McCain Jumps Ahead In Gallup Tracker

Time to panic!! Just kidding, but McCain has jumped ahead in the Gallup tracker with his convention bounce:

The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update shows John McCain moving ahead of Barack Obama, 48% to 45%, when registered voters are asked for whom they would vote if the presidential election were held today. These results are based on Sept. 4-6 interviewing, and include two full days of polling after the conclusion of the Republican National Convention last Thursday night. McCain has outpolled Obama on both Friday and Saturday, and is receiving a convention bounce just as Obama did last week.

Personally, I think the Media and Democratic surrogates have done McCain a great favor by aiming all their fire on Sarah Palin. Time to get back to the McCain/Palin = Bush's Third Term message. It's been lost for more than a week.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< My Report on McCain/Palin at the Colorado Springs Rally | Palin a Turn-Off to Many Working Class Women >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    have been hearing rumors about (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by athyrio on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    a dismal interview on O'Reilly that Obama had and that will be aired for several days next week...Do you think this will have a significant effect on the polls if true??

    not dismal at all (2.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:10:37 PM EST
    Parts of the interview have already been aired.

    Of course OReilly had done a unfair and unbalanced series of ads and promos in which he distorts what Obama said about the "surge" and its role in Iraq


    Yeah, I wonder how many people (none / 0) (#52)
    by TomStewart on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    will see the edited promos rather than the actual interview.

    And when is McCain going on MSNBC (if that really is the 'Obama Network')?


    The only thing dismal about it (none / 0) (#93)
    by Abbey on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:09:14 PM EST
    is having to put up with O'Reilly, who keeps interrupting.  He wants to have a debate instead of an interview.

    Some people are dismayed that Obama stated that the "surge" was "successful beyond imagination," but I think it blunted McCain's charge that Obama won't admit success.  


    This is all? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bluegal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST
    This is all that McCain has been able to achieve? His best nights should have been Fri, and Sat and he is only able to get to a 3 pt lead? He is still averaging barely 45% in the polls of polls. For his bounce to mean anything, he needs to be averaging 47-48% to get the same bounce as Obama.  The free infomercial for the GOP is over, if McCain can't continue to expand his lead, he's completely doomed.

    I's say dems should be worried (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM EST
    considering all the hoopla about obama winning in a landslide...looks like there is work for obama to do.

    What Hoopla? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by TomStewart on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:37:43 PM EST
    Just about everything I've seen says it will be a close race. Shouldn't be, considering what an outright disaster repub rule has been for the last eight years...

    everybody should be worried (none / 0) (#91)
    by AlSmith on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST

    there are plenty of things that can go wrong for Obama/? and Palin/McCain. Nobody has put anything away and there are plenty of opportunities for last minute nasty surprises and gaffs.

    I think GOP has a harder row since the EV maps is more against them. And there may be an actual Palin gaffe or scandal.

    Obama will probably lose all debates, so he really needs Biden to win big enough to become a story like Bentson. I also have a nasty suspicion that swing state voters are oversaturated with this long campaign already and trustafarian youths getting out the vote may actual hurt his campaign in these states.


    The reason I'd be worried (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by zvs888 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    Is that every day there's been an erosion in Obama's numbers; the tracking polls are the three day average.

    If you look at the analysis that some people do on the numbers, there was a substantial McCain edge on Friday and Saturday;  Thursday was near even and when that gets cycled out, we might see McCain +5 to +7.


    Doomed? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by davnee on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    McCain's bounce also had to erase Obama's bounce from last week.   It's not like they were exactly tied going into the RNC convention.  My guess is that when the bounces shake out later next week, we'll be back where we started with Obama holding a very narrow lead.  My further guess is that if you had asked McCain's camp in the spring if they would take being within the margin of error at the beginning of September (before the 527 campaigns launched) they'd take that.  I think Obama still has the edge (how could he not given the state of the world) for November, but he has done precious little to date to lock things down.  There is no excuse for things being so close at this point that McCain still has a reasonable chance.

    Kerry was up by double (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BernieO on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:46:37 PM EST
    digits at this stage in the campaign. Dukakis was up by a lot, too. And neither was a media fave the way Obama is. Bush's numbers weren't nearly as low in '06 as they are now. Any Dem should be ahead by double digits - low 20's at least. This spells serious weakness. And the Republicans have not used their big ammo. They always save that for after the conventions. If McCain's numbers start to tank, it will get brutal, IMO.

    I expect a swing back in the other direction (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    Obama's highs have been higher than McCain's.

    We should know where things really stand in 5-10 days.

    I'm gonna be a broken record (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    Early voting starts in Ohio on Sept. 30.  So in effect the election in the most key state takes place in 22 days.

    I think I'm panicing.


    Don't panic yet (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    Most people who vote early have made up their minds anyway. The advantage of early voting is that you as a candidate/party get to see which of your voters you need to turnout still.

    How? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    Since the votes aren't counted until election day and they don't know who voted early unless they happen to call them and get people to admit they've voted - how do they figure out who's voted early?

    It varies by place (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:39:13 PM EST
    But many of the states that offer early voting give you figures by day. Oregon, which is all vote by mail, will tell you exactly who voted every day, and I think on election day, they'll do it by the hour.

    And yes, campaigns do call their own supporters to see who's already voted. That's why party registration lists can be so valuable.

    Furthermore, in North Carolina and Virginia, we should know what percentage of the early vote was African America. Why? Voting Rights Act requires it.


    I think it's supposed to be (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:08:43 PM EST
    The VRA requires states to release the figures.

    If you check the NC sec of state website, you'll see that they have them.


    Even if it is not (none / 0) (#96)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:43:56 PM EST
    campaigns know the demographic breakdown by county - often by precinct.  So if Area A is 80% AA, they have a pretty good idea of how many black people have voted based on returns from Area A.

    it's a matter of public record (none / 0) (#50)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    It's how campaigns run absentee campaigns and GOTV

    Good point - thanks! (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:02:22 PM EST
    I just dont' want them to hold the heavy artillery until the last two weeks.

    Me either (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    Well, we got PUNKED (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:19:04 PM EST
    Anyone see that show?  Yep, that is what happened and everyone fell for it.  Yikes.  This is just the beginning.  Hold on to your hats, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.  

    What you mean "we"? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    I stand corrected!! (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:56:20 PM EST
    I did not and neither did the people of the old gang.

    The light music is good. I think it takes (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Teresa on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    the negative feeling away from a negative ad. It just doesn't feel mean like those type of ads usually do. I liked it.

    Yep...issues...get back to them (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    More than one Republican aquