home

SUSA IN Poll: McCain By 6

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:20:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Indiana stays Republican according to SUSA's Indiana poll:

In an election for President of the United States held today in Indiana, Republican John McCain defeats Democrat Barack Obama by 6 points, 50% to 44%[.] . . . Compared to an identical poll released eight weeks ago, Obama is down 3 points; McCain is up 3.

SUSA's demo breakdowns are always the most interesting part. Let's look at them on the flip.

Whites 53-41 (92% of the electorate) for McCain. A-As (6% of the electorate) 77-19 for Obama. Let's make it 95-5 for Obama, that adds a point for Obama but he loses at least a point among undecided whites. Obama wins Dems 77-19, McCain wins Republicans 82-12.

Let's compare this to Kerry's results in 2004 -- Kerry won A-As (7% of the electorate) 92-8, lost whites (93% of the electorate) 65-34.

So here we are, believing Obama can do 15 points better than Kerry among whites and still would lose Indiana by 5.

Here's the bottom line, Obama can not win Indiana. I do not care what any poll says. I think Obama must know this. Therefore, no Bayh.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< MSNBC Changes Prime Time Lineup | Thoughts on Why Obama Might Pick Kaine >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA IN Poll: McCain By 6 | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    For those who feel obama is going to (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:27:41 PM EST
    win in a landslide, I must ask why?  This is more bad news atop more bad news for obama.  Time to wake up and smell the coffee.  Better go tell your candidate he is doing something very wrong to get these numbers.

    the Candidate is clueless (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:55:40 PM EST
    and perhaps arrogant.  He and his minions believe all these numbers will turn around once he's crowned ... er, I mean once he accepts the Nomination.

    Now, the same can't be said for many of these Super-delegates who know a thing or two about Polls, trends, how to run a campaign and just how deep in doo-doo The One really is.  One can only imagine the Gold Medal-worthy flips and spins Brazile, Dean and Pelosi are doing right now to keep an undeniably large portion of these SDs from switching back to Hillary before and during the Convention.

    Lord only knows what they have to do to keep these nervous SDs in line, but I doubt a promise of $10,000 to their respective campaigns from the now drying up PACS  -- when the RNC has more cash on hand ($80 million) than the DNC ($20 million), something is very, very wrong -- is doing much to stop the terrors and night sweats.

    I mean, it's not like we Voters TOLD them during the Primary who we preferred or anything.  Sheesh!

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly, there are competing issues here (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:07:54 PM EST
    First, there is a human failing that makes people reluctant to concede error even when it's obvious to everyone else, because it's a sign of weakness.  Bush is particularly bad about this, and Obama seems no better;  the same appears to be true of their supporters.  They simply won't admit that they were wrong-  remember how hard Obama and his SDs fought against giving Hillary the recognition of putting her name in nomination.  The same courtesy routinely given to folks like Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul when they win a handful of delegates was too much to give a woman with over 1900 of them.

    Second, there's sunk costs.  Millions of dollars have been spent on Obama-labeled crap from keychains to ineffective commercials airing incessantly in Louisiana.  Throwing Obama overboard makes all of it officially worthless.  The money's already spent, but these folks don't want to recognize the money they've already wasted.

    Lastly, they still believe that Obama can turn it around, citing the primaries as an example.  Apparently, they still haven't figured out that the Electoral College has no superdelegates and that he can't win the Iowa caucus in November.

    So as good an idea as this is in the abstract, it'll never happen.  Too bad.

    [ Parent ]

    citing the Primaries (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:21:19 AM EST
    as an example of Obama's ability to turn it around is actually a bad idea, although I agree with the majority of your Post.

    Obama peaked in February, ran up his delegate count in Red State Caucuses in States the Dems were never gonna win in the GE and then folded -- big time -- when it came to proving himself with core Democratic groups in Must Have Swing States.

    Outspending Hillary (in some cases 3 to 1) and with the Media bleating non-stop that she didn't have a chance and should just drop out, drop out, drop out NOW, Obama STILL lost.  For the first time in my memory, we'll have a Nominee who lost NH, CA, NY, NJ, PA, OH and FL as well as large chunks of the Democratic Base.

    If Obama "turning it around" in the Primary is the DNC propping him up and dragging him across the Finish Line during a closed door 4 hour meeting and then awarding him votes and delegates he didn't earn, I doubt very much he'll be able to "turn it around" in the General.

