home

9/14 - The Polls

Ras (9/11-13) has McCain up 50-47 (yesterday it was 49-46.) I'll be adding the other results as they become available this morning and afternoon. I will add an overall take when all results are in. So far, no change - a slight McCain lead.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Sunday Talk Open Thread | Roe: With "Friends" Like Sunstein, Who Needs Enemies? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What's McCain's lead... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:51:40 AM EST
    ...when adjusted for election fraud?  Because election fraud will, without a doubt, play a huge role in this (s)election.  Votes will disappear, voters will be dumped from the rolls, votes will multiply, and we'll all be left to wonder, yet again, how we've gotten to this sorry state.

    I hope I'm wrong, since I'm pretty good at being wrong, but history tells me differently.  We're in the age of electronic voting irregularties, and it's only getting worse.

    And more.. (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:53:44 AM EST
    According to this, Democratic Party officials are telling Obama to discount 4 to 6 points down due to "racial bias" but he wouldn't listen to anyone's advice.

    Parent
    That last paragraph.. (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:18:01 AM EST
    But it is a measure of his plight that the man who derailed the ambitions of Mrs Clinton, the most powerful woman in Democratic politics, now needs help from her husband to overcome the popularity of another alpha female who may be an even greater risk to his White House ambitions.

    Ouch...

    Parent

    That's pretty crappy spin (none / 0) (#59)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    Why are Democrats simultaneously criticized for being factionalized and criticized when we work together?

    Soooo stupid.

    Parent

    Why? Because the hypocrisy (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    in this case, of Obama relying on those racist Clintons, has to bemuse any observer!  Really, the irony of it makes for quite the spectator sport.  So does seeing if he really means it or is only trying to appease Clinton supporters.  So it's going to get attention, and there's no way around it.

    But there's always some level of attention to this fact of political life, and there's always someone to bemoan some factionalism in some party or other.  Parties are, by their nature, inherently factionalized -- as only coalitions, after all.  

    And the Western strategy was bound to raise problems that we now see with the Eastern and Rustbelt Dems, regional coalitions that have been told they are no longer enough.  That was badly, badly handled as meaning we're no longer needed.  But even had it been handled better, it had to become evident by now in the campaign, anyway, that the dilution of Dem principles to appeal to the Westerners was going to cause a reaction in the Rustbelt and East.  This is the result.

    In sum, the Western strategy may be a good long-term strategy, but the transition is not going well in the short term.  It had to be finessed by a finer hand.

    Parent

    Obama is using a Dem surrogate (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:10:48 PM EST
    effectively.

    Wow. What a shocker.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:18:14 PM EST
    I don't see how that pertains to what I said.

    So I'm trying to think which Western surrogate you mean.  McCaskill?  Puhleeze.  She's not even winning her own state for him.  

    Since it was her daughter who told her to support Obama, maybe the young Ms. McCaskill oughta be the one on national teevee.  She would do a better job of explaining why to support him -- after all, the kid won over a Senator, and the Senator doesn't seem to be winning over anyone.

    Parent

    we were talking about Obama using Clinton (none / 0) (#89)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:19:33 PM EST
    I am not sure why you are bringing McCaskill into it.

    Parent
    because no one (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    was clear who you were referring to when you mentioned using a Dem surrogate effectively.

    And Obama isn't.  He has Hillary campaigning for him in Florida, but not even she can stop his slide there.  He's alleging going to have Bill campaign for him in Florida (and maybe Ohio?) as well.  But, in the end, it's Obama's job to stop the slide, it's Obama's job to convince voters he has the experience to lead and it's Obama's job to ask us for our votes and give us a clear reason to place ourselves in his column on Election Day.

    Surrogates can only do so much.  Eventually, it's all on Barack.

    Parent

    Ah, got it -- I do see how you could (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM EST
    have meant Clinton; I needed to go back further in the thread.  I thought this was off the point of the Western strategy.

    I have a tendency to use pronouns too much, which can cause similar confusion -- so I have to remind myself to use names to reduce uncertainty, too.

    Parent

    No...actually... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    we weren't.

    Parent
    well, (none / 0) (#133)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:35:57 PM EST
    I don't think I was responding to you.

    So technically you are correct.

    Parent

    That's two (none / 0) (#134)
    by rdandrea on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:38:15 PM EST
    You have four

    Parent
    uh...not really... (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:29:04 PM EST
    McCaskill was a nightmare today. And there have been any number of cases over the past several weeks where I would seriously have left particular surrogates at home...

    Parent
    Did you see Wasserman-Schultz's (none / 0) (#125)
    by prittfumes on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:54:27 PM EST
    performance? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

    Parent
    Increasing articles about media anger (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:16:45 PM EST
    Have you noticed the articles about media anger?  The media is angry and the Dems are coming across as very angry and today Begala and Wasserman-Schultz were the worst examples.

    They both appeared angry, dismissive and petty (Begala is obsessed with McCain's age and 'deadly skin cancer' and mentions it every time he gets camera time.)  I want to see some surrogates that are on message.  The anger is off-putting.

    Parent

    I heard a smidge (none / 0) (#127)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:18:39 PM EST
    from Begala and just rolled my eyes.

    Parent
    Did not... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:19:16 PM EST
    was primarily thinking about Clyburn and a discussion I got into with a friend of mine...

    Parent
    I read that too... if they are ignoring this (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:53:32 PM EST
    it is just a scary thought.  Nothing worse than a Pol who believes their own press!!

    Parent
    Racial Bias? (4.40 / 5) (#7)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:25:06 AM EST
    Oh please, just stop. Sure there may be some white people who won't for the black candidate, but judging from the 90%+ AA vote that Obama's been garnering (and expected to haul in Nov.), how much will you admit that there is a factor of racism there too?

