Zogby: McCain By 5; Battleground Poll: McCain By 1

Update [2008-8-20 10:4:28 by Big Tent Democrat]: Battleground Poll has McCain by 1, 47-46.

Boy, is John Zogby shameless. He'll massage his numbers anyway he can to get attention. And he does so in his latest Presidential poll:

In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.

Obviously, the race has tightened, but Zogby needs some attention so he releases this. The man is a charlatan, not a pollster.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Morning Early Birds Open Thread | Too Close To Call? Now What? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:44:54 AM EST
    well, you reap what you sow. Obama supporters continually touted his polls in the primary (I know not you BTD) instead of pointing out how bad Zogby is.

    BTW, are you still going to post on the LAT poll?

    I added the result (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:46:44 AM EST
    I'll look inside the number at some point today.

    I am reliably informed (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:48:07 AM EST
    that anyone who says things aren't going that great for Obama is a concern troll.  So, there you have it.  John Zogby, concern troll.

    Getting to be a big group (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:53:46 AM EST
    But Zogby is a charlatan, you must know that. I have been telling people this for 4 years, but some love him when he tells them what they want to hear.

    I suspect you are right (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:18:36 AM EST
    His numbers are always just so convenient.  Whatever conventional wisdom thinks the trend is, Zogby's new poll always lurches dramatically in that direction.

    BTD.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:05:28 AM EST
    don't you think its a tad disingenous to suggest that he's releasing this now, considering the fact that Reuters has contracted for monthly polling -- and that all the major polling organizations are releasing stuff right now (before the conventions?)

    Are you really suggesting that Zogby massaged the data to come up with this outcome?  That he changed his methodology?


    I have said that he does it (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:28:42 AM EST
    all the time for 4 years.

    so yes, that is exactly what I am saying.


    The timing of the release is not what is (none / 0) (#34)
    by JoeA on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:50:26 AM EST
    suspect, it's the fact that the numbers are massaged to get the frontpage Drudge splash.  If his poll showed a tied race or Obama by a point or two he gets nowhere near the impact or coverage as if he suddenly comes up with a significant McCain lead.

    The fact that it is a likely voter screen means he can massage those figures any way he wants.


    are we seeing the media begin the (none / 0) (#113)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:19:21 AM EST
    right turn that has been expected?

    Heh (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:56:38 AM EST
    they're back to that talking point now.

    Shame on Obama (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:07:32 AM EST
    "seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday".

    If this is true, Obama is failing miserably. How anyone can feel the Republican's are better at handling the economy? Look at where we are after 8 yrs of Rep leadership. Obama and the Dem's  should own this issue. (as well as the energy issue) I know Obama doesn't believe in touting the 90's but he needs to wake up and face reality. This will be the issue that decides the election.

    This is (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:09:44 AM EST
    what happens when you are running for Jimmy Carter's second term and not Bill Clinton's third.

    Yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:26:35 AM EST
    That horrible Jimmy Carter.
    How dare he be president during the Iranian Revolution and ensuing oil crisis!
    He dare he install Paul Volker as fed chairman and stop the rising inflation caused by the oil crisis!
    How dare he negotiate peace between Eqypt and Isreal, establish the Department of Energy,  come up with the first comprehensive energy plan, deregulate airlines, ect, ect.

    If you want to slander Jimmy Carter, please try Free Republic or RedState. You'll be in god company.

    The thing I always find so amazingly ironic is that if Reagan, Bush(s) and, yes, Clinton, had followed Carter's energy plan, we'd have none of the energy problems we have today.


    I'm (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:33:44 AM EST
    sorry but Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide that many voters are old enough to remember. Yes, he had bad things happen to him but he certainly didn't help himself one iota.

    Jimmy Carter (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:43:19 AM EST
    is a very smart man. Unfortunately, he did his thinking in public. Sometimes letting people into your thought processes as you work through multiple possible solutions to a problem sends the erroneous message that you are indecisive. It also lets everyone in on the solutions that you didn't choose giving everyone a crack at armchair quarterbacking. If his attempt to rescue the hostages had succeeded, the history of his presidency would have been written quite differently. He couldn't share his thinking on that one, appeared to move in a sharply decisive way, and failed. So the perception became that when he did make decisions in a "presidential way", he didn't make good ones. But if he had been re-elected, there would still be solar panels on the roof on the White House, and our energy policies would look quite different today.

    and of course one jey reason that carter (none / 0) (#66)
    by sancho on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:16:14 AM EST
    did not get to free the hostages is that republicans, led by by the current president's father, undermined his efforts. the republicans did not want to see those hostages released until reagan was safely installed as president. see kevin phillips' book about the bushes. it is true, though, that obama is using some of the same foreign policy people as carter--specifically the team that helped empower bin laden to fight the russians.

    Jimmy Carter was Republican Light (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by esmense on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:18:14 AM EST
    He was, in fact, the only Democrat every single one of my extremely conservative family members (Springfield, MO) ever voted for.

    He started us down the road to deregulation, ignored the economic implications of growing automation, and was happy to let the rust belt rust away.


    Obama's Jedi Master (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:23:04 AM EST
    Didn't Carter ALSO run on the theme that as an "outsider" he would bring Change[tm] to Washington?

    Carter's admin brought on the Reagan Revolution, millions of Dems crossing party lines, even switching to the other party.


    Republican Light, My Foot (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    He initiated programs of energy conservation and alternative technology development that were unplugged by Reagan and never re-visited by any successive administration.

    If only that part of his presidential legacy had been realized, we'd have a great deal to thank him for today. Instead, we have the deeper hole to dig out of: 30 heedless years deeper.