    You do offer some interesting points, though, I hadn't thought of.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think that's coffee you're (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:07:39 PM EST
    smelling, but then I have a very sensitive nose (as my now grown daughters can attest).  :)

    That Obama has less support among Democrats than McCain has among Republicans is not good.  If that AA breakdown is close to being accurate, that's weakening support, too.

    I have always felt that Obama's support was soft and would not harden or improve if he continued to campaign as he did in the primary.  Lack of specifics and failure to close the deal with hard-core Dems does not add up to a win in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you thinking more along the lines (none / 0) (#80)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:34:15 PM EST
    of gears grinding?? :)

    [ Parent ]
    Ouch!! (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Andy08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:35:19 PM EST
    The RCP numbers also have changed dramatically...

                           Obama   McCain  Toss-ups
    RCP Electoral Count    228    178    132
    No Toss Up States    264    274    -

    Shocking! (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:35:46 PM EST
    Or not. Indiana last went Democratic in 1964 and only went Democratic four times since 1900.  The other times were 1912, 1932, and 1936.  It is a long-time Republican state.  It didn't find the GOP after the Civil Rights Act.  Outside of the Great Depression, it's voted Democratic twice.  It even voted against FDR in 1940 and 1944.  

    The only way Obama wins Indiana is if there's a landslide and he sure ain't headed towards a landslide right now.

    Agree (none / 0) (#20)
    by nell on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:45:29 PM EST
    McCain worrying about Indiana means he has lost the election anyways, just as Obama having to worry about New York would mean he has lost the election anyways.

    McCain is ahead by 6 in Indiana, Obama is ahead by 8 in New York. Same difference.

    Both of these states are solid for their parties and if either is not, the candidate has lost anyways. Indiana won't be the one state to swing the election.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain has not spent a dime in Indiana (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:55:23 PM EST
    HE is not worried.

    Obama has spent a lot of money in Indiana. Wasted money.

    [ Parent ]

    let me get this straight (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    McCain now has a 6 point lead in a State where he spent no money?  And Obama, conversely, lost a slim lead in a State he's pouring money into?

    I feel like I should be more surprised, but I'm just not.

    Ugh.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, this isn't that surprising. This is the same (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by derridog on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:19:39 PM EST
    thing that was happening towards the end of the primary with Hillary. He would spend a gazillion dollars and she would win by 30 points.

    I have a feeling we're going to see more of that. How I wish the Superdelegates would wake up and do their jobs before it's too late.

    [ Parent ]

    Good thing none of that money (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:23:44 PM EST
    was mine.

    It's amazing how he still manages to raise millions, and yet all that dough isn't bringing in the results.

    Either his donors are all extremely, filthy rich, or they're all just plain starry-eyed, clueless and care-less.

    [ Parent ]

    well, his fundraising (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:28:52 PM EST
    seems to be following the same trend as his poll numbers.

    He raised decidedly less in July than he did in June while McCain -- who the Republicans allegedly despise -- had his BEST fundraising month ever.

    I still believe Obama has a habit of peaking too soon.  He did it in the Primary and ... well, I think his peak was in the Primary and everything since then has been the DNC dragging him across the finish line and propping him up for the race.

    Sad to think a historic number of Democrats shouted loud and clear who we wanted the Nominee to be in all the Major States and from March onwards and our own Party ignored us and chose who they wanted despite us (or to spite us).  

    If they were grounded in reality, these poll numbers and the anemic fundraising -- did I mention the RNC has 4x more cash on hand than the DNC? ($80 million to $20 million) -- wouldn't be the shock they're finding them to be.

    Oh well.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama outspent Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:42:09 PM EST
    Money it's not enough to win if the candidate is weak.  We have a parade of rich people with all the money to burn and they still lost.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:27:53 PM EST

    Its ridiculous to me that poor people give money to these politicians vanity campaigns. Money that they cant afford if you read the message boards.

    Instead for bragging about his low income donors he ought to be ashamed. If he clips some rich idiots out of $2K who cares, it wont make a bit of difference to their lives.


    [ Parent ]

    This Is So Shocking!!! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:36:05 PM EST
    Not. And they always thought Indiana was in the bag, because the AA-rich cities are within reach of the Chicago media markets.