    Oh, and let's bring the Clinton factor and their history of receiving high AA-support into this and how Obama spun them into alleged racists, if you want this to be a valid argument.

    I believe there are just as many black voters who'll be voting for Obama only because he's black, as there are white voters who won't vote for him because they think he's unqualified and will be a horrible CoC. This racial bias argument is just too weak. Let it go.


    Parent

    If AAs voted 50:50 Dem:Rep when a black (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:38:43 PM EST
    candidate wasn't running, I might concede your point.

    However, that is far from the case. Therefore your point is moot.

    Parent

    AAs do not vote 50:50 (2.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Prabhata on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    when a black candidate isn't running.  I don't why you believe that breakout, but it's just plain wrong.  No poll backs your statement.

    Parent
    re read my comment (none / 0) (#87)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:17:55 PM EST
    I said "If"

    Parent
    Do (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    you know how Steele did with the AA vote in MD? That would be an interesting study to do.

    Parent
    2006 CNN Exit Poll: (none / 0) (#110)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    Whites:  Cardin 48  Steele 50
    AA'S:    Cardin 74  Steele 25

    Parent
    It's not Polkan's argument (none / 0) (#9)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:27:10 AM EST
    read the article he/she linked to.

    Parent
    You miss the point (none / 0) (#12)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:31:54 AM EST
    the only point being made, IMHO, is that racism will effect the vote.  

    Parent
    Racism may affect the vote... (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:45:52 AM EST
    but, on the other hand, you have a slew of people who don't want to vote for a guy in his seventies.

    Parent
    And there will be gender bias (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    in voting, too.  And based on the evidence of what we have seen and continue to see in this country, sexism will favor the Obama-Biden ticket more than racism will hurt it.

    But I still don't see discussion of the impact of gender bias in this campaign.  Not in the media, including the blogs, but I hear that discussion around me a lot lately.  Nope, instead, media and blogs only whine about how Palin is hurting poor Obama, ever the victim of racism.  Yeh.

    Parent

    I wonder (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by chrisvee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:02:36 AM EST
    how many women who don't plan to vote for Obama (or are tepid supporters) will decide, once in the privacy of the voting booth, to cast a vote for 'herstory' by voting Palin. I worry it might be enough to matter.

    Parent
    Gender bias? You mean all those white males (none / 0) (#85)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    who vote with the GOP will go to Obama?

    Any evidence for this? Because whereas I think it's great to have a woman running for VP, McCain based his decision to choose her on crass base-level politics. Palin does not support policies that empower women. That is the bottom line. It would be sexist for me to look past that because she has the same set of chormosomes as I do.

    My "female" cousin in Alaska thought it was a joke when they first heard she was chosen. She says Palin was a disaster for Alaska.  

    Parent

    As for the rest of your comment (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    about chromosomes and cousins, I don't see how it pertains.  I raised gender bias among men working against the GOP ticket.  You reply with gender bias not being a factor among women.  Do you not see the disconnect?

    Parent
    No. you said gender bias. Not where it was coming (none / 0) (#95)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    from.

    But since you are narrowing the discussion, let's think about that in the context of this entire election.

    Hillary Clinton's primary voters had many white working class men. If those men now transfer their support to Obama, then is it sexism that keeps them to going to Palin once Clinton is out? Or did she just do a great job of explaining how Democratic policies are superior?

    Parent

    You raise hypotheticals (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:52:19 PM EST
    and it's too late for talk of "ifs" now.  As noted above, see the polls with gender breakdowns on which likely voters are swinging to McCain.  

    Parent
    I'm hearing from guys here (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:20:28 PM EST
    in very Republican burbs that they're not as warm to Palin as you and others think.  The polls indicate that the swing to McCain has been among women, y'know.  

    Parent
    In other words. No. (none / 0) (#93)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:23:18 PM EST
    You don't have evidence...other than anecdotal. (Which is worthless)

    Parent
    Yes, I did. The polls (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:51:05 PM EST
    that have been discussed on this site, in recent days and exhaustively.  If you need to see them and the specific gender breakdowns, search is your friend.  Or even just scroll back a screen or so.

    Parent
    Three (none / 0) (#136)
    by rdandrea on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    You are misreading the rules (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:46:13 PM EST
    as this thread has nothing to do with Jeralyn's rules, nor is this Jeralyn's thread.

    Go away.  You bore me and use up bandwidth this way.

    Parent

    In the primary (none / 0) (#13)
    by TheRizzo on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:32:12 AM EST
    I think this could be argued, but in the general election you usually see those kinda numbers for the democrats vs republicans as it is.

    Parent
    I really hope those officials are wrong about (none / 0) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:24:15 AM EST
    such a large Bradley effect. Even a 1 or 2 point one would sink us.

    Parent
    I wouldn't think... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:44:25 AM EST
    ... that there would be such a large effect. I think you would tend to see more of one in races where the white candidate is openly race-baiting, which despite his other flaws, McCain has not been. I would think that anyone unwilling to vote for Obama would have no hesitation about telling a pollster they support McCain.

    Parent
    Don't bet (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:33:31 PM EST
    on it. However, I think the real "bradley effect" may be in the undecideds. I wouldn't be surprised to see McCain pick up all of them.

    Parent
    the other paranoid reading (none / 0) (#22)
    by sancho on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:56:24 AM EST
    is that Obama is the "Diebold" candidate this time around (this would explain his indifferent campaigning against McCain). Rigged elections, if they are rigged (and I am not saying they are or they are not), are more effectively rigged if the winning party is not always the same one.

    Parent
    LOL (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    that is very funny. Can I borrow some of your tinfoil?