    He was totally correct in terms of energy (none / 0) (#106)
    by esmense on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:04:40 AM EST
    policy -- but his huge failures elsewhere (especially his failure to understand, care about and respond to other long term economic developments that would inevitably undermine the economic and political power of average workers -- and therefore the middle class and those who were striving to join the middle class), along with his perceived weakness in foreign policy, undermined his efforts. His failures made Reagan possible.

    I'm Not Sure That Any President (none / 0) (#119)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    would have been equal to a better handling of just the Iran hostage crisis. Maybe.

    But that steady drumbeat of Day whatever every day on the created-to-cover-the-Iran-hostage-crisis tv show Nightline and elsewhere really sank his chances.

    I think that, more than all of his other weaknesses handed Reagan the election.

    And yeah, Carter had many weaknesses as CinC. He wasn't then and isn't now a favorite president of mine. I just wish that one thing he got right--energy--had prevailed.  


    Carter was very good on human rights (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    He cut off military aid to the military dictatorship Guatemala.  Reagan reinstituted it.  The result was genocide.

    Peaceful man (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:42:58 AM EST
    Carter is the only president who didn't get the US into a war, other than Eisenhower, in recent memory.  If being a man of peace is being a bad president, I'll take bad presidents anytime.  The facts are that, just like today we reap the economic consequences of the Iraq War, Carter reaped the consequences of the Vietnam War, which by the way was more of a drain economically than Iraq.

    Jimma Obama (none / 0) (#56)
    by koshembos on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:10:38 AM EST
    All the different numbers are basically meaningless at this stage. The trend, however, is significant. Obama shows that absent the media hate for the Clintons, and the same hate of his  supporters, he is clueless about how to run for president.

    As for Jimma, he was a tiny part of the peace accord between Egypt and Israel. Most the credit goes to President Saddat of Egypt who decide to stop the stupid war and showed up in Israel at the parliament and gave one of the most amazing peace offering in the heart of Israel. The rest was basically bean counting with Begin, Israel's prime minister, rising up to the occasion.


    Some simply speak idiocy (none / 0) (#125)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:45:28 AM EST
    Ouch (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lahdee on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:11:55 AM EST
    Hope we don't run into any of those rabid rabbits.

    Ah yes, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:50:47 AM EST
    the "Night of the Lepus" canoe trip. Where's Stuart Whitman when you need him?

    at least those were giant bunnies (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:58:00 AM EST
    (what a great movie)

    ouch! (none / 0) (#16)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:23:05 AM EST
    that's gonna leave a mark!



    Excellent, Ga6th! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:49:19 AM EST
    Ten points to you!

    There's a Brit article in the Spectator (none / 0) (#108)
    by laurie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:08:37 AM EST
    which touches on the Jimmy Carter question:
    Obama’s knee-jerk reactions to foreign policy questions on the campaign trail are not auspicious. Indeed it sometimes looks like Obama is set on making the same mistakes, in the same order, and (witness the necromantic return of Zbigniew Brzezinski) even with some of the same people, as Jimmy Carter. Such a retread could be disastrous and haunting for his party’s attempt to recover any reputation as a manager of foreign affairs

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/892826/part_3/america-is-still-the-nation-whose-eye s-say-yes.thtml

    You're absolutely right. (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Shainzona on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:03:08 AM EST
    What in the world has BO been doing these past three months relative to the economy?  Not.  One.  Damn.  Thing.

    But neither has McCain.  HOWEVER, you would think he has by the ads, press, stay-at-home-and-tend-the-homefires campaign he's been running.



    I think you nailed it (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    I think it is 'The Experience Stupid' that this race is boiling down to.

    That came into more focus during the Saddleback Forum. One talking head said something close to: "Obama came off as someone you'd enjoy sharing a drink with, McCain as someone you'd hire as CEO"


    I don't want either of these people (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    to be president, and while McCain may have more experience, I'm not so sure I would want him to be the CEO of any company I had money invested in.

    There's pretty much nothing that McCain and I agree on, so I could never vote for him, even if I held my nose, stopped up my ears and put on a blindfold.

    But I can't vote for Obama, either; there was a time when I thought I could hold my nose and vote for Obama, but those days are over.  The things he says , the people he seems to have ideological common bonds with, the disrespect for core Democratic principles, his evermore right-leaning on abortion, his injection of faith into politics - how is he a Democrat?

    The choices for president are abysmal, but I will vote downticket Dems who represent the positions and ideals I hold; if they don't measure up, they won't get my vote.  The Republican opponent will not be the beneficiary of my vote - I just will not waste it on either candidate.  I don't spend money just to spend money, I don't eat just because the food is there, and I will not vote just because I can.


    What's Obama Been Doing? (none / 0) (#97)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:40:18 AM EST
    'relative' to the economy?

    Why, everything a candidate is supposed to do--indeed, all that a candidate is ALLOWED to do until they're...you know...elected president.

    He's had ads out there online and on tv. He's put out position papers. It's all easy to find and review. If you're really interested.

    On the other hand, I was kind of surprised to learn from your post that McCain has some ads out there that focus on the economy. I thought all his ads were about how fabulously popular, what a 'celebrity', Obama is.


    joe sixpack isn't going to "review" (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    obama's position papers. and you know what there are a lot of voters who qualify as "joe sixpack". you might remember they were told by the hapless brazile not to come to the party since all the kool kids didn't want them.

    So Joe and Jane Sixpack (none / 0) (#122)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:35:37 AM EST
    will see the many, many ads running.

    But I think you might be selling Joe and Jane short.

    When they DO start paying attention to this race--which probably won't be until well after the conventions--they can hear the material in the position papers in speeches on the news and, again, in the many, many ads. or they may also get to see it in the mailings from their unions or from the Obama campaign.

