. (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:04:41 PM EST
    And the head writer position will be given to HRC.

    Just because we could see the Messiah had no clothes means we need to be castigated, right? Me, I'm used to it. I went through this 8 yrs ago. I wasn't patriotic enough, now I'm not post-racial enough. Or something like that.


    hmm, maybe i'll get some tee shirts made (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    up with that slogan and give them away for christmas.

    my brother-in-law (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    has  had a sticker on his pickup for 8 years that says "dont blame me, I voted for Kerry".

    something along those lines?


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:43:42 PM EST
    "Dont' blame me, I voted for Clinton."

    Works equally well whichever presumptive wins in Nov.


    FYI - You can buy pins & stuff (none / 0) (#191)
    by Eleanor A on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:28:01 PM EST
    With the "don't blame me" line all over 'em:


    Guess I better lay some in before my plane leaves for Denver. ;)


    "i told you so". it should start (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:00:07 PM EST
    some interesting conversations in the grocery store check out line.

    Oddly enough (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    at my local grocery store (and local post office), everyone is in agreement with us. I've never heard so many suburban Long Islanders saying they are not going to vote for either candidate in all my years of living here! It's astounding.

    i'm telling you there is something about (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    those checkout lines that bring out the honesty in folks.

    And my father! (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:22:56 PM EST
    My 80 yr old dad has never been one to keep his opinions to himself. He likes to mouth off politically -- the last 8 years has given him plenty of time to vent in public and surprisingly, the check out people at the local store and local post offices agree with him. Now the people IN the lines as well as behind the counters are joining in. I've always worried about some fanatic slugging my dad (or worse) for speaking his mind. It's a relief that he's found so many allies! LOL

    "squandered" is the perfect word. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:46:16 PM EST

    You need Hilary to save it (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Saul on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:49:54 PM EST

    As an inveterate (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by DCDemocrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:59:22 PM EST
    Hillary supporter, can I ask you how we could trust her to save the election now when she was able to secure the nomination then?  

    Did you miss the primaries? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    No, (none / 0) (#17)
    by DCDemocrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:04:39 PM EST
    I didn't miss the primaries.  I saw Hillary lose them, so I am perplexed why anyone would think she is the magic bullet that will save the party in the fall.  National elections are tough for Democrats.  It would have been tough with Hillary as it is going to be tough with Obama.  I for one think we're going to win, but if Obama loses, I am signing on with Hillary 2012.  

    Maybe you're thinking of the caucuses? (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:08:19 PM EST
    She had a bit of help (5.00 / 12) (#24)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    losing them. Obama certainly didn't win them. Especially at the end.

    What a freakin' train wreck. Hillary would be out their campaigning her heart out on the issues. She would also be pointing out exactly what is wrong with McCain's plans in a clear concise manner. She would also be able to tell you why she's running for president.


    exactly! why i bet she'd even go to (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:27:40 PM EST
    shall i say it? ok she'd go see all those bitter blue collar voters who love guns. she'd see all those who were told they weren't needed by the hapless brazile.

    National elections are tough (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:09:38 PM EST
    I agree. That's why I supported the toughest candidate out there. Winning a primary is not an indication that you can win the general. They are different elections requiring somewhat different skills.

    Hillary won all the big states (5.00 / 16) (#29)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:10:54 PM EST
    except Illinois, and all the battleground states.

    She also won the popular vote.

    Obama won the DNC vote


    Exactly- you win the way Hillary ran (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:35:45 PM EST
    Retail politics, celebrated by talking heads every four years in Iowa, are grossly overrated.  You simply cannot win a national election by personally talking to the 60 million voters you need to win, or any large fraction of those 60 million.  You need expertise in wholesale politics, and Obama demonstrated again and again that he simply doesn't have that skill.

    Honestly, I don't see how he turns it around, mostly because judging by his supporters, I don't see any indication that he thinks losing his lead is a problem.


    No, (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by delacarpa on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    At one point in time the Democrats could have pulled it out if Obama had chose her right of the bat. Now I don't think she can save him and nor maybe not want too. Obama is in his own little world with the rest of the DNC. Just think the Mean McCain Machine hasn't even touched him yet with what is to come

    Oh but they're picking him. Mean McCain (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by derridog on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    wasn't really in a "cone of silence!" at the Saddleback Church the other night and thus CHEATED, making O look bad in comparison.   What a mean guy!!!!   I can hardly wait for Obama to get the Presidency and whine about all his failures being someone else's fault.  I used to live next door to a little boy who liked to shoot baskets into the hoop on his garage. We had a wall between our houses and I would sit on it and watch him. Every time he would miss (which was most of the time), he would say, "well, that doesn't count!"  For some reason, this reminds me of Mr. O. He thinks no matter how he screws up, it's not going to count.  I think he truly believes he's going to win.

    Well, maybe he is. They haven't fixed all the voting machines.


    Who, Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:42:08 PM EST
    He also said he'd filibuster FISA. So when he says "we're going to win," you can put equally as much faith in it.

    "I" "I" "I" (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST

    Nonsense! (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:50:30 PM EST
    # How sad it will be if the operative word for the
    # 2008 campaign turns out to be "squandered."