    Parent
    i was just responding to dadler, (none / 0) (#118)
    by sancho on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:36:25 PM EST
    not endorsing the reading.

    Parent
    I see. Sorry bout that. (none / 0) (#135)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:39:05 PM EST
    Are you putting this out .... (none / 0) (#35)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    to plant a justification for losing this election?
    Blame it on the fraud to come?

    One way to assure this doesn't happen is for the Obama camp to improve those polls. It cannot find itself in dead heat with McCain!

    Parent

    Besides... aside from ACORN, I am not aware (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:54:48 PM EST
    of much actual fraud.  Unless you look here in Chicago : )

    Parent
    Ugh, ACORN is making a mess in my state (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    to the north, in the Obama stronghold areas of the Dem stronghold of Milwaukee.  It's fueling the rightwing state AG and other righties who will make going to the polls hellish for the rest of us, with all the evidence of fraud by ACORN and another group already.  

    Worse, the result will be bad for Dems for decades to come, I bet: voter ID in Wisconsin.  With the cases from the 2004 election -- not only at the polls but in blatant vandalism of GOP offices and vans by an idiot son of a Dem Congresswoman, a big Obama backer -- the backlash is coming on strong.  Voter ID almost went through before here, and the evidence of fraud this time is ramping up, too.

    Parent

    Just for a Heh, (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by frankly0 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:28:27 AM EST
    it's fun to recall Kevin Drum's prediction:

    I'll bet that Obama never has much less than a five point lead for the rest of the campaign.

    They should take away the man's license to comment on politics.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:54:00 AM EST
    I did forget about that, though I laughed a lot at the time I read it. I don't know what country he thinks he's living in.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:37:09 AM EST
    We all make mistakes.

    Parent
    I think the deepest philosopher (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by frankly0 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    on the subject is Yogi Berra:

    Prediction is very hard, especially about the future.

    Parent

    shoo-in? (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:43:52 AM EST
    Should have been (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:10:31 AM EST
    Lots of things "should have been" (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:17:02 AM EST
    What scares me is (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM EST
    the effect this floundering campaign is having on the Congressional races.

    Parent
    I have a philosophy about that: (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    I think Dems are never shoo-ins. In that past three elections we have had three VERY different candidates. Obama and Kerry should have been shoo-ins.

    We've had one Dem president in the past 28 years.

    People (especially white males) are married to the idea of a strict disciplinarian tough guy in charge. They like Republican presidents. If we can break that WM love for the GOP, we can change the way these elections go.

    Parent

    There is a time and place for everything (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:30:13 AM EST
    and it would seem this is the time to fight about what is on the kitchen table, if your kitchen table is now curbside I'm still not embarassed to sit at it with you and talk about "real issues".  If your kitchen table has been repo'd we could fight for your park bench issues, just push the Iraq soldier off of it so we can have some room though......sheesh.....there's so many real things to address.

    When I see polls like this, (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:43:33 AM EST
    my heart sinks.

    I lay some of the blame at Obama's door.
    As soon as he was assured of the nomination he turned South, figuratively speaking.
    He voted for FISA.
    He disowned public financing.
    He went on preaching to evangelicals.
    He waffled on his commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq.
    He waffled on his commitment to the right of women to an abortion.
    And, of course, he went on to treat Hillary Clinton and her supporters like dirt.

    People who wanted change, myself included, found our heads swimming.

    Another minor shock: on Olbermann's softball interview with him, Obama seemed bemused and slightly disappointed that Lieberman did not acknowledge that Obama had campaigned for him. One would think that Obama, the anti-Iraq war guy, would want to forget that particular foray into panderdom.

    Now he is the nominee. We can hope for the best.
    But it is my contention that just repeating that McCain is Bush's 3rd term is not going to do it. He has got to start to be somebody.

    So, the question is, can Obama/Biden (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Anne on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    afford to let another almost-2 weeks go by with McCain/Palin controlling the narrative, hoping to turn things around in the debate on the 26th?

    Because if what we're going to hear in that time period are more lectures from Obama about not taking lectures from McCain, and more variations of "they're picking on me!" the trouble is going to continue.

    The day Obama figures out that the more passion and energy he saves for reacting to what he sees as McCain/Palin's personal attacks, instead of channeling that energy and passion to the issues, will be the day he might start turning this around.  But, for me at least, he seems to care more about himself than the voters.

    Surrogates are only going to take him so far; the good ones may remind people that Obama doesn't seem to want to fight his own battles, and the bad ones do their own damage.

    You're right but... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by smott on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:50:14 AM EST
    ...I honestly don't think he has much passion for the issues. I've certainly never heard him talk about issues in a way that I've felt was very sincere.
    He clearly had no passion for campaigning.

    Parent
    That's the key point, IMHO (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by rennies on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:42:06 PM EST
    People here keep urging Obama to talk about the issues. From my perspective he has been talking about issues: education, economy, taxes -- distinguishing himself from McCain. But he never appears to project passion or fire about the issues. The only time you see real energy is when he is defending himself from personal attack. My own take, very early in the primaries, is that he doesn't really care about any issue except winning. It's hard to be authentically impassioned in that context.That's why voters are3 moving away -- again, my opinion only.

    That is his Achilles heel.

    Parent

    Smott, I would add to your comment (3.50 / 2) (#28)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:23:58 AM EST
    "He clearly had no passion for campaigning." for issues!  .

    He has spent all of his campaign saying let's discuss the issues, this campaign is about the issues, but has proven to do not nearly enough of that. The weaknessess that have been pointed out throughout this run, still haunt him and will not go away until he does what he has been preaching
    (stay on the issues, that is).

    No matter how his surrogates go out there to defend what "he meant to say", "he didn't say that", etc, etc., the only one responsible to convey what he meant is Obama himself. Too much time is wasted on statement rectifications, and aiming at "peripheral" aspects.