    BTW, if we're going to look at this through the eyes and experience of Joe and Jane, I'll bet neither of them have a clue who Brazile is or what she may or may not have invited them to do.


    please understand I don't (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    sell them short, however i firmly without any doubt believe the obama campaign and the so called democratic leaders sure as heck do.

    by the times the repubs are through (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    with this campaign i can assure you that joe and jane will know who brazile is and will dislike her. what's to like? the answer  is not much.

    Could Be (none / 0) (#131)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    Personally, I don't care about her one way or the other.

    But my sense is the average voter is much, much more concerned with who is going to lower prices, raise employment, secure decent access to health care and good education etc.

    If Obama convinces them that's him. That's who they'll vote for. Their worried eyes aren't trained on who did what about the primaries, the caucuses etc. That's the kind of insider stuff that's irrelevant to them esp. when they have real live day to day problems to wrestle with.


    well sad to say he doesn't look at (none / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    present obama is convincing them. let's see how the convention goes.

    Time Will Tell (none / 0) (#135)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    At best, I'm always only cautiously optimistic after believing the Dems would win the last two times.

    The current bumps in polling hold both positive and negative reads.

    But it doesn't matter, because I am always preparing myself for the worst while working/hoping for the best.


    you sound like a long time, seasoned (none / 0) (#136)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:46:02 PM EST

    Worse (none / 0) (#137)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    a long time seasoned Independent with 'no where else to go.'

    Except when I did (go elsewhere, that is. Or not vote top ticket).

    That's why--though I support Obama and wish everyone would--I can't in all conscience scold people for not doing so.

    Been scolded that way all my voting life and know how insulting it feels when peole say that to you and you don't buy it.


    I understand your general quarrel with (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:48:39 AM EST
    Zogby - I've had the same sense myself - but I would be more in agreement with you in this instance if Zogby was showing something the other polls were not - namely, that McCain is not closing the gap, that Obama's favorable/unfavorable numbers are not moving in the wrong direction - but alas, the polls are all trending in the same direction.

    A trend is a trend is a trend, it seems to me, and if you took the names off all the recent polls, including this one, and just looked at the results, I think you might be hard-pressed to identify which one was Zogby.

    What is more troubling, I think, than what Zogby or these other polls are showing, is the Obama campaign's inability to reverse the trend or change their approach, which may be due in large part to the fact that the strategy that worked in the primary is ineffective in the general - and they never thought they would need more than a primary strategy.  

    As more than a few people pointed out, you can't be all about post-partisanship and sucking up to Republicans and blurring the differences, and then attack them for those differences without being revealed as a world-class hypocrite.

    Zogby has McCain up 5 (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:59:33 AM EST
    Not closing the gap.

    But across the spectrum of polls, (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:14:59 AM EST
    there used to be a gap - Obama used to be ahead - that gap has now either disappeared into a statistical tie, or it has flipped to McCain being ahead - the only differences are in the margins.  Zogby's margins are ahead of the other polls' national numbers, but they seem to be in line with and mirror more of the state polls.  The trend is there, and in my opinion, Obama is losing his ability to take control of the trend and turn it in his favor.

    If Zogby had polled that Obama had a lead that was increasing (McCain failing to close the gap), had rising favorables, etc., that would stand out like a sore thumb and be considered junk - but he didn't.

    Doesn't mean I think Zogby is a polling oracle, but this poll is just not outside the realm of credible, given what we are seeing in other, more reliable polls.


    these Poll numbers (none / 0) (#48)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:04:13 AM EST
    don't surprise me, though, as the Democratic Primary voters said loud and clear who they wanted as their Nominee from March onward.  And the Party -- THEIR Party! -- ignored them, so the majority of the voters don't have a strong attachment to Obama winning.

    They should, of course, as a Dem in the White House is almost always better than a Republican.  But they're not responding to Obama because he assumes he has our vote, has publicly stated he really won't work for it and some of us have been told our votes really aren't needed in the "new" Democratic Party, so ... is it any wonder Obama's support is soft and he's tanking?

    Add to all of that that a surprising amount of people are just sick to death of seeing him and Voila! these poll numbers make perfect sense.

    And he's not even the Official Nominee yet!

    My partner strongly believes they'll be calling the race for McCain on Election Night at 11 PM EST.


    Rasmussen has another poll out today that (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:59:30 AM EST
    gives McCain a 5 point lead in Ohio. It's larger when they include leaners. Obama is currently losing the electoral college vote.

    Proving once again (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:04:48 AM EST
    that Bill Clinton's adage "strong and wrong" will beat "weak and right" everytime. It never ceases to amaze me how the "party elite" who has continually lost numerous elections somehow they "know better" than the smartest politician the Dems have had in decades. We deserve to lose to McCain.

    Yep, (none / 0) (#94)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:38:18 AM EST
    there's also the saying, "you can't beat somebody with nobody." McCain, whatever else one may say about him, IS running as somebody--he's taking strong (dare one say insane) positions on numerous major issues out there, and even his superficially non-conservative ones are used to highlight his "maverick" image, so he wins on both counts. Obama, OTOH, deliberately ran in the primaries as "nobody" (remember his "Blank slate" comment), and is now finding it very difficult to define himself. I see another election slipping away.

    More concerning is Ras Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:00:17 AM EST
    which shows McCain up about as much there as in Florida.

    One wonders if these icky poll numbers (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:07:30 AM EST
    have come in time for Obama to think very seriously again about his VP.

    I doubt it, but I really don't care to lose this election.