    Why should this campaign be any different from the others*? At least the Dems are consistent in this regard, if in little else.

    * Save for those waged by one "Clinton, Bill"

    The DNC and Dem leadership (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by DJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:52:41 PM EST
    They had to know what they were doing when gave us this nominee.  I wish I knew what they want to accomplish.  I don't think it's a dem in the white house.

    i think they have a bad case of short term (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:55:34 PM EST
    thinking coupled with a galloping case of greed and lust for power.

    Yes. That is my persistent question. Why did the (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by derridog on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:45:29 PM EST
    DNC do everything in its power to pull this guy over the finish line, when it was clear he wasn't up to par?  I've come to finally believe that the people who say we just have one party and it's owned by the Corporate thugs are correct.  Neither party wanted the Clintons in there because they knew the Clintons would stop the corruption and would know how to do it.

    I don't know if the Dems were trying to throw the election so much as bamboozle the voters by using the press as an echo chamber to give us another GW Bush (does whatever his "handlers" tell him to).
    But, they obviously have been pushing this guy hard for some reason that has nothing to do with his abilities.

    I wonder if Evelyn Pringle is right. She said it's not about party, it's about money. The international thugs behind this want the money to keep flowing in Iraq and in their other scams that are bankrupting this nation.  It's hard to say things that are that cynical because nobody (not I certainly) want to believe them. But the last 8 years have led me to not be so skeptical about conspiracy theories, especially when the evidence is before my eyes that something fishy is going on.

    Obama has never even held a real job. How could he possibly be considered the best candidate by the Dems?  Especially when Hillary completely outclassed him on every level.  This whole year has been surreal.


    ike warned about he danger of the (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:12:05 PM EST
    military industrial complex!

    Yes. And Ike was right. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by derridog on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:22:49 PM EST
    Wow. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    If the other polls track with this result, it is going to make for a very interesting convention week I'd say.

    We can HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by mogal on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    Obama talks about changing a lot of stuff, (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:03:40 PM EST
    but the question is he capable of change?

    I've not seen his ability to change.

    It looks like he might really need to practice what he preaches.


    Hope is not a strategy. (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by miriam on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:20:44 PM EST
    ha ha ha! (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:56:25 PM EST
    when my business was in the toilet a few years ago i was whining on the phone to my brother and ended my cry for help with a "I hope it all works out".
    His response, "hope is not a strategy" and told me to buy the book.
    harsh words but the face slap got me off my pitty potty.

    if they are paying attention and not in (none / 0) (#62)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    denial. i won't lay any bets on that one.

    People are paying attention. (none / 0) (#188)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:15:20 PM EST
    The question will be whether or not they have the where with all to actually take action.

    And when I say "they" I am talking about all of the factions involved.


    Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:00:43 PM EST
    is a Democratic tradition

    Steve Soto nails it (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    And, let me have my "I told you so" moment, this is what I said two months ago:

    Meanwhile, while Obama is running the obligatory "bio ad", I've already seen two McCain ads: the "I hate war" one, and yesterday I saw one that makes it seem like he's a maverick and a champion of the environment.

    The Obama campaign is allowing McCain to define himself once more as a "maverick". I think they should have come right out and defined McCain before he had a chance to repeat his "maverick" shtick.

    I don't like Obama, but I definitely don't want McCain in the White House. Obama's campaign need to get their act together.

    its not too late in theory... (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:30:13 PM EST
    ...I mean, look at how Clinton was able to come back!

    But everything that we've seen from Obama tells us that when the going gets tough, he lashes out and/or withdrawals, rather than facing the problems head on.  

    Plus, the changes that Clinton made were pretty much minor changes in the tone of her campaign -- she didn't become a different candidate, she just became better at presenting her case.   Obama doesn't have that option -- he's already as good as it gets at presenting his case, its the case itself that is the problem.  


    That's what Obama gets.... (4.87 / 8) (#110)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:56:57 PM EST
    ...for running a "personal narrative" campaign rather than one based on issues. Axelrod made it clear from the start that the idea was to woo voters based on Obama's being a groovy guy, not on his platform, and we saw this bear out during the primaries.

    But there's no way his bio will win him the general election, particularly when voters want issues-oriented answers. Krugman's, et al., advice doesn't do him any good at this point, because his platform's always been mushy and overly wordy.

    Looking at the DNC schedule for speakers and themes, I gather that the focus will be more about the personal narrative, with a few bits thrown in on the economy and national defense. I read that the goal is to "introduce Obama to the nation," and show everyone what a swell guy he is.

    Considering that people are already sick of the personal narrative and desperate for answers to the problems they face, this strategy appears to be a major blunder.


    I have a feeling also that the stadium bit is (5.00 / 5) (#169)
    by derridog on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:29:25 PM EST
    going to turn people off the same way the German adulation fest did.  I think McCain was really smart to run those ads with Paris Hilton and Britney. Now, when O gets the millions of screaming  hand-picked fans - it's going to trigger  Paris and Britney, not to mention screaming Germans and GW Bush's controlled political campaigning techniques in people's minds.

    I think the whole idea is going to backfire on Obama big time.