    Look and ACT presidential, above the frey, BE the TRUE candidate of CHANGE. DO THE WALK, DON'T JUST DO THE TALK! That's what he HAS to do, otherwise let's brace ourselves for a very uncertain outcome of this election for the Dems.


    Parent

    Obama does seem to (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    do a lot of talking about wanting to talk about the issues without actually really talking about the issues.

    He doesn't "do" issues or policy.  That's for his surrogates to handle.  And it's a pretty good plan if one is wanting to inoculate oneself from appearing as if you know what you're doing and have a plan to help the American People.  

    Trouble with that is the American People are looking for answers and not from surrogates.  They want to hear Barack say "this is what I will do and this is how I will do it and your life will be better because of it than what it is now".  
    Instead they hear "McCain is saying this" and "McCain is saying that" and "Palin said (or did) this" and "they think you're stupid!"  And that's not really what the voters want or need to hear from Barack right now.  Yeah, they know the other side does that.  Big deal!  It's politics.

    We have the debates coming up and if Team Obama decides to go on the attack in order to dent McCain's growing lead in both polls and perception instead of prepping Obama with answers for those issues the American People care about, this race will be lost.

    And the Democrats will have deserved to lose.

    Parent

    I'm becoming firmer in my conviction (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by smott on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:30:56 PM EST
    ...that he doesn't do issues well because he just can't be bothered to wonk up and study them. It's why he seemed so unprepared during the debates - because he was.
    It's why Clinton (BD or Hill) sound like they grasp the issues so much better and can spout points and plans and examples at the drop of a hat.

    Because they really do know more than he does.

    A lot more.

    Parent

    do you believe that (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    Team Obama is being successful in their efforts to have him completely and totally prepped on the issues before the debates?  That he's actually doing the homework he needs to do?  Or do you believe they're going to focus more on personal attacks in order to make a dent in McCain's current momentum?

    I have my own suspicions based on what I understand of Obama's history, but I'm curious what you -- or anyone else -- thinks.

    Parent

    I don't think ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Obama is fully onboard with the current strategy of his campaign.  He sees the logic of it.  But he doesn't wholly buy it.  And I think you'll see that in the debates.

    At the exact moment in the debates when he needs to nail down a strategic point, he'll return to post-partisan nonsense.

    But, that said, I don't think the debates will matter much.  At best they will have a polarizing effect.  And I think that helps McCain slightly.

    Parent

    Clintons are wonks yes but (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by smott on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    I think Big Dawg's real gift was his ability to distill complicated ideas down into simpler descriptions and give examples that made his plans very accessible to the regular folks in the audience. Plus he was a Bubba. While sounding plain spoken he was gettign people believing in his policies, while also sucking down ribs and corn pone and beer. Doesn't get better than that.

    I think one of the best descriptons of Obama v. Hillary came from Joe Klein (I know, ew) but he analogized them in the classic high-school boy v. girl dichotoomy. Hillary as the front-row-sitting, note-taking girl grind who comes by her straight-As through hard work. Obama as the late-to-class-arriving, back-row-sitting super-popular Kool Kid who never studies hard and skates by anyway on his smarts.

    But I think under the Kleig Lights of the debates, we find the girl grind is far better prepared.


    Parent

    Clintons are wonks but (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cards In 4 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was as good a street fighter in politics as anyone has seen since Nixon.  There is no way he'd have allowed McCain to define him and grab the narrative of the election.  He would not have been caught by surprise by Palin.  Hell, he would have had the narrative about her in the media before most people knew her name.

    Governing in  a southern state forced Clinton to confront and beat the other party unlike Obama that skates to victory in the IL legislative races and the IL senate race.  

    If Obama had been about the issues he'd never be the nominee, Clinton would. Now that he has to make it an election about the issues he is lost.

    Parent

    Yes, I can't forget the frenzy of calls (5.00 / 10) (#39)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    by Obama, Pelosi, Dean, Brazille, and almost every member of the media, including the blog boyz -- and commenters here -- for Clinton to get out so that, gosh darn it, Obama could begin the general election campaign.  

    I got the distinct impression, from him and others, that he was going to get going from Day One in June to give us The Best Campaign Evuh.

    So she got out and immediately did more than any previous contender to get the guy's campaign going, and then . . . the dullest, most dispassionate campaign summer I can recall.  And I've seen quite a few.  

    The only excitement I can recall was Obama's  trip overseas to get German voters to flock to our polls this November.  Oh, and excitement anytime Clinton said anything.  Think about that.  

    Parent

    That's your fourth (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by rdandrea on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    You're in foul trouble.

    Parent
    Enforcer, sweetie, you have to explain (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:43:02 PM EST
    how this violates the rule.  C'mon, go for it!

    Parent
    The "lipstick" remark... (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    Since Palin used that word to describe herself in her speech to the convention, Obama's using it was, shall we say, ill advised.

    I think he was, in fact, making a sneaky reference to Palin, but assuming that no one could pin it on him. You don't refer to an issue as a pig - no matter how you try to spin it.

    I think McCain is correct. Obama does choose his words carefully. This lipstick remark is like kindergarden.

    This is a grown-up war on life and death issues.

    Obama had better smell and drink the coffee - and lots of it - or the election will slip away from him. I don't really care much about him at this point to tell the truth - but I am fearful that our lives are in danger and this guy is in a position to give us a bit of a reprieve if he is so inclined.