    Ralph agrees with me (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:09:40 AM EST

    "I don't think he's that dumb," said Nader, commenting on widespread speculation that Obama's choices are down to Sens. Joe Biden or Evan Bayh, or Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

    The smart pick, according to Nader, is Hillary Rodham Clinton.


    What does he know? (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:10:55 AM EST
    not sure what he knows (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:15:04 AM EST
    but I know he sounds more reasonable to me by the day.

    Um, if people could compliment (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dk on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    Sam Nunn (Sam Nunn, for Spaghetti Monster's sake!) for stating common sense yesterday, I think we can do the same for Ralph today.

    a-freakin-men (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:39:36 AM EST
    Bill Maher...... (none / 0) (#85)
    by michitucky on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    Last night on Larry King, Bill Maher said almost the exact same thing......Obama must choose HRC as VP......With the preface that the ruthlessness of the Clintons is needed!!!

    Poor Bill, he was a little disheartened to see Obama follow the same Republican Lite path that Kerry took......Admitted that Bill Clinton is the only Dem who can talk to the common man!!!


    it has really become almost (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:46:00 AM EST
    conventional wisdom.  that if he wants to win he will pick Hillary.  you hear it everywhere.

    andgarden (none / 0) (#109)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:09:09 AM EST
    That decision was made days ago, probably weeks ago, before any of these dismal numbers came out. They've been working together, coordinating schedules, and the VP has already made plans put the rest of his/her life on hold to do th campaign.

    I think it's highly unlikely he would shaft whoever the VP is because of a oouple of polls. That would create enormous ill will with the candidate and his team. And it would inevitably create rumors of indecision and betrayal ... more "under the bus" stuff.


    none of which matters (none / 0) (#110)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:16:10 AM EST
    if he loses in November.

    sure (none / 0) (#123)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    but I don't think he thinks he will

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:21:29 AM EST
    to wonder if Obama's tanking will start to affect down ticket races. Since I never thought that Obama would be able to pull off a win in Nov. none of this surprises me but it raises lots of concern on my part as to how he's going to damage the party as a whole.

    yes (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:22:48 AM EST
    that is my big worry as well.  I always thought that the only good thing about this election would be making gains in the congress.  I wonder if that is going to happen.

    The Deomcrats are an embarrassment (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:33:34 AM EST
    The level of cluelessness is criminal.  They are putting hundreds of downticket races in jeopardy with their reckless support of a losing candidate.  How can we trust ANY Democrat when they are willing to throw away everything they've ever stood for?  There is no excuse for it whn a perfectly suitable alternative is still viable.

    Congratulations (none / 0) (#96)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:39:45 AM EST
    on your invitation to speak in Denver!

    Er, thanks? (none / 0) (#101)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:48:49 AM EST
    It will be mercifully short.  Only 2-4 minutes.  I think that's as long as I can sustain anyone's attention.

    You'll be great. (none / 0) (#118)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:26:04 AM EST
    He has never... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:36:23 AM EST
    He has never cared about the party. That's a huge problem with his campaign and has been since the beginning. It underlies the refusal to contrast Republican vs. Democratic ideology, it shows up in the jaw-droppingly pro-life bent of the convention lineup, it shows up in his subsuming local Democratic groups under the Obama umbrella. It explains his refusal to praise past Democratic achievements while heaping glowing praise on, for instance, "the party of ideas" (Republicans) and the foreign-policy wisdom of Reagan and Bush I. It explains why he would happily take Democratic Senators from their-hard won seats in Virginia as his VP.

    I have never believed that Obama was truly a liberal or a Democrat. I think he wanted to be in politics and figured that the Democratic Party would be more receptive to a young black man from Chicago than the Republican party would. I haven't seen anything in his past actions or words that indicate a true belief in liberal Democratic views. I have always thought he'd actually be more comfortable, ideologically, in the Republican Party. The Democratic Party means nothing to him beyond a vehicle of personal ambition. He doesn't care if he wrecks the party because it means nothing to him--from what I can see. Contrast this with Hillary, who is loyal to the party despite the massive betrayal it inflicted on her.

    "MORE receptive"? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:41:26 AM EST
    How many prominent black Chicago Republicans do you know, my friend? Hell, how many Chicago Republicans, period? It's like being a Wolverines fan at OSU.

    Sorry to be so dumb.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Shainzona on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:06:50 AM EST
    but isn't that a 12 point swing since the last measure?

    its a 12 point shift in margin... (none / 0) (#17)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:25:11 AM EST
    but what it represents is a change in the preferences of 6% of voters.

    The previous poll (July 9-13) showed Obama with 47%, McCain with 40%.  Its now 41% Obama, 46% McCain.

    Other polls taken at around the same time had Obama up by various amounts...

    CBS Obama 45%  McCain 39%
    ABC/WP Obama 49%  McCain 46%
    Newsweek Obama 44% McCain 41%

    etc.  The big difference here is that all of the other polls were of "registered" voters, whereas Zogby is using "likely voters".

    And its far easier to "adjust" your likely voter numbers than it is to play with your registered voter numbers -- so I'm really curious whether Zogby used the same 'likely voter' model this month as last month....


    Odd sentiment (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:28:16 AM EST
    And its far easier to "adjust" your likely voter numbers than it is to play with your registered voter numbers

    Because I've always ignored polls that don't use "likely voters". They haven't been as accurate


    I think what Paul means is (none / 0) (#28)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:38:57 AM EST
    its easier for the pollster to fiddle with the definition of 'likely voter' (each polling company has their own definition and they don't usually make their models public) than registered voter.

    I was under the impression that (none / 0) (#37)
    by JoeA on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:51:28 AM EST
    "Likely Voter" screens this far out from the election are pure guesswork and the RV numbers are more reliable, at least until closer to polling day.