    I can't wait for SUSA's numbers for VA. I think that is the dose of reality that Obama needs. He cannot win that state as easily as he seems to think. I live in the neighboring state (or rather, district) and in my frequent trips across, I see and hear much more support for McCain.

    What's (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:42:19 PM EST
    beyond cluess is the amount of money being dumped in GA. I don't know why they don't understand that AA's alone are NOT enough to carry the state.

    [ Parent ]
    We are living in GA. (none / 0) (#23)
    by tek on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:49:03 PM EST
    I'll be interested in following this.  What I see is, every black house has an Obama sign.  No where else.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw ONE sign (none / 0) (#67)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:06:26 PM EST
    for Obama in Buckhead. On W.Pacs Ferry near the governor's mansion (not there, though).

    [ Parent ]
    It's in the bag if (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:14:29 PM EST
    that incredibly corrupt Gary machine and mayor can come through again.  That squeaker cost Clinton.

    But my Hoosier-born spouse says it would take a Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004 level of corruption and fraud to counter the Copperhead vote in southern Indiana, if it comes out.  And he thinks it will.

    [ Parent ]

    Ooh, I remember that and (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:19:10 PM EST
    how late Indiana was called because of that county.

    I didn't really think it was because of possible corruption, but that's only because it was through hearsay. Since you mentioned it here, and now, I actually believe the possibility.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by nell on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:55:20 PM EST
    Being from near Gary and hearing a lot about the local politics of Gary from my parents (like did you know the guy drives a hummer and uses public funds for the gas? Or at least he used to, he now to agrees to pay for his own gas if he insists on using the gas guzzler), I would not put it past Mayor Clay to engage in such corruption - it seemed to me there were an awful lot of absentee ballots for a primary (around 11,000). That being said, there is another explanation that makes good sense. Most of the polls showed Hillary ahead, but if you looked at the demographic break downs, most estimated African American turnout at around 10 percent. In reality, African American turnout was between 15 and 17 percent. Given that every percent increase in African American turnout means Obama gets an additional percentage point in the total, that fact alone explains why the polls were closer than predicted.

    Indiana has an African American population of around 8 or 9 percent, so I have no idea why pollsters estimated only 10 percent for a Dem primary - perhaps because they have never really had to poll in IN for a Dem primary...but the turnout models were wrong in general and that explains the difference in outcome versus the polling. Also, remember Hillary was down in Indiana by a lot until the week before, so what she did there was still pretty impressive.

    [ Parent ]

    Who... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Brillo on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    Ever implied that it was 'in the bag'?  

    [ Parent ]
    I vividly recall... (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:15:37 PM EST
    some of the Obama campaign officials were saying that prior to, and after the Indiana primaries (even though he lost to Hillary there)

    And even the TV news pundits said it would be a shoo-in because AA-rich cities like Gary, South Bend and Indianapolis are in the Chicago media market and are easily influenced by its pro-Obama tv stations and newspapers coverage.

    [ Parent ]

    This is true (none / 0) (#54)
    by nell on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:57:42 PM EST
    Northwest Indiana, one of the most liberal parts of the state, is squarely in Chicago media market territory and is a very short 10-15 minute drive over the border. People in NW Indiana consider it a suburb of Chicago, which is why it did and will go big for Obama. BUT it goes big for a Dem every election, so I doubt Obama can drive up turnout enough in these areas to make a difference.

    South Bend may also get Chicago media, but Indianapolis does not.

    [ Parent ]

    And grits are on menus south of Indy. (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:10:08 PM EST
    And I saw a lot of Confederate flags there.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I did (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:54:49 PM EST
    I thought it was in the bag. Obama's campaign is blowing it so far.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe it is time to take (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:08:34 PM EST
    Wisconsin out of the bag as well.I know he is still ahead- but it is closing.

    [ Parent ]
    I am not trying to be annoying but (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    as I have posted a few times, Obama will not win IN, PA, FL, OH nor NC (unless something very, very radical happens).

    As I said, I'm not trying to be annoying nor am I trying to make an anti Obama statement.  I am just very good at this.

    PA you have bad evidence (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:47:10 PM EST
    Everthing else is plausible.

    Obama wins Iowa, Colorado, NM and Nevada and holds the Kerry states makes it 278 EVs for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Michigan (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Miri on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:48:46 PM EST
    McCain will likely win Michigan as well.