    Parent

    I agree, Obama knew exactly what he was saying. (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by g8grl on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    What are the chances that he didn't hear Palin use the Hockey Mom/Lipstick line?  What are the chances he didn't realize that any reference to lipstick would immediately be put in that context?  Of course he knew, but like any teenage boy, he though he'd have plausible deniability.  He thinks he's smarter than the rest of us.  That's why he thought he could get away with it.  Now, he's sinking in the polls and it's primarily because lots of adults don't like him.  He's just thrown too many under the bus.  His latest ad about McCain not understanding the internet?  Horrible.  Who does he think screwed up those butterfly ballots that lost the 2000 election...internet geeks?

    Re:  the lipstick issue, before this primary season, I used to say "I would vote for a monkey before I'd vote for a Republican."  I changed "monkey" to "rock" because of context.  He should never have used the lipstick comment...it may have ebeen the beginning of the end.

    Parent

    He got away with it before (5.00 / 9) (#50)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    in the primary, with all the snarky crap on Clinton -- his remarks on "tea parties," on "periodically feeling down," etc., and worst of all, in his hip-hop routine to "Dirt Off My Shoulders" -- so of course, he thought he could get away with it again.  He just missed that only Dems allow their women leaders to be treated that way.

    Parent
    The sad irony (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by frenly on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 08:35:43 PM EST
    is that I've heard folks on the right (i.e. O'Reilly) defend Obama by saying that he probably meant nothing by it.  I think if Obama had not been so snarky and sarcastic throughout the primary with his veiled insults to Clinton he might have been able to pull it off.

    As for his campaigning on the issues, it may be that he isn't passionate about the issues.  I'm afraid to say it, but it really may be that Obama really does think that the election is about him; maybe he's drunk on his own koolaide.

    It bothers me greatly that he only ever seems to get passionate when something is pointed towards him as a person (or his wife), so it just makes me wonder.  Voters may not be well informed, but they generally are rather intuitive about whether or not people "get" them.  These poll numbers may tell us that Average Joe & Jane Voter don't think Obama really "gets" them... same as in the primaries.  Of course then it was because they were all racists... (snark)

    Parent

    He'll have a little problem enacting that advice (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:45:15 PM EST
    He might LOOK Presidential and he may give great speeches... but his resume is shockingly devoid of anything that would back-up his assertions of being a change agent.  Although his Illinois resume does a nice job of counteracting that image.

    Talking about taking the gloves off, or not being a victim is not the same as actually taking the gloves off and not acting like a victim.  One you talk about, the other you DO... and then OTHER people talk about it.

    Parent

    We keep seeing (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by chrisvee on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:40:12 AM EST
    the same pieces of advice floating around.  The first is, 'the campaign is about the voters, not about you.'  The second is, 'a minute spent talking about Sarah Palin is another minute that John McCain is winning.' The third is, 'stop telling people to go to your website to learn about your issues' and the fourth is, 'stop with the ageist and sexist attacks'.

    Let's hope the Obama campaign is listening because I'm firmly in the camp that the surrogates reflect the strategy that's being articulated from the top.  A few weeks talking about current events and how Obama will tackle them to make the daily lives of Americans better is all that's needed to turn this thing around.

    Parent

    Time to steel the spotlight (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:06:55 AM EST
    By picking Palin, McCain stole the campaign thunder. Obama needs to come out with something very bold on his own if he's going to have any chance of regaining the advantage.

    Maybe he should announce ahead of time, 3 of his cabinet choices that would motivate his base. Sec of State, Attorney General and Sec of Treasury. These 3 could then go out and campaign of their platform. We'd have three proplr out there constantly pounding on issues rather than personalities.

    He has to do something and now. Perception is everything and if the public sees him faltering he's in serious trouble.

    doing so enters into (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    a bit of a Danger Zone for him, though.  It would be unfortunately easy for McCain to spin Obama announcing his Cabinet this soon before people start voting in the same Premature Victory Lap tone as he did the Grand Tour of Europe.

    The game changer would be if Obama started working the stump like Hillary did and speak to the voters as if he 1) understands their concerns 2) knows how to make their lives better and 3) sincerely, SINCERELY wants to do that. That he wants to be President not to make History for himself and accrue power for himself, but to make their lives, the American People's lives, better.

    I don't know if voters are getting that sense.  Obama's constant focus on McCain disrespecting him and "lying" about him seems to put the focus back on Barack.  It's all about him.  

    But those who have turned out to hear him speak are wanting to hear answers and are walking away more often than not empty-handed and confused and more likely to vote McCain or just stay home on November 4th.  

    And the distracting window-dressing of making Cabinet picks isn't going to change that.

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    Obama would be the one to do the speaking, but he hasn't been able to effectively as of yet. Time is really running out and I don't have a lot of faith in his ability or willingness to change his strategy now.

    Parent
    Agree. HE needs to convince. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:47:18 AM EST
    The more the narrative is that others need to go out there for Obama, the more people will believe that HE can't do the job and needs to be propped up.  Turning to Bill Clinton, although a good strategy could also be viewed as him NEEDING the one person his campaign did a good job smearing in the primaries.

    Parent
    a friend of mine (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    said the other day, when talking about Obama:

    "if I had to choose between someone who could successfully convince me himself that he could do the job I'm hiring for and someone who sent his friends in to convince me that he could do the job I'm hiring for, why the h*ll would I go for the guy who relied on everyone else and couldn't convince me himself?"

    My friend is very smart.  :-)

    Parent

    a necessary change in strategy (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    sometimes has trouble finding it's way through the protective bubble some candidates are kept in.

    McCain seems to be quick to take advantage of Team Obama's many missteps and mistakes, quick to change strategy, change staff when need be and move out of his comfort zone in order to engage the voters.

    Obama seems flat-footed and trapped in the Primary believing the spin that the White House is his.  

    One of these guys is in a bubble and out-of-touch and the other is taking a solid lead in the polls.

    Just sayin'

    Parent

    Lack of flexibility (none / 0) (#131)
    by Nike on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:41:53 PM EST
    I agree, he and the campaign just seems so rigid.

    It is bad politics and bad leadership.

    I just hate reading that the campaign is not returning phone calls from the campaign veterans. I just don't get that.

    Parent

    And it will smack (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    of "picking out the drapes" before he wins the election... Thanks Nancy!

    And since he declined to comment on appointing Republican's to his Cabinet as McCain said he would appoint Democrats to his (but he didn't name names)... it actually undercut his own Change theme.. again.

    Obama has a Cabinet full of nominees his base would love.. ardent Democrats all...  McCain announces a Cabinet with one or two Democrats on it... Point McCain.

    Next bit of advice.

    Parent

    McCain's Democrats and Independents (none / 0) (#124)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    in the cabinet are likely to be Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. So it is probably wise for him not to mention names.

    Parent
    This is more about ... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    McCain than most Dems are willing to admit.

    Palin undoubtedly was a game-changer.

    But I think her main role was to show that McCain was serious about winning.

    Remember, McCain has always had fairly high favorable ratings. About on a par with Obama. And he had the race tied prior to the Dem convention.

    This is yet another reason why it's so important to go after McCain.

    When the history is written..... (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:42:10 AM EST
    There will be many people to blame, of course, but if you had to single out a single person or group, my money would be on Pelosi/Reid. As the most senior of our Party's elders, it was their duty, and responsibility to the long suffering Democratic Base, to do the right thing. Instead, they chose politics and personal power.

    You know how in a movie, when you see the villain slip a potion into "our heroes' drink, the action on the screen becomes moot because we know the fix is in and our hero will soon be unconscious. That's how I felt when Hillary trounced Obama in big state after big state, with increasing numbers and momentum. Yet the surreal flim-flam and state of denial by those"Leaders" was a breathtaking betrayal unfolding before our very eyes.
    The calls for Hillary's surrender became ever more shrill and mean spirited, even as the action on the ground was screaming a different story. If I had a dollar for every comment I made to whatever medium I could reach that this situation was exactly why the Special Delegates were chosen, I'd be a rich man today. Their duty was to insure a Democratic victory, but with the entire Democratic Old Guard locking arms, and understanding that a Clinton victory would mean their iron grip on Power and "business as usual" would be history, they became clones of the Republicans of 2000, fixed the deck, and set the stage for the disaster unfolding before us today.

    The Candidate oif Change was exposed as anything but.

    and that is exactly why (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:31:20 PM EST
    Obama and, with their double digit lead in a generic match-up having disappeared, the Democratic Party are in the trouble they're in now.

    The Party Leaders WILLINGLY ignored what the Primary Voters -- THEIR Primary Voters! -- were saying very loud and very, very clear from late-February on:  We choose Hillary Clinton.

    But they rolled the dice, chose Barack for us (who then turned around and chose Biden ... ????) and assumed we'd all sigh and follow along and, without doubt, vote for "their" candidate because, really, where else were we going to go?

    That's not how it's working out, though.  And they apparently have no idea how to recapture their Base.  Let me say that again because it might take a minute to sink in:

    They apparently have no idea how to recapture THEIR BASE!!!!!!!  

    Many, like me, are willing to vote for downticket races and leave the top spot blank.

    They said they didn't need my vote, so why give it to them?

    Parent

    Well, I guess if we want Obama to win (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by wasabi on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:02:27 PM EST
    Then we have to actually go out and work to acheive that goal.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by IzikLA on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    And therein lies the problem.  I'm a good Democrat and will absolutely be going to the polls to vote for Obama.  

    Problem is, after all that has been said and done, I don't want to volunteer and I don't want to contribute.  I'm hoping soon I will get over that and hoping that not picking Hillary was not his last chance as I increasingly fear it may have been.  

    Too many stupid moves, too many dingbat surrogates in the media and too many accusatory supporters for my liking.

    Parent

    Off topic and unhinged. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST


    but unhinged (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    in a refreshingly hilarious way.  Certainly more entertaining to read than the latest Poll numbers.

    One wonders if the Poster has a pet bird named Judy he dresses in pearls and a little hat like the interesting fella who used to belt opera on the corner while surrounded by his shopping carts.

    Parent

    Nothing is more frightening (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:44:08 PM EST
    than comments like that.

    If the democrats (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    lose this election the entire democratic establishment of howard dean, donna brazille and others MUST be replaced. The process of caucuses must also be examined due to the fact that caucuses represents the strong activists and not the will of the voters from that State. It is clear as day that Hillary would have been a stronger candidate and should have been our nominee. Nevertheless, she wasn't. However, by not picking her as VP, illustrates the madness in the minds of the Obama campaign and the democratic establishment. The latest newsweek poll released yesterday shows that about 50% of the hillary supporters now support McCain. It would have been a slam dunk with Obama/Hillary. I just wonder if the democratic party have lost their minds.

    Yikes, not what the poll said at all (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:05:11 PM EST
    as this is straight from the Newsweek website:

    One key group driving McCain's bounce on these issues: white women. McCain now leads Obama in this group by 16 points, 53 percent to 37 percent, up from July, when white women backed McCain by only 5 points--44 percent to 39 percent. Twenty-four percent of these women say they are more inclined to vote for McCain now that he has a female running mate.


    Parent
    Btw, it also say that Palin loses votes (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:06:29 PM EST
    with a substantial number of voters.  She wins more, but not that much more.

    That means some of this movement is McCain's, not hers.  Interesting.

    Parent

    50% (none / 0) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    Do you have a link for that?  That's nearly back to May levels in the heat of the primary.

    Parent
    RCP average this morning (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by rennies on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    has McCain up by 2.1.