    Yeah, that does make sense (none / 0) (#42)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:59:19 AM EST
    neither are predictive... (none / 0) (#59)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:12:31 AM EST
    Rather than use the word "accurate", a better word is "predictive".

    While registered voter polls can be 100% accurate, they can never be considered "predictive", because the demographics of actual voters and registered voters are almost always significantly different.

    The predictive value of likely voter models have as much, if not more, to do with the models themselves than with timeframes.  During the primaries, I saw quite a few "late" polls that were far more accurate in terms of how demographic categories would vote than with the overall results because the turnout model that was used was off by a few percentage points in key demographic categories.


    Thanks, Paul. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Shainzona on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:58:32 AM EST
    I'm no expert on polling, but I am (none / 0) (#51)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:04:57 AM EST
    somewhat qualified to identify spin and I've always gotten the feeling that Zogby is a spinner.

    Having said that, there are a lot of Obama folks counting on likely voters - as they tell it there is a huge number of young people who only have cell phones all of whom will turn out for Obama on election day that will according to some of these hopeful folks make up for any deficits in Obama's numbers.  

    All I can say is that I hope these people do exist and will show up to the polls for Obama - but I'd be a whole lot more comfortable with this race as it stands if someone could prove these cell phone weilding young people exist.


    That (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:08:59 AM EST
    whole meme was destroyed in 2004. Fact of the matter is, most reputable pollsters adjust their numbers for that fact. There are no "magical voters" who aren't showing up in polls but will show up in Nov. The best argument is that a pollsters "likely voter" screen is off the mark.

    You talking about MTVs GOTV that didn't show up? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:15:51 AM EST
    Don't tell me the voter fairy doesn't (none / 0) (#103)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:53:08 AM EST
    exist!  I can't handle that. ;)

    Yeah, but is BO reading BTD? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lahdee on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:08:50 AM EST
    "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama sharpened his message Tuesday night in Raleigh, seeking to tie the nation's troubled economy around the neck of his Republican opponent, John McCain."
    "Raise your hands," Obama said. "How many people think you are better off than you were eight years ago?"

    Oh and Zogby...agreed, he's shameless.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:11:59 AM EST
    Obama continually tries to make it personal. It's not personal. The problem isn't Bush or McCain, it's their ideology--conservative ideology is a disaster and will continue to be a disaster. He's not making this case and the case that Democrats are better on the economy. More ineptness from the Obama campaign.

    with strong echos (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:22:19 AM EST
    of Bill Clinton thrown in for good measure.

    Yeah, that same Bill Clinton Obama threw under the bus.  If Obama was better doing the Politician Pivot, he could make this work.  But he's not.  And people are immediately reminded of Obama and his surrogates playing the racist card against him.  

    This question if "you're better off than you were eight years ago" are just words his advisers have told him would be good to say without the sincerity and sensitivity to back them up.  When Bill asked if you were better off than you were four years ago, you knew he KNEW what your life and struggles were like and you knew without a doubt he knew how to fix it and make life better.  There's nothing about Obama that gives one that sense.  With him, it just falls flat.

    As for Zogby, wasn't he the Pollster who had Obama winning the CA Primary by 10 points?  (hint:  Obama lost by 10 points)  I've always thought he was a "me, too!  me, too!" charlatan.


    You CAN'T make the case (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:58:43 AM EST
    and still claim to be "post partisan." Attacking isn't going to work for Obama because he tied himself to the "unity schtick." Then again he's in trouble anyway. What's he gonna say, Bush is an awful leader but I voted with him on FISA and to give him war funding and oh Cheney's energy policy was okay. He's gonna get hit anyway because he has basically been a go along to get along player in Congress IMO.

    The sad thing is that a VP choice might be able to make his case for him but he doesn't have one. So many opportunities lost, so little time.


    Oh (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:02:12 AM EST
    I agree with what you are saying 100% and it's why I thought Obama's schtick was a losing proposition from the get go. I was amazed that so many people who absolutely hated W. now had no problem with wanting to hold hands with him now.

    He can't until he gets out of the (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:11:52 AM EST
    Post Partisan corner he has painted himself into.  Much of his campaign has been geared towards dissassociating himself with the Democratic Party - which might have made sense in every contest before this one - but the Dem brand has a lot of cache value that he has simply walked away from.  In any case, he can't hammer "The Republicans" and "conservative ideology" without being a Democrat.

    I think you are spot on it not being "personal" - but he's running as the Lone Ranger and we still don't even have a Tonto in the picture yet.  It is time for Obama to draw on the strengths of the team rather than so wilfully going it alone.


    How is (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:16:25 AM EST
    he going to get out of that corner? I don't think he can. He's invested too much time and energy into the "It's all about Me" mindset. Yeah, well, the GOP sends him a big fat kiss and a bouquet of flowers for that one.

    I am not sure how he can. (none / 0) (#99)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    It would have been a smoother adjustment if his campaign had tried to engineer it a few weeks ago when he still had positive momentum.  He's back on his heels a bit right now, but we are going into this convention and starting to be a Democrat would make sense in that venue if he was smart enough to do it.

    Obama's ideology and McCain's (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    aren't that far apart. Put "faith" in the mix and they still aren't that far apart. Plus both on the social issues are similar except one is (almost)pro-choice vs. pro-life. Every time Obama makes it "personal" McCain knows how to hit back and McCain looks like the grown-up doing it(referehce Obama's speech yesterday regarding patriotism).

    I didn't see that (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lahdee on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    in the McClatchy piece. The writer did attach it to McCain, but as quoted not Obama. Regardless, I agree, it's not about John Sidney, it's about debunking the economic ideology of the right.

    What if Obama had asked them, (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:27:01 AM EST
    "If I'm elected, how many of you think you will be better off 8 years from now?" See, if I was asked that question, I would answer that if John McCain is elected, I will be no better or no worse off than I am now. (The country may be worse off than it was 8 years ago, but me personally, not so much.) But I've watched Obama burn through millions and millions of dollars campaigning and be unable to seal the deal.  When he needs more money, I get an envelope in the mail asking me to send more. I'm willing to pay more taxes to support liberal, progressive government programs, but I want some assurance that my money will be well-spent. If Obama is elected, I know I will be paying higher taxes, but I'm not sure I'll get much for it. I think "the tax and spend" label is going to stick, and that people are not going to be easily convinced that they will be better off with a President Obama.

    I suspect that after the Conventions (none / 0) (#25)
    by tree on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:35:37 AM EST
    the McCain campaign will hit Obama hard with the "tax and spend" meme, and use Obama's obscene cash outlays for very little return as an example of this.

    good way (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:42:30 AM EST
    to make their "tax and spend" point is to highlight how he outspent his opponent (Hillary) in certain States and STILL lost.

    Brings up his financial irresponsibility as well as painting him as a hapless loser who couldn't win against an opponent who famously had less.  (So how, pray tell, will he handle America's Money?)

    It also pricks that still tender spot people have for Hillary and how the DNC and Obama treated her.

    It's a win/win ... for McCain.


    how (none / 0) (#107)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:06:27 AM EST
    How much money did Obama have to spend to combat Hillary's name recognition?

    and if OBAMA treated Hillary so horrible... what do you think MCCAIN would be doing now if she was the nominee?  would that hit a tender spot?


    yeah (none / 0) (#114)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    I'm sure as we headed into the March 4th Ohio-Texas Primaries -- where Obama outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and lost -- NO ONE knew who Obama was.  Very little media coverage to speak of and ignored, basically, by his own Party.

    And, in late April with Pennsylvania, I'm positive Obama needed to outspend Hillary just in order to get Voters (and the Media) to pay attention to him, especially with the Media and Party Leaders insisting he drop out.  Yeah, it was an uphill climb made easier by dropping millions and millions of dollars.

    So, of course (if one lives in ObamaLand), Obama had to outspend an under-funded opponent during the late Primary Season just in order to get some attention.

    (evident snark for the snark impaired)


    HRC isn't the candidate (none / 0) (#117)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM EST
    So it's irrelevent.

    We should have been hitting them (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:17:33 AM EST
    on tax and spend this whole time.  The Republicans have taken our money and squandered it on an unnecessary war; mortgaged our country to the hilt and given our money away to their contractor buddies and gotten little or nothing in return.

    But we couldn't be "mean" to Republicans so we couldn't say any of that.  


    The problem with that approach is (none / 0) (#89)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    their brains can't process it when you use logic and facts.  Every time I've attempted to rebut my Republican friends, family, co-workers etc. with an argument similar to yours I just get the Monty Python "gone sparrow" look.

    They understand each of the words individually, but when you put them all together to make sentences they just shut down in cognitive dissonance.


    The Republicans who (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:51:14 AM EST
    are considering voting for Obama care about those issues.  The rest are going to vote for McCain - we need to move on from this erroneous notion that Republicans who are entertaining the idea of Obama are doing that solely on the basis of his good looks and positive "unifying" character. The Republicans who are kicking Obama's tires are doing it because they are dissatisfied with their own party's management of this country - and that is all related to issues.

    Referencing your "kicking (none / 0) (#105)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:03:37 AM EST
    Obama's tires" probably should also read "putting air in Obama's tires!" Let's also please keep it energy efficient.

    McCain (none / 0) (#78)
    by magisterludi on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:23:41 AM EST
    is telling his audience "You are not better off than you were four years ago." Guess the new GOP meme is that when the Dems began making gains in the House and Senate, things starting going downhill fast.

    I wonder if this will wake Pelosi and Reid from their stupor. Or the DNC for that matter.


    Only Ras has polled me. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:25:50 AM EST
    All the others are missing the crucial failed Senate primary challengers demographic.

    Zogby smogby, but... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:26:21 AM EST
    Boy, is John Zogby shameless. He'll massage his numbers anyway he can to get attention.

    Agreed. I prefer to follow Rasmussen:

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Barack Obama attracting 45% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When "leaners" are included, it's Obama 47% and McCain 45%

    But Zogby's poll is not so much of an outlier. Obama is tanking.

    It should also be noted that both polls reflect opinion pre-Saddleback forum.

    Tanking you say? (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:36:35 AM EST
    Since you prefer Rasmussen, let's look at Obama's numbers one month ago (7/20)

    Obama: 47
    McCain: 45

    Yeah, he's really tanking there.


    Heh (4.50 / 2) (#36)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:50:48 AM EST
    I just love watching people play numbers games to back up whatever their argument might happen to be.

    A month ago, if you said "Obama is only up by 2!  What's wrong?" a legion of Obama supporters would have lectured you on how meaningless that poll is, on how the only measure that really counts is the state polls, how Obama is way ahead in electoral votes blah blah blah.

    But a month down the road, suddenly that same "meaningless" poll has become an all-important benchmark.  "How dare you suggest Obama is tanking?  Everyone knows that a month ago, he was only ahead by 2!"

    It's very transparent and funny to watch.


    objectivity is not an appealing concept to many (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    Yes, tanking (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:10:02 AM EST
    What I see in these polls that are so far out is that Dem noms are usally up by double digits at this point, and then lose most of that margin by election day.

    IF Obama can't buck that trend, it will instead be McCain 50 Obama 42 on election day. Think of what that number will do to downticket turnout.


    Swing Voters Split Government (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:27:30 AM EST
    There's also the prospect that swing voters will wake up to the fact that they don't want one party to control government. They prefer gridlock, and since Congress will be even more firmly in the hands of Dems this term...

    trend? i think all of us know obama's (none / 0) (#116)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:22:38 AM EST
    campaign is in trouble. it is better for him to be realistic about so he can try and do something about it.

    Good point (none / 0) (#27)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:37:57 AM EST
    about the polls being pre-Saddleback Forum.  I suspect the next batch of polls will show a continuing decline for Obama or, if they're post-Convention, a holding steady with very little bounce.

    And then after that?  Oh, watch out.  That's when the Republicans move away from Paris Hilton and into much more ... um, interesting territory.  

    If Obama's support drastically wobbles when he's linked to Paris and Britney, can you imagine what it'll do when the big guns start a'blazin' in September/October?


    "Thats so ______ " (none / 0) (#49)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:04:47 AM EST
    Thats the problem with fads. I think alot of Obama support comes from new voters enamored of his "celebrity" status. Those types don't like to get caught wearing last season's fashion, last weeks music, etc.

    Not True (none / 0) (#104)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:58:18 AM EST
    Certainly the buzz has been that Obama has captured the enthusiasm of 'new voters', and sure, some of them will be MIA on Election Day.

    But according to the Quinnipiac poll from yesterday:

    "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."


    Today's "Battleground" poll has McCain (none / 0) (#31)
    by tigercourse on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:47:41 AM EST
    up by 1 point. Zogby is useless, but no matter how you slice it Obama is in deep trouble.

    This should not be happening. (none / 0) (#39)
    by rise hillary rise on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:58:03 AM EST
    The Republican brand should be toast, with what Bush, Cheney and McCain have done to run the country into the ground in the last 8 years. The public should be ready to run these guys out of town on a rail. instead, McCain't has apparently rejuvenated it and is selling himself as a credible leader. Obama, on the other hand, appears weak and dithering, filled with ennui and only energized by the huge adoring crowds he saw during his victory lap in Europe.

    Why can't Obama close the deal? we asked that for the first 6 months of the year. He should be up over 50% in all the polls, yet he's losing ground. Can you see Biden as an energizing VP choice? Or Kaine? C'mon.

    There's only one person that Obama could pick who can actually win this thing, but I doubt he will. His overweening ego won't let him choose someone who might overshadow him.

    The deal with the VP (none / 0) (#121)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    whoever he/she is, has already been cut. It's over.

    well dday says it will all be OK (none / 0) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:14:05 AM EST
    because of Obama's superior ground game.

    This is getting so depressing and so scary. I still think it can turn around but it better start happening fast.

    dday has it wrong IMO (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    Organization only ever matters for a couple of targeted points, and probably not even that in a Presidential election.

    that's what I thought (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:20:32 AM EST
    but I'm no political wiz like you. What you say is not comforting though. I loathe McCain more every day.

    I'm no political wiz (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    I just have a nose for false promises.

    Ha - I won't ask why (none / 0) (#82)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:25:32 AM EST
    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:17:10 AM EST
    this new talking point that they can register enough new voters to win no matter what would be funny if it wasnt so sad.

    fundamental mistake (none / 0) (#87)
    by AlSmith on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:32:42 AM EST

    Best predictor of who is going to vote is who has voted in the past.

    I have nothing against registering new voters, but it takes a lot of time and resources to get them there and they have a spoiled ballots percentage. An new registrant is worth only a fraction of an existing voter.

    It make sense to spend your resources campaigning where there are votes. Germany? No votes. Kids for Obama? No votes. North Carolina? Not going to happen.

    I like the Saddleback thing because he gets it out of the way early and at least he is there talking to actual voters. Ditto the religious theme for the convention as long as it isnt a botch.


    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    think he can turn it around. What has he done since March that's different? Nothing that I can point to except more flip flops.

    Republicanism is deeply unpopular right now (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    If he starts fighting more and stops going on vacation, I hope he can turn it around.

    McCain is running as much (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    better than a generic republican as Obama is running worse than a generic democrat though.
    not good.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:24:33 AM EST
    but I just don't think Obama or his advisors have what it takes to do that. Hillary as VP might do it but do you honestly think they would? I think that they don't realize the trouble that they're in.

    I have no freaking idea anymore, my friend (none / 0) (#93)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:37:41 AM EST
    All I know is that I got stuck with Rush Limbaugh-listening in-laws last week in Florida at a family reunion, and it was a deeply sobering experience (as was McCain at the faith forum). I have not had the, erm, privilege of listening to Rush for many many years. During this particular week, when he wasn't touting McCain and mocking democrats, he was on a tear against the Rachel-Carson-tree-huggers and ridiculing the idea that the environment is in any danger or that climate change is real.

    I repeat my daily mantra: I ain't no Obama fan, but McCain must be stopped. Amen.


    over reaction city (none / 0) (#115)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:20:29 AM EST
    this was always a tight race...adn will continue to be a tight race.... do you need a walk down memory lane that pre-convention polls mean nothing.  People are still BBQing hot dogs on their little grills and enjoying the summer.

    After the conventions.. when the nip is back in the air..then the real battle starts.

    I think Obama has a can of whoop A** he is about to unleash on McCain.   Everyone keeps saying " the repubs have got the good stuff  ready to go on OBAMA soon...no they have shot their load... its OBAMA's time to unleashe on McCain and put the focus on his BUSH ideologies.

    When the HILLARY VP BOMB hits...lotta crow will be served around here

    Crow? (none / 0) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:07:41 PM EST
    If you were suggesting Obama will pick Clinton as VP, there will be no crow to eat.  The majority believe Clinton would help Obama.

    well (none / 0) (#134)
    by AlSmith on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST

    I dont disagree without that most people wont tune in until after the convention.

    Bu they would you assume that the GOP has shot their load? There was really no reason for them to unload on him until after he is the nominee.

    A little snipping to get him in range sure, but why would they want to knock him out before we are locked in? That makes no sense.


    Just heard Trace Gallagher (none / 0) (#127)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    on Fox say that the Obama campaign is aware that his numbers in polls are dropping, however, the campaign looks for 2 numbers within those polls, one is, is Obama's still more trusted than McCain and is Obama more trusted with the economy. They said that as long as those 2 numbers stay in their favor, they know they will win. Glean from that what you will!

    but didn't the (none / 0) (#130)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    latest Rassmussen number find more people trust McCain with the economy than Obama?

    From the Poll:

    "McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election."

    Not sure what the Trustworthy numbers are, but I do see Obama losing 9 points among Democrats as well as losing support among younger voters.


    Well, that's what Trace said the (none / 0) (#140)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:04:55 PM EST
    Obama camp said. Maybe their internals show something more positive?

    The Economy ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    Obama could move these numbers if he'd focus on the economy.

    But does he know how to?

    Obama economy ad.

    Clinton 1992 economy ad.

    Which do you think is better?

    He can't be too far off... (none / 0) (#138)
    by chopper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    New poll shows Obama losing support among young, women -- Barack Obama has lost ground among some of his strongest bases of support, including young people, women, Democrats and independents, according to a new ATV/Zogby poll.

    The Illinois Democrat has also lost some support among African-Americans ... Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

    Carol Platt Liebau / TownHall Blog: Going the Wrong Way -- A new ATV/Zogy poll has some incredibly ...

    Justin Paulette / Political Machine: At First Glance -- So, after a month of total information black ...

    Donald Douglas / American Power: Losing Ground? Obama's Polling Collapse

    Prairie Weather: Erosion of support for Obama among key groups

    Obama the rootless -- David Brooks puts his finger on something

    Where's the Landslide? -- Why isn't Barack Obama doing better? Why, after all that has happened, does he have only a slim two-or three-point lead over John McCain, according to an average of the recent polls? Why is he basically tied with his opponent when his party is so far ahead? Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

    Dan Collins / protein wisdom: "An Extravagant and Wheeling Stranger"

    Andrew Sullivan / The Daily Dish: Why Is The Race So Close?

    Hugh Hewitt's TownHall Blog: Obama Buyers' Remorse

    Tom Maguire / JustOneMinute: Obama - Just Passing Through


    Sister Toldjah: Alex Castellanos on the two Obamas Alex Castellanos / The Huffington Post:

    The Molten Core of Barack: Why Obama Can't Win --Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

    Mark Silva / The Swamp: Barack Obama: Brand name changing?

    Rick Moran / Right Wing Nut House: 'WHY OBAMA CAN'T WIN' - CASTELLANOS

    Dave Schuler / The Glittering Eye: Dude, Where's My Landslide?

    Dave Johnson / Seeing the Forest: Obama's FISA Screwup - Costing Us The Election?

    Allahpundit / Hot Air: Study: McCain finally getting almost as much media coverage as Obama

    Krooney / TIME.com: At This Moment: Doubts About Obama Zogby:

    ATV/Zogby Poll Toss-Up! McCain 42%, Obama 41% as Undecided Voters Increase... Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

    Walter Alarkon / The Hill's Blog Briefing Room: McCain Has Slight Leads Over Obama in Two National Polls

    Susan Duclos / Wake up America: Zogby Poll Now Matches Rasmussen Showing John McCain Slightly Ahead Of Barack Obama

    Matt Lewis / TownHall Blog: Zogby: Obama Losing Support

    Curt / Flopping Aces: Obama Back Down To Earth -- I guess it was bound to happen.

    AJStrata / The Strata-Sphere: Emergency On The USS Obama!

    Scared Monkeys: Obama in Panic Mode, Flip Flops on SPR ... Polls a Toss up ...

    Big Tent Democrat / TalkLeft: SUSA FL Poll: McCain By 6
    Hindrocket / Power Line:

    OBAMA SINKING IN POLLS Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

    Macranger / Macsmind: Obama continues to Descend in Polls

    Anderson Cooper: " Is the tide turning?" »

    Site: http://noquarterusa.net/
    From Anderson Cooper's blog at CNN:
    "Obama must select a running mate who gives a lift to his campaign and can also hammer home a message in the convention and in the vice presidential debate this fall. He definitely needs a fighter by his side. (For my money, Hillary Clinton looks better and better)."

    I don't understand the problem with Zogby (none / 0) (#139)
    by TheN01skinsfan on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:48:01 PM EST
    I don't understand the problem many folks here have with Zogby? He made his claim to fame years ago by absolutely nailing the election results.

    Also I don't understand why people don't get the fact that using likely voters according to Zogby's definition of them isn't more reliable? I am absolutely no shill for Zogby, but according to his poll definitions, His version of a likely voter is someone who has voted in the most recent elections and feels certain to do so again.

    Certainly, on an intellectual level, it seems more likely that these persons will vote AND that how they say they will vote would be taken with more than the MTV grain of salt we are used to getting.

    What worries me is that I have it on good authority that the Repubs are going to start using the following advertising tactic after the conventions: "If you are even thinking of voting for the inexperience Obama, shouldn't you consider hedging your bet by not returning to Congress, Democrats who have led the Congress to 14% approval ratings?"  That scares me.