    [ Parent ]
    More chance there than PA (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:54:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think that McCain has a shot at PA... (none / 0) (#34)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:02:34 PM EST
    but (speaking as a Pennsylvanian) what is more important is that PA could be close enough for Obama to have to spend time and resources here just to keep it blue.  

    This year, the Democratic candidate shouldn't be worried about "must win" blue states.  The idea that Pennsylvania could be in play shows just how weak a candidate Obama is....

    [ Parent ]

    it seems obama just might need (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:39:45 PM EST
    coat tails in the opposite direction.

    [ Parent ]
    PA will be too close for any sort of comfort (none / 0) (#52)
    by kempis on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:45:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    PA polls will be interesting (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:53:58 PM EST
    after Hillary is not picked as VP.  My guess is Obama ultimately loses PA because he will not be able to get those gun-clinging hunters and the bitter knitters to return to the Dem fold.  He will reap what he has sown.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:17:25 PM EST
    if the downward trend continues for Obama it is likely that he would lose PA. He behind where Kerry was 4 years ago and doesn't have the connections to the state that Kerry did. Also, the population there is older which doesn't bode well for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Colorado? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dissenter on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:24:30 PM EST
    Only is a fantasy election. Not. Gonna. Happen. BTD.

    [ Parent ]
    and if obama takes the solid south (none / 0) (#62)
    by sancho on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:10:26 PM EST
    and utah it will be a landslide!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    obama won't be taking the south. (none / 0) (#65)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:34:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    or utah or the dakotas or montana (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sancho on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 11:47:10 PM EST
    or any of the repub. states he "won" in the primary. and he may not take kerry states either. i have him beating dukakis' record. but i'm an optimist by nature.

    [ Parent ]
    I remember when, oh so long ago (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    I remember when Obama was going to change the map. He was going to sweep the West and take some states in the South because it was clear, Obama would take  votes from Republicans and the AA vote would flip red states into blue states in the South.  The idea that he would be competitive in MN was unthinkable to those who believed.  Brazile said it best with her declaration that the old coalition was out and a new order had emerged.

    How... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Brillo on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:25:20 PM EST
    Is Kerry doing 11 points better amongst Blacks than Obama?

    BTD redid the numbers. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:26:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So Kaine is the one? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:25:24 PM EST
    I just posted about Hillary being from Illinois, too. Do you think this could be a last minute switch considering he really does need her? If they kicked off their unity event in Unity, NH, wouldn't they kick off their campaign together in Illinois? (I know, I know.)

    Hillary hasn't (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by tek on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:45:19 PM EST
    claimed to be from IL since she went to Arkansas with Bill. Now of course she's senator from NY, so it seems doubtful she would want to play up the IL roots.

    Having lived in IL all my life, I just think it's a hoot that he's going to announce in Springfield.

    [ Parent ]

    it's not like she claimed (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:57:42 PM EST
    to be from Kansas, Illinois, Hawaii AND Indonesia ... depending on what day it was and which audience he was speaking to.

    [ Parent ]
    I know (none / 0) (#51)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:44:50 PM EST
    I should have replied to that Poster and not you.  Sorry.

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Huh. I've heard her proudly talk (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    about her Illinois upbringing and her years at camp in the state of Upnorth, too.  (That's the Chicago name for my state.:-)  Some wonderful stories.

    But then, I've been listening to her for a long time.

    [ Parent ]

    Fantasy Land (none / 0) (#17)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:43:08 PM EST
    In my opinion, Teresa. Think of what a "last-minute switch" at this point would mean.

    The candidate was picked some days ago. Perhaps farther. He or she was tapped and they've been making plans together for the announcement and scheduling.

    You can't just jilt someone because new poll numbers come out. It creates bad will, rumors, etc. Moreover, there's a momentum to the thing that's hard to reverse.

    Overconfidence has characterized Obama all the way along. No doubt it is characterizing him again, whoever he chose -- and it is past tense.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree (none / 0) (#3)
    by nell on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:25:52 PM EST
    I am from Indiana and I think he will do quite well in the very liberal areas of the state, but I don't think he is going to do much better than John Kerry. I keep hearing people say he will turn Indiana blue...Indiana has not been blue since LBJ, I don't think, and it doesn't seem likely that Obama will be the man to turn it blue when he didn't even win the primary.