    This recent Minnesota Poll caught me off guard (none / 0) (#3)
    by skuld1 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:10:04 AM EST
    Link here.

    Tied in Minnesota?  The Star Tribune isn't a right-wing rag either, so hope this is just an outlier.

    RCL (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    RealClearPolitics has put Minnesota as a swing state. Obama now has 207 solid or leaning states, McCain 227.

    Parent
    Too many battlegrounds (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Strick on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:23:47 AM EST
    Saw that, too.  There are way too many states Obama thought would be safe hanging in the margin of error at this point in the election.  New Jersey and Pennsylvania should not be that close.  Worse for Obama, the trend is against him.  

    RealClearPolitic's electoral count shows McCain up by 20 in the solid/leaning categories and their summary of state changes is all going his way.  That's a major shift from 3 weeks ago.

    Parent

    This is EXACTLY what many (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by kenosharick on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:28:55 AM EST
    of we Hillary supporters said would happen. She would have put away many of these states by now plus Ohio, W.Va, Ark. We traded a sure win for a nailbiter.

    Parent
    so, how does Team Obama (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM EST
    change this?

    I've seen no evidence they know how.  And Democrats can no longer comfort themselves with the excuse that "it's still early in the race" or "we have time".

    It's the final lap and we're racing toward the home stretch.  If they got a game changer they better bring it out now.

    If not, Obama better wrap his head around being just a Junior Senator from Illinois working with 99 other Senators doing "boring" Senate work for the next two years.

    Not the History he was hankering to make, that's for sure.

    Parent

    They do not know how (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by smott on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    ...when have they ever run against opposition?

    Parent
    You bet, KenoshaRick (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:59:37 AM EST
    as you and I and other Midwesterners here kept saying, over and over.  But the over-confidence was unabated.  Did they not notice that Minnesota elected a Republican gov?  That Wisconsin was the closest state last time and second-closest the time before?  Uh, duh.

    Parent
    And you bet Cream City (none / 0) (#49)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:42:27 AM EST
    your over confidence in HRC being able to win the GE against McCain is not shared by many. You seem to be one of the people who strongly believe that HRC lost the primaries mainly because of sexism. If HRC could barely wrestle BO to a draw in the popular vote in the Democrat Party primaries where female voters outnumber male voters by a whopping percentage points, what makes you think that in a GE, HRC would be able to beat McCain when she would not get such an overwhelming advantage on account of her gender? If it was McCain Vs HRC, the Republicans would win the elections on the basis of experience and national security and culture wars. If HRC touted the economy, they would mock her for being a tax and spend liberal who had no record of executive experience just like they smear every democrat. Complaints about sexism would not get her anywhere, I personally do not think that Democrats+Independents as a voting group are more sexist than Democrats+Independents+Republicans as an electorate. If Obama has a problem getting all of HRC's supporters to vote for him, what makes you think that many AAs and young voters would not want to sit out the GE if HRC got the nomination?
    HRC and Obama were the best candidates that the Democrat party could nominate and both are much better choices than the Republican alternative. It is also important to understand that both have vulnerabilities that prevent them from being sure shot winners. This article of faith that HRC would surely win while Obama is destined to lose is not based on facts, IMO.

    Parent
    And you bet that you're seeing things (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    in my comment that I didn't say.  I don't bother with commenters who see things in their heads that aren't here -- and don't bother to see what I said about gender bias in the comment above.  

    But that was not the topic of this thread.  Go find playmates somewhere else.

    Parent

    If Hillary had won, (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by WS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    Hillary would have been smart enough to pick Obama as his running mate.  

    Hillary is a Clinton and would have played the Clinton playbook that has won them two elections before.  Her strength with working class voters and with white women combined with traditional Democratic strengths would have handily beat whatever the Repubs are offering.  

    Her electoral map was set by locking up W. Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio, and PA all the while fighting over the blue tilting swing states of Washington, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, which coincidentally is what Obama is fighting over now after it was "assumed" these were his strong states except perhaps for Wisconsin and Iowa.    

    Clinton just has a better message of fighting for everyday Americans that plays well in a GE environment.  Obama has Change, which as we have seen can be stolen from him by Republicans of all people.  

    I hope Obama still wins though even though its turning out to be a nail-biter.  He may be lackluster with Clintonistas but he's our last hope this election against the Republicans.  

    Parent

    If HRC was nominated (none / 0) (#100)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:37:17 PM EST
    she would be in a better situation than Obama in Arkansas and West Virginia but would be in worse situation than him in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Virginia. There is no way in which HRC would be able to lock up Ohio, it would remain a toss-up till the end. The Democrats would lose Florida irrespective of whether HRC or Obama won the nomination and either one of them would win Pennsylvania and Michigan. If HRC won the nomination, she would receive a lower % of male votes than Kerry or Gore (Republicans are quite good at playing the culture war). If polls by convention time indicated that McCain was losing some Independent and republican women to HRC, he would have picked Palin as his VP. If polls around that time indicated that he was not losing that much of independent and Republican women support, he would pick any social and fiscal conservative with good economic policy credentials to rally the Republican base.
    Even if HRC won the nomination, the Democrats did not have a lock on the Presidency, IMO! It is time we stopped discussing this article of faith among some here, it really is time to move on.


    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by smott on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    HRC was handing McCain his azz in FL polls right up until Obama was announced the winner.

    IMO she gets FL/PA/MI easily and that makes OH moot.
    JMO.

    Parent

    Wrong analysis (none / 0) (#108)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    If you think that HRC being ahead of McCain in Florida a few months ago ensured that she would win that state in the GE, you may want to think again. Remember, Obama was also ahead of McCain in many states which are now more competitive. Also remember that Bill Clinton did not win Florida in 1992 and Florida has had Republican governors for quite some time.