    A Pew Poll (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    taken maybe a week or so ago had an astonishing 48% of people responding that they were "sick and tired" of seeing Obama.

    48% of us go "ugh" when we see him before turning the channel and he isn't even the Nominee yet!  

    I'm beginning to suspect the viewership for the Democratic Convention won't be the "historic" (of course!) numbers Obama and the DNC are expecting and any post-Convention bounce he'll get will be negligible at best.

    I also suspect there are flow charts and graphs at Obama Headquarters hitting the trash can as we speak as where they THOUGHT they would be right now is suddenly -- though not surprisingly to most of us sentient Voters -- nowhere near where he actually IS.  

    A bit like predicting a 25 point win in the North Carolina Primary (and winning by 10) and a 10 point win in the Indiana Primary (and losing) with another win in the West Virginia Primary (lost that too).


    hate to say it, but the realistic ones (none / 0) (#203)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:14:55 AM EST
    are updating their resumes.

    Two points (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    One, it's still a week until the convention. Obama is not the nominee yet, and there is still time for him not to become the nominee. (PUMAAAAAAAAAA!)

    Two, "progressive foreign policy" evidently did become synonymous with "kowtowing to Russia" in the minds of the American people, if these poll numbers are anything to go by. Partisan politics aside, Russia was in the wrong and it was imperative for the Obama campaign to take an appropriate stand immediately. Instead they let McCain seize the initiative, then they meekly followed his lead...

    I fail to see the problem (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:06:07 PM EST
    Obama continues to be leading.  

    Obama just went to McCain's home turf and held serve.  

    I think the biggest problem is that bloggers expect to see Obama with a 20 point lead.  

    It isn't going to happen.  Best case he wins by 10 points in November.  

    I also think that the extremely long primary campaign has caused fatigue among pundits and bloggers.  Even with the Democratic primary running till the end, we STILL have had 2 months of non-stories.  Political junkies are starving for something to talk about.

    The race doesn't even start until the conventions are over.  

    Denile -- not just a river in Egypt n/t (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by angie on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:15:54 PM EST
    Whatever you say.

    Clearly winning by 5 points is a sign of certain disaster.


    obtuse much? (none / 0) (#197)
    by angie on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:33:55 PM EST
    A 5 point lead before the big guns come out may not be "certain disaster" but it is not "nothing to worry about" as you insist. And make no mistake, there  will be big guns coming out -- GOP does not stand for "Gentle Ol' Pollyanna."

    "The race doesn't even start until (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ap in avl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:23:54 PM EST
    the conventions are over".....?

    Is this the Presidential Olympics and the candidates are waiting for starter's gun in the 100 meter?


    as long as I dont have to see (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:27:04 PM EST
    either of them in Michael Phelps speedos.
    although watching Phelps in them has been the highlight of my summer.

    Nooooo!!!!!! (none / 0) (#72)
    by ap in avl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:32:58 PM EST

    Thank Captain.....just made me spew my mojito :-)

    I'd Feel A Lot Better About November (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM EST
    if some of the more ardent Obama supporters weren't so damned blase.  As lambert reminded me this morning, here is what the electoral map looked like on August 16, 2004.  Unfortunately, it's nothing like it looked that November.

    And unlike prior years, the Democratic convention goes into Labor Day weekend and then BAM! the GOP one starts.  In fact, it looks like McCain will name his VP on the Friday after Denver.  So there isn't going to be a lot of time to build on the convention.  It will quickly be swamped by the RNC (and how is it the Republicans always seem to have the better convention schedule compared to Dems?).  

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that Obama has lost this election, but right now he isn't winning it.  He's lost ground in the last month when he should've been consolidating his lead (and this is after he got a bump at the end of the primaries, so he's alienated voters he once had, this isn't Hillary's doing).  He needs to pick it up and focus on the Democrats' strengths instead of constantly going to McCain's strengths (God and War).

    Right now, it feels like 2004 all over again.  When it should feel like 1992.


    Well (2.00 / 0) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    have you considered the possibility that Democrats are still a bit divided and a lot of Hillary supporters are still hoping for a miracle.

    The polls are still largely meaningless right now.


    My guess is (5.00 / 9) (#95)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:49:00 PM EST
    When those few Hillary holdouts realize after the convention that she will not be his VP choice (please, God, no), I think the poll numbers will show a bigger shift to McCain than we are seeing now.

    What? (1.00 / 0) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    Really?  You believe things will be worse for Obama?  For real?  I for one am shocked.

    shocked (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    that makes one of us

    I'd be shocked if you believe (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:01:24 PM EST
    that after the convention, things will be better for Obama.

    I'm only waiting until after the convention to change my registration to Independent.


    Why are you waiting? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    I changed mine (as did both my parents) the day after the RBC debacle. I'm still getting daily letters begging me to given money to Obama. I take great glee in mailing them back on their own dime with notes telling them why they wont get a penny out of me.

    I answered before (none / 0) (#201)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:07:13 PM EST
    but it was deleted. Beats me why.

    Because I'm still holding out for the SDs doing their jobs, basically. And I'm in Denver and volunteering for the DNCC, and if things don't turn out the way they should, I want my reregistration to send a message.

    OK, you can delete this too. Wev.


    Do you seriously think (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:04:25 PM EST
    those Hillary supporters are going to get behind Obama only if they don't get their miracle?

    Because they're not. If they don't get their miracle they'll regroup and support someone else. And it's not going to be Obama.


    Yes (5.00 / 8) (#147)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:13:30 PM EST
    But I don't buy it.  Sure the Dems are still somewhat divided, but Obama had a 15 point lead in the LA Times poll in June and has a 2 point lead now.  So he's lost ground in the last month after initially gaining a big bump, presumably of Clinton supporters.  That should be cause for concern, no?  I mean these are not people who absolutely refuse to even consider Obama, they were going to vote for him a month ago!

    As for the continuing divide in the Democratic Party, isn't it also time Obama do something to try to win over disaffected Dems (not all of whom are Hillary supporters)?  There seems to be no pander beneath him when going after GOP voters would it kill him to ask for voters like me or Melissa McEwan?  This is the man who ran as having some sort of special ability to unify people and bring them together.  Or does that just apply to Republicans?  

    Since the end of the primaries, I've been told endlessly to fall in line while Obama has voted to gut the Fourth Amendment, floated numerous anti-choice and GOPper names to be VP, waffled on the mental health exception for abortion, stayed quiet on the Bush Administration's regulation that would define birth control as abortion, sounded like McCain on Georgia, and decided that offshore drilling might not be such a bad thing.  What has he done to try to get my vote, to unify the party?  Nothing other than send goons out to berate us.  But he has all the time in the world to suck up to the noxious Rick Warren whose minions are never going to vote for Obama.  

    A great way to unify the party would be to hit McCain on his awful policies.  But Obama's been too busy pandering to McCain's base to bother.

    Again, I don't think it's too late to turn it around.  This is a Democratic year.  But it needs to start with Obama taking responsibility for his campaign and quit blaming everybody else.  


    snark! maybe an advisor needs to (none / 0) (#204)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:23:11 AM EST
    let obama know that is running as a democrat. that'll fix things.

    I think it feels like 1988. (none / 0) (#97)
    by derridog on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    1896. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:00:10 PM EST
    The Democratic Great Orator vs. the Republican War Veteran* and in the Depths of a Depression.

    *the War Veteran also was in the Pockets of the Corporate Interests, but this time, Both Are.


    BO never faced a tough campaign ... (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:48:48 PM EST
    ... nor personal adversity.

    Hard to know how he'll respond.


    he looks irritated all the time. (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:15:03 PM EST
    You see no problem in that (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:51:04 PM EST
    he had a lot more support before, so those must not be racists or us raging feminists or all the other reasons we hear as to the holdouts.  These are not holdouts, as they were for Obama.  But now they are pullbacks from Obama.

    So please explain why and how you think he will win them back to get that 10 percent lead again.


    63% of HRC voters, 81% of Kerry voters (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:06:37 PM EST
    The mythical PUMA smiles its Chesire-PUMA smile.

    Democrats are abandoning BO (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:11:32 PM EST
    That's astounding because most Democrats can't stand Bush and wanted "change".  It's like Reagan all over again, except I didn't vote for Reagan, but now I'll vote for McCain.

    It's not astounding (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by miriam on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:26:56 PM EST
    when anyone with common sense looks at Obama's non-existant record of accomplishments.  Honestly, I absolutely cannot fathom how the DNC leaders thought they could palm off a dangerously inexperienced naif on the American public....when that public wouldn't even accept John Kerry.  Or Al Gore.  Now that is astounding.

    Maybe they thought they could (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by talesoftwokitties on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    take a page out of the GOPs playbook?  One GOP idiot = One DEM naif?  Yep, astounding all right!

    chupacabras are mythical (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    pumas are not.  and they are not smiling.

    I never thought I would see the word (none / 0) (#187)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:12:52 PM EST
    chupacabra on this site...lol

    LA Times has it (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by dk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:10:24 PM EST
    45 Obama, 43 McCain.

    Ruh roh.

    forgive a potentially stupid (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    question, but are those national numbers or CA State numbers?  My guess is National, but I'd love to learn where they are with regards to CA voters.

    The 10 point drop in my home state (NY) still has me gobsmacked.


    National Numbers (none / 0) (#76)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:37:48 PM EST
    Obama should carry California, although like the country as a whole, the lead he enjoyed has shrunk in the last month.  Still, it would take much more of a collapse for Obama not to carry California.  At times, McCain has been close enough that I thought Obama might have to spend resources here, but this is one place where offshore drilling, among other things, isn't going to help McCain.  

    Isn't Obama (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:59:04 PM EST
    now FOR offshore drilling?

    Yup. It's his way of "negotiating" (5.00 / 12) (#125)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:03:13 PM EST
    you know, give in before you get to the table.

    Bingo (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:43:57 PM EST
    That's maybe the most astounding thing he's ever said.  I never heard of such a thing, telling the other side of a negotiation ahead of time what your fall-back give is.

    Wasn't the LA Times one of those (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    papers that had Obama up by like 13% in June?



    I think you have a mythical idea of Obama's (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    primary "win."

    He was a spring fling. After Hillary's initial wins he had a string of primaries that he won. Then, even though he was outspending her dramatically, he began losing in an embarrassingly obvious way.

    Don't rewrite the narrative to avoid lessons that should have been learned.

    Like in North Carolina? (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:19:09 PM EST
    and Oregon?  Or do they not count?

    They don't count. (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by goldberry on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:25:03 PM EST
    Well, North Carolina doesn't anyway.  We were never going to win it anyway.  
    And Oregon is a pretty small state in terms of electoral college votes.  

    NJ and PA, OTOH, it's hard to see winning an election without them.  Oh and FL, OH and MI.  


    Still focusing on the states you believe (none / 0) (#81)
    by independent voter on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:41:39 PM EST
    "count". hmmmmmmmmmm that didn't work out too well for the last person that tried it.

    Hey look at the history (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:52:15 PM EST
    It's really not that hard.  Obama won a string of powerful victories, but then began losing. Losing, losing, losing around mid-february, March. He was pushed over the finish line during a losing streak.

    He's still losing. And will continue to do so until November.

    It's really a no-brainer. "Sour grapes" has nothing to do with it.  It's a history.


    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    Where is still losing?  

    I dare you... (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by goldberry on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:56:31 PM EST
    ...to find an example of a winning Democratic presidential candidate who won without the Big D and Swing states.  
    Go ahead,  I'll wait.    

    Jimmy Carter (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    Lost New Jersey and California and Illinois and Michigan.

    I look forward for the snarky comparison of Obama to Carter rather responding to the point.


    Do you think (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    Obama will take Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennesee, Texas, West Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, and South Carolina?

    I don't see it.  I don't see him taking any of those states.


    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#202)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:32:01 PM EST
    He will take California, New Jersey, Illinois and Pennsylvania.  

    Point is that there is nothing terribly extraordinary about Obama's voting pattern.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#210)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:26:23 AM EST
    about PA.  I wouldn't count on it.

    Andrew Jackson. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    Of course, even then, the party actually was called the Democratic Republicans.

    Everything old is new again.
    -- Cole Porter


    non responsive to my comment (none / 0) (#180)
    by independent voter on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:52:51 PM EST
    and the states you count are?????? (none / 0) (#127)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    i see no big states. hmm, it doesn't look so good. i wonder where florida is and why.

    I think of it as sort of a dot-com boom. (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    Later on, we get to find out who had a business model and who didn't.

    Even with all the dysfunctions of Hillary's campaign apparatus, she'd be kicking McCain's coattails right now.


    It was over a month before spring (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    on February 19.

    The spring fling was Senator Clinton's -- until the DNC-run superdelegates flung her under the bus by the summer.

    But look who's comin' up roses after this fall.


    Steve Soto getting bold! (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by catfish on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:15:21 PM EST
    Obama lost this race already

    Somebody telling it like it is. Obama will not change between now and November. The Change candidate will not change his strategy.

    So (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:18:09 PM EST
    predicting that the person who is currently leading and who has virtually all advantages on his side is already certain to lose because some blogger said so?

    Direction of the polls. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by catfish on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:25:27 PM EST
    The polls are moving in a certain direction. That's what polls are good for - detecting movement, direction.

    Dude, pay attention. (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:28:05 PM EST
    It's not just "some blogger" who says so.

    Echinopsia....that dud is just here to rile (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:17:44 PM EST
    those who aren't drinking the kool-aid...no need to respond because it won't do a bit of good.

    Oh, but I can't resist (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:46:07 PM EST
    deflating his hyperbole.

    I love the whooshing sound of all the hot air rushing out.


    Obama 45, McCain 43 TIE la-bloomberg (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Salt on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:20:37 PM EST
    Their latest numbers show:
    Obama 45, McCain 43
    Dates conducted: August 15-18. Error margin: 3 points

    I suspect he'll announce VP soon (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by DJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    to change this narrative.

    Unless Nancy Reagan is going to endorse him tonight.


    Experience counts. (none / 0) (#57)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    That's Not A Tie (none / 0) (#69)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    Sorry, it drives me crazy when the news folks report these things as ties and they're not.  45-43 is an Obama lead.  A depressingly small one, but a lead nonetheless.

    MOE? (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:33:10 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#78)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:40:01 PM EST
    It's within the margin of error, but that doesn't make it a tie because that's not what margin of error means.  Margin of error goes to how sure they are in the results, but does not turn 45-43 into a "tie."  It's still statistically speaking a lead, albeit a very narrow one.

    Statistically speaking (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by talesoftwokitties on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:31:19 PM EST
    it is a tie.

    Granted, we haven't voted yet, but (5.00 / 12) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:29:28 PM EST
    I said a little while ago that if the polls continued to show a decline in support for Obama and he couldn't get the double-digit lead he ought to have had for weeks now, there would come a point where he would no longer be able to gain control of the election and put McCain away.

    Since March, Obama has failed to grab the brass ring that the hype said was his for the taking, and in primary after primary, he showed that he could outspend, and draw larger crowds, but when push came to shove, he could not get critical support in the states and in the demographic sectors that will be crucial to a Democratic victory.  At the same time, he managed to alienate and disrespect huge swaths of voters, as well as long-time party loyalists and true progressives, and had the attitude that if they were not smart enough to have supported him from the beginning, not bright enough to have seen the glory that was Obama, he didn't need them enough to earn their votes; is there anything more insulting than the message that we have nowhere else to go?  Does he think we can't see that his efforts have instead been focused on wooing conservative voters with decidedly not-Democratic positions, and concentrating on registering new voters in the hope that this new base will save him in November?

    Notice I said, "save him," because this is, and has been for some time, about his victory, his ambition, and not about saving the country, or the people; if he thinks that is not becoming more obvious by the day, and will not be blindingly obvious after the lollapalooza of the Invesco Field coronation extravaganza, he really must not think much of our intelligence.

    The Obama candidacy is becoming Shakespearean in its potential for tragedy, and what saddens and angers me is that it will be the nation that pays the price for Obama's hubris; I'm at the point where I think it might be worth it if it purges the party of the people who brought us this disaster.

    hear! hear! (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:42:57 PM EST
    on the nose, Anne.  On the nose.

    I and my fairly large circle of friends are willing to endure four years of a McCain Presidency just to purge the Party of the Obamas and Braziles, the Deans and, hopefully, the Pelosis.

    We are a Party of the People.  Not just the Creative Class or the wealthy up-and-comers, but the blue collar workers, the rural voters, women who believe in making decisions for themselves, gays and lesbians who still strive for equal rights.  We're still a Party who believes in helping those less fortunate and not just racking up as many $50,000 a plate dinners with Wall Street donors as we can.

    Obama, Dean, Pelosi and Brazile don't get this.  Hillary and Bill still do.  That's why Voters OVERWHELMINGLY stated loud and clear during the Primaries that Obama was NOT The One and Hillary was their choice.  One just doesn't win CA, NJ, PA, OH and FL by chance.  We Democrats wanted her and, looking at these poll numbers, we still do.

    The DNC -- behind closed doors -- ignored this message, ignored their Party and ignored 18 million voters (and donors) and now they and their Chosen One are paying the price.

    When Obama loses in November and the DNC's ambitious hopes are dashed, hopefully Hillary can step in and get this Party back on track.


    You've always been (none / 0) (#199)
    by jen on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:43:00 PM EST
    one of my favorites here. Posts like this confirm that. Perfect.

    Rasmussen polls out today (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    John McCain has recaptured the lead over Barack Obama in Florida, besting his Democratic opponent 46% to 43% in the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state.

    John McCain continues to hold a strong lead over Barack Obama in Louisiana. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Bayou State finds the Republican on top 55% to 38%.

    Obama had led in Rasmussen's Florida poll in July.  Two more data points for "squandered," Jeralyn.

    On the bright side, Mary Landrieu has apparently opened up a huge lead in the Senate race in Louisiana.  I see her commercials about once an hour during the Olympic coverage (I get the Monroe NBC station).

    not this Dem (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:34:27 PM EST
    We'd rather have someone the Democratic Primary Voters voted for in record numbers and not the Democrat For A Day Red State Caucuses and the DNC Grand Pooh-bahs who had to steal delegates from one candidate and give them to the other just to inflate some already soft numbers.

    And, no, when you lose huge chunks of the Democratic Base time and time again as well as the solid blue States of CA, NY, NJ, OH, FL, PA and NH, poll numbers like this and an astonishingly inept inability to connect with those voters you need is nowhere near surprising.

    So, yeah, to those friggin' tone deaf idiots at the DNC -- I'm lookin' at you, Dean and Brazile -, "I told you so"

    My hope is Obama takes another vacation and passes the baton to the woman who can actually win this thing.

    I heard the weather in Hawaii is nice this time of year.  And he can body surf all he wants!

    From the poll results... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:39:37 PM EST
    ...which are now linked from realclearpolitics.com's latest polls:

    Overall, Obama holds a narrow edge over the Arizona senator, 45% to 43%, which falls within the poll's margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. In June, Obama was ahead by 12 points. Other polls at that time showed him with a narrower lead.

    More striking than the head-to-head matchup, however, is the drop in Obama's favorable rating in the run-up to his selection of a running mate and the Democratic National Convention next week in Denver.

    Obama's favorable rating has sunk to 48% from 59% since the last Times/Bloomberg poll in June. At the same time, his negative rating has risen to 35% from 27%.

    Obama's dropped 12 points since June in polls done by the same firm; I'd say that's pretty striking, even though their June poll was an outlier among other national polls.

    But, But... (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:23:06 PM EST
    We were told that only the hated Hillary would have such high negatives.  Obama would never be as hated as every other Democratic candidate for president in the last 20 years.

    whoops, sorry.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:43:31 PM EST
    I meant to post that in BTD's thread. :)

    Maybe because (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by miriam on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:46:01 PM EST
    this appears to be the usual self-inflicted damage the Democrats are so skilled at inflicting.  Some of us hoped that this time there would be enough historic evidence to keep them from committing suicide.  We wrote letters, emails, signed petitions, went door-to-door, we voted, we pleaded, we begged them to consider for once nominating an experienced, smart, politically savvy and personally strong candidate who had already walked through the fires of hell and survived.  But no.  For whatever stupidly vengeful reasons, the DNC in its infinite wisdom chose to renounce the most viable candidate, bamboozle impressionable young bloggers and arrange the nomination of the one person easily calculated to dismay, if not terrify, the greatest number of Democratic voters.  Because many of us do not believe Barack Obama is a Democrat with those values Democrats hold most precious.  

    ITA The Dems insist on hurting themselves... again (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by bridget on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:35:49 PM EST
    Who didn't see this coming ... all these months leading up to the Dem convention many voters never stopped doubting that Obama was the right candidate - and it actually got worse as time went by because he gave them little to nothing to hold on to and to change their minds about him.

    Folks are tired of Obama already and he isn't even nominated yet.

    When was the last time this happened? Even Kerry was embraced by the voters as the legit Dem candidate until and during the convention.  

    The DNC must really believe in this candidate. Why? Only they know. So what is Dean thinking these days? Is he starting to get cold feet? Does he and Pelosi even care?

    P.S. Please! Let's not compare Obama to the celebrated Sally Field. Her "you must really love me" moment came after she won the BIG Price, richly deserved. For the Second time.
    Obama is still waiting to get just nominated for the first price.


    Hollering down a well.. (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:49:46 PM EST
    The problem is not "defining" McCain.

    Everyone knows who he is.

    The problem is with Obama.

    Nobody knows who he is.

    Hee -- what an apt expression. n/t (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:59:13 PM EST
    in fact mccain has been defining obama. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:07:21 PM EST
    That is not the question (5.00 / 8) (#105)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:55:31 PM EST
    We would very much like to see a democrat in the White House.

    Obama is talking, acting and voting like a republican.

    You make it sound as if people are having difficulty considering voting for Obama out of spite. In fact it is out of a sense of despair.

    That is just ridiculous, Are you seriously (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by independent voter on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:16:37 PM EST
    saying Obama is more of a republican than McCain?
    Please, get some perspective

    No - not more (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:23:08 PM EST
    of a republican than McCain -
    but too close for comfort.

    OK. Perspective. (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    "Vote for Obama, he's not as Republican as John McCain!"

    Yep, that's a winner.


    I do not call him a republican, lentinel (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by independent voter on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:56:06 PM EST
    does. To me, he is only microscopically different from Hillary Clinton on policy positions.

    You mean, except for (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by echinopsia on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:10:46 PM EST
    all the positions he's "lurched right" on.

    Faith-based programs, late term abortion, FISA, foreign policy, UHC, etc. etc.

    What does that leave? I'll tell you! NO positions the same as Hillary Clinton.


    VOte Dem!! (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by smott on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    2% less evil than Republicans!
    (Only without the cojones!)

    we can still have a democrat. (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:06:35 PM EST
    the convention hasn't even begun. humble pie can be tasty i'm told. hillary wouldn't tell folks they couldn't come. she's bigger than that.

    How is this 'not the bloggers' fault? (4.87 / 8) (#10)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    Or rather, what's the distinction between Democratic Party lackeys and 'the bloggers'?

    If anything 'the bloggers' (with a few exceptions) were cheering louder than the lackeys, with breathless reversals of opinion on the issues (any issue, pick an issue) with each flip flop that at least equalled the lackeys, if not surpassed them.

    The rest is pretty much what we've been saying here at TL for weeks and weeks, so spot on .

    I don't think he means quite that - (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    I think he is sort of pre-emting an argument and telling the Obama camp that they can't blame their problems on bloggers - that they alone are responsible for the choices they've made.

    I think it is funny that he acknoledges that Obama has no love for the blogs though.  That's something that many of the netroots folks don't like to think about or talk about - and when they do they mostly rationalize his obvious contempt.


    Can you expand a bit? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM EST
    I find this thought interesting but am not sure I'm getting you.

    Squandering a landslide (2.00 / 0) (#113)
    by rilkefan on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 04:58:45 PM EST
    I still think Obama will win handily - McCain is too old, Bush is too hated, Obama is too smart for us to lose this.

    Landslide? (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    Where are the numbers that show Obama ever beating McCain in a landslide?

    The previous LA Times poll (none / 0) (#137)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    (Before the one that came out today) had Obama ahead by 12.  Newsweek had a poll showing a 15-points leads for The One From Chicago.

    Those were probably outliers, but even sites like electoral-vote.com once gave Obama a 150-EV lead.


    With McCain attached to a President with a 25% approval rating, how could Obama lose?  Well, he's showed us and will probably keep showing us.


    Okay (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:16:15 PM EST
    I guess that stuff never made much impression on me.  I just recall the daily tracking polls always being pretty close and nobody ever really getting above 50% for any length of time.

    It's this attitude (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM EST
    that is going to put McCain in the whitehouse in November. Ignore the polling and stick your head in the sand. Demand nothing...

    Obama is not smart (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by stxabuela on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:23:03 PM EST
    I have worked in grassroots politics for 26 years.  Rule one:  don't p!ss off the base.  I'm not your "average" Democrat--I put my heart and soul into the party--and I am furious with the blatant disrespect shown to the "old-timers" by both the Obama campaign and the DNC.  One of my dearest friends has been a Democratic activist since 1956, and even she says she has never seen such a tone-deaf attitude from the Democratic Party and its nominee.  

    Let me pass along some advise from another dear friend of mine who passed away four years ago:  "There are only two ways to run for office--unopposed, or scared."  Believe me, McCain wants you to believe Obama will win handily.    


    too smart to lose? famous last words if i (none / 0) (#205)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:24:44 AM EST
    ever heard them. maybe some writer when writing about this debacle will use that very term but not in a complimentary way.

    Too smart? (none / 0) (#207)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:23:50 AM EST
    Obama is too smart for "US" to lose this?



    I don't. (none / 0) (#139)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    I want a Democrat in the White House. Even if it's one I don't like.

    That's why it sucks to see him run such a lame GE campaign so far.

    Sucks Is Right (none / 0) (#160)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:21:22 PM EST
    I cannot stand Obama, but McCain as president is a very bad thing. An Obama loss would be easier to handle if I thought it would result in the crappy Democratic Leadership being purged and saying goodbye to the Losers who run the Democratic party.  But let's face it, forty years of loserdom hasn't driven these sorts of Democrats out of their leadership roles, I doubt one more loss will make a difference.  

    Quinnipiac: Some Good News for Obama (none / 0) (#196)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    From National Journal

    "Obama is the preferred candidate among many key groups, and supporters of the Illinois senator register as more enthusiastic and loyal than McCain supporters. Obama leads McCain among independents (45 percent to 39 percent), voters under the age of 55, and those who call the economy their No. 1 issue (over half of Quinnipiac respondents). When asked if their vote should be taken as an affirmation for Obama or a protest against McCain, the supporters won out, 69 percent to 23 percent. For McCain, however, that margin was 60 percent to 33 percent.

    "Furthermore, whereas more of the discussion this cycle has focused on whether Obama's race will hurt his chances, Quinnipiac's survey suggests that McCain's age might prove to be a more serious obstacle. More than 7 in 10 respondents told Quinnipiac pollsters that they would be "entirely comfortable" with a black president; just 8 percent said they would be somewhat or entirely uncomfortable. When asked about their confidence in a president who would take office at 72, however, fewer than 4 in 10 voters expressed total assurance. Almost one-quarter said they would be somewhat uncomfortable and an additional 10 percent said they would be entirely uncomfortable."

    Why does McCain get 90% of the Republican vote? (none / 0) (#198)
    by steviez314 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:25:29 PM EST
    They hate him for McCain-Feingold.  They despise him for immigration reform.  They loathe him for the Gang of 14 judges compromise.

    And yet he gets the R vote 90-10.  Why?  Because the Republicans WANT TO WIN.  You never even read anything negative about McCain at NRO or the other sites anymore because all they want IS TO WIN.

    Even the "elitist", "French" Kerry got 90% Dems in 2004.

    So when will it finally be time for all this carping about respect, the DNC, and nomination fights to end and get Obama's support up to 90% too?  That's all it would take.

    Instead every blog entry here is followed by the exact same 200 commments repeating the exact same  grievances.

    If you were all being honest, you'd just say "I DONT CARE IF OBAMA WINS".

    The fault lies not in our nominee but ourselves.

    Flame on!

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:51:41 PM EST
    Obama's responsibility to try and unite the party. Obama has failed to do this and is more concerned with pandering to evangelicals than trying to get Dems on board with his candidacy. McCain gets 90% of GOP voters because he went out AND ASKED FOR THEIR VOTES. And Obama's campaign this summer has been nothing short of a disaster and an embarrassement. Maybe people would be more interested in voting for him if he wasn't more interested in photo ops and hawaiian vacations than actually talking to voters.

    I think the nominee... (none / 0) (#206)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:20:44 AM EST
    I think the nominee has something to do with it.

    It probably doesn't mean anything to you, but when I see the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party on television proclaiming that "Christ died for my sins", I am wondering what planet we are on.


    I don't quite understand that. (none / 0) (#208)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:28:37 AM EST
    I mean, maybe 70% of the country believes that.  Now I'm Jewish, so I don't, but that is Obama's faith and I have no problem with that.

    At least, as he sees his faith, Christ wants him to help the poor and weak.  McCain's faith wants him to criminalize abortion and have more wars.

    Faith is not the problem, it's what you make of it.


    Faith (none / 0) (#209)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    Faith is not the problem.

    It's the placing of it front and center that is the problem.
    This is not a theocracy.
    I no more want to hear whether Obama thinks that Christ died for "his" "sins" (whatever they may be) than I was interested in learning whether Bill Clinton wears boxers or briefs.

    Of course the Clinton question was relatively harmless.
    The religion schtick is divisive and it also demeans our constitution.
    Not to mention it being a huge diversion from the matters of war and peace with which we are being confronted.

    Everybody claims they are Christians.
    Bush said Jesus was his favorite philosopher.
    A priest blessed the Enola Gay as it went on its' way to drop the Atomic bomb.