    That being said, a good friend of mine was at a party with a republican pollster from Indiana and he said that while right now they are seeing the state as solid for McCain, if Bayh was the VP, they would not be confident..I agree with this assessment. People, republicans too, really do like Bayh around here and I think he might get quite a few votes through Bayh...

    One more point I want to make is that the pollsters got the percentage of African Americans participating in the primary very wrong. Most estimated about 10 percent, while the actual turnout was 15-17 percent, which is what explained the difference between polling numbers and the closer than expected election result. Obviously, the percentage of African Americans going up alone cannot win the state for Obama, but my point is only that I expect the number to be more like 9 percent than 6 percent (I believe African Americans make up 8-9 percent of the population here).

    77-19? (none / 0) (#5)
    by dianem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:26:50 PM EST
    Are there more black Republicans than I had previously thought, or has Obama's support dropped among that particular demographic?

    I keep seeing these weird numbers... (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM EST
    for black voters everywhere.  I don't buy them, however, in terms of November -- but they strongly suggest a decent sized chunk of black voters see Obama as a rish to black progress (i.e. a failed 'first black president" would make progress more, not less, difficult) rather than a symbol of it.  

    [ Parent ]
    that's EXACTLY (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:03:12 PM EST
    what my AA friends keep telling me!

    They want to see a black President, but they want to see someone who's up-to-the-job and didn't "win" a Primary through obviously questionable means.  They want someone who they'll be proud of, with experience, intelligence, humility and sensitivity and a history in government which makes his or her run for the White House make sense.

    And, in their minds, Obama's not it.  Not even close.

    They don't trust him, they don't like him and, as one of my friends said, she wouldn't want him for dog catcher let alone President.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, this is just anecdotal as well, but I've (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by derridog on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:16:52 PM EST
    been seeing a number of black commenters on various blogs talking about why they won't vote for Obama.  Then there's the Black Agenda Report, which is fabulous. Maybe they are being heard in the black community finally.

    Is anyone on here black who can speak to this? Is Obama losing support in your view?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not AA, but I do read the Black Agenda Report. (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:24:11 AM EST
    In general, they do not support Obama, and are frustrated with many AAs who just accept him unconditionally.

    Maybe some things are changing in the AA community, but I think that Obama can count on their support, for the most part.

    The editors at BAR catch lots of flack from AAs who like Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    i think many resent the strong arm (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by hellothere on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:34:58 PM EST
    tactics on some other popular aa's such as tavis smiley and jesse jackson. it is not appreciated.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, so right. (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:41:17 PM EST
    And, like many others, a lot of his AA primary supporters saw his World Tour as premature and poorly-executed.

    My building manager, an AA woman, was livid and said he'd have been better off addressing bread-and-butter issues in his homeland than rubbing shoulders and taking pictures with world leaders in scenic places.

    She said her family and many of her neighbors are ashamed of voting for him in the Primaries and will sit it out in November because he turned his back on the platforms he stood on to get their votes.

    Needless to say, she said she was personally sorry she didn't cast her vote for Hillary, whom she voted for in her first run for Senate when she was living in NY state.

    [ Parent ]

    I always adjust the numbers (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:56:12 PM EST
    but I do what others do not - adjust the white undecided numbers.

    [ Parent ]
    Sample Size? (2.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Brillo on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    Blacks make up a pretty small proportion of the sample, I'm going to guess it's probably just a wrong.  

    [ Parent ]
    This post (none / 0) (#6)
    by NJDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:27:06 PM EST
    speaks for itself.  It's definitely not Bayh.

    But I still can't believe he'd choose Kaine, especially in light of events in Georgia.  Not Biden, Clinton (or any other woman), Kerry (they can't be stupid enough)...  

    Who's left?  Seriously.    

    I pray this game is over tomorrow.  Seriosly.    

    Who is left? (none / 0) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:32:34 PM EST
    Hagel.

    [ Parent ]
    I know (none / 0) (#13)
    by NJDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:36:39 PM EST
    I keep thinking that too, but really?  Really?

    And with this news that JM is seriously considering Lieberman??  Everything is topsy-turvy!  

    (The Lieberman story contradicts the news out of the JM camp that the VP will be anti-choice, but it's still out there...)