    Parent
    Also remember (none / 0) (#109)
    by Politalkix on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:59:35 PM EST
    for HRC to even win Pennsylvania and Michigan in the GE, she needed very strong AA support. If she got the nomination instead of BO, why is it a given that they would vote for her and not stay home? Is it because you feel that AAs have nowhere else to go?

    Parent
    Outreach (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by WS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:21:53 PM EST
    and an Obama VP.  You forget the polls that said that African Americans would have been ok with Hillary on the top of the ticket and an Obama VP would have cooled the primary battle.  

    I disagree with you on Ohio.  She had that place more or less locked up. I forgot about Florida and she's way more competitive there than Obama.  Its great that Obama is more competitive than Hillary in Virginia and Colorado but I never wanted to depend on those states to win the GE judging by their electoral history and we may just have to depend on one of those two states to win.  

    They have differing paths to victory and I always thought that his path is way more risky.  Looks like my fears are right with the sudden turn of events.  I would rather have been fighting on blue states that Kerry won in 2004 than on red states that Bush won like we're doing now.        

    We're on the same side, though, and I hope Obama wins.  I still think he can but he has to bring it back to the issues.        

    Parent

    Missouri (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by WS on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:29:14 PM EST
    Don't forget about Missouri.  

    Parent
    Cream City- i read the (none / 0) (#140)
    by kenosharick on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:21:16 PM EST
    comments that followed yours and you were smart not to argue with someone who is not only politically ignorant, but contradicts themselves from one comment to the next. I think many diehard Obama supporters are freaking out because their in the bag landslide victory could be slipping away.

    Parent
    electoral vote.com (none / 0) (#65)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    has a link to an analysis of how long the conventions bounces typically last. Tyoically it is two weeks. Hopefully we will see a waning soon for the McCain bounce.

    Parent
    Give it up (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM EST
    It ain't fading, it ain't a bounce, its real. Look at todays Gallup and Ras, Ras has McCain up a bit more, and Gallup and has settled into a small lead (which I believe is a little smaller because of weekend bias, we'll see by Wed).

    The race has changed. Now Sen Obama has to change it back or McCain has to make a big mistake. No one has won, no one has lost, but this is no longer convention bounce.

    Disclaimer: this post is only the opinion of the writer and does not constitute "fact."

    Parent

    give what up? (none / 0) (#80)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:08:19 PM EST
     I was just commenting on an alternate analysis than yours, which was published.

    Shrug.

    Or do you mean just give up on the election because it's lost?

    I am confused.

     

    Parent

    Not the election (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    Sorry I just keep seeing the "bounce will fade" when it seems clear to me that part if gone. It looks like a bit of wishful thinking.

    It just seems clear that this is the current "new state of the race."

    Parent

    Yeah. The bounce mush be pummelled down (none / 0) (#91)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    it probably won't fade on it's own.

    Gotcha

    Parent

    must be pummeled (none / 0) (#97)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    erg. my spelling.

    Parent
    4 years ago pollsters showed Minnesota (none / 0) (#8)
    by tigercourse on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:26:54 AM EST
    as very close. A couple had Bush leading. So, I don't think it's too terrible. Yet.

    Parent
    St Pete Times Article (none / 0) (#4)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 09:13:47 AM EST
    today says Obama has not been ahead in the FL polls since early August.  

    Off Topic N/T (none / 0) (#54)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST


    Fox/Ras Ohio Poll - Mc (51) O (44) (none / 0) (#55)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:29:27 PM EST


    oh boy (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by ccpup on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    I have a feeling this disquieting trend upwards for McCain will continue.

    Obama needs to focus on the issues (not his strong point), convince voters he has what it takes to be entrusted with the Top Spot (polls indicate he's losing that battle) and resist the temptation to focus almost entirely on calling out McCain when he's personally attacked by him (he tends to sound whiny when he does and gives credence to the attacks when he spends an inordinate amount of time defending himself).

    I have little confidence the above route is the one Team Obama will choose.

    But McCain above the 50% mark in OH?  Not good.

    Parent

    That came out a week ago, (none / 0) (#58)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:33:27 PM EST
    but thanks for the reminder.

    Same day as Quinipiac 49-44 Obama came out in fact.

    Parent

    Check out a number of polls (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 12:52:36 PM EST
    Here

    That one is the clear outlier.

    Parent

    My point ws the poster (none / 0) (#76)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    took the least favorable poll, taken closest to the RNC and put it up now.  I could play that game too.

    I'm sure it's not right either, but I'd say OH was -2 right now.

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 01:14:03 PM EST
    Picking any one poll in any direction is just fitting the data to your wishes.

    Having said that I would say Ohio seems to be going McCains way. But that is not surprising.

    Parent

    Today's 4 tracking poll average (none / 0) (#115)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    is McCain +.25, his lowest result in 8 days.

    Can you please provide link? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 03:17:21 PM EST
    I know about RAS and Gallup, not sure what the other 4 are.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    They are: (none / 0) (#123)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 04:45:57 PM EST
    Diageo Hotline

    and

    the Research 2K/Kos one (it's on their masthead every day.  Kos just pays, R2K is very reputable pollster.

    Parent

    Guilt by association (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    I honestly know not much about R2K's reputation, but I have to say with the DK sponsorship I just think it looks fishy.

    And looking at both polls trend-line they haven't shown McCain ahead really.

    Parent

    On 538's pollster accuracy ratings (none / 0) (#130)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 06:23:20 PM EST
    they score far better than the average pollster, and on par with Mason-Dixon and Quinipiac.

    I can't help you with your feelings about Kos, but as far as R2K's polls go, they are good.  It's all business to them.

    Parent