    [ Parent ]

    Remember (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:39:59 PM EST
    that Obama said living in Indonesia as a child qualified him on foreign policy. He's also said that he doesn't want a VP that will shore up his weakness because he "has none."

    Kaine makes perfect sense if you put yourself in the Obama mindset. However, I think he's a net negative like Sebelius would be. Biden might be a slight plus. Richardsons would be nothing but a huge drag. Hillary is out of the equation.

    [ Parent ]

    Have any of the maybes been to Mexico? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:11:18 PM EST
    Even shopping in Tijuana for an hour?

    Obama has not been south of the border, according to a piece I read by a Mexicana in California who was quite critical of that and said it could cost him votes in that constituency.

    Of course, he's been to Puerto Rico on vacation but a few months ago, so that may help with some other Latinos/as.  But you'd think he could have caught a flight connecting through Cancun or something.  There are hundreds of them every day. :-)

    So some VP with heritage and/or connections across the Rio Grande could be, well, grand.  But not, not, not Richardson.

    [ Parent ]

    Kaine is fluent in Spanish. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:35:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Another poll,another day... (none / 0) (#24)
    by JThomas on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:50:54 PM EST
    I have never heard any Obama campaign folks indicate they think this will be a landslide. Just overexuberant supporters say stuff like that in a 45-45 country.
    I think if Bayh was selected as the VP candidate Obama would have a good shot at Indiana.
    But I doubt he will be so Indiana is going to be tough but still winnable. Saying flatly that someone can guarantee results 76 days out from election day seems like a reach. In 76 days, many events can occur that could impact the race.

    If you are replying to a comment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 06:53:57 PM EST
    reply to it.

    There is nothing about landslides in my post.

    I say Indiana is not in play. Talk about that UNLESS you are replying to someone  in which case do actually hit the reply button please.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree about Indiana and do think (none / 0) (#70)
    by kenosharick on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:21:25 PM EST
    Obama has a good shot at Penn and Mich, but think Nv,Iowa,Co,and New Mexico could all go either way.Instead of "changing the map," the strategy should have been what Clinton's would've been: Kerry states + one (or more).

    [ Parent ]
    Yup, forget it (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 08:42:52 PM EST


    Wake up (none / 0) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    Here is the website with Indiana's presidential elections going back to 1816.  It's as red as they come.
    http://www.270towin.com/states/Indiana

    McCain is the incumbent (none / 0) (#69)
    by denise k on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    Lots of people don't get serious about deciding who to vote for until the last few weeks before the election.  And when seriousness kicks in and an incumbent is still below 50%, then he is in big trouble, because those people who have not already decided for the incumbent are likely to break the other way.  This means that if Obama can successfully paint McCain as McBush (and it is hard for me to imagine a scenario where he can't do that), McCain needs to be above 50% by the last couple weeks of the campaign.  If he is not, even if he leads Obama, he loses.  

    For this reason, the 50% support for McCain will be worrisome, if it is still there in October.  Until then, get out and register one new Democrat to vote this week.

    He's not the incumbant. The trends for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:30:32 PM EST
    are bad.  He had a huge electoral advantage just a couple of months ago.  He's wasted that.

    [ Parent ]
    What huge electoral advantage? (none / 0) (#72)
    by denise k on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:36:42 PM EST
    That is what I am not seeing.  It is too early to say he has squandered anything.  Despite all of the publicity from the negative hits on Obama, McCain still has not made significant progress.  As long as he stays under 50, I am not going to worry.  I think people are going to break away from him because he IS the incumbent for all practical purposes.  

    [ Parent ]
    Follow the polling trends, buddy. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:43:07 PM EST
    He was looking at beating McCain by 70+ electoral votes.  

    [ Parent ]
    ah ha (none / 0) (#73)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:42:17 PM EST

    not only is this silly, the theory was disproven in the 2004 election

    I will say thought that August polling info doesnt mean much. Other then there has been a lot of money wasted.

    [ Parent ]

    No, he isn't. nt (none / 0) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 10:52:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Incumbents (none / 0) (#81)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:12:13 PM EST
    Even assuming McCain is seen as the "incumbent," which I don't really understand, isn't the opposite true?? Don't undecideds who wait until late in the game switch for either the incumbent or the more familiar candidate? Either way that's a plus for McCain not Obama.

    SUSA IN Poll: McCain By 6 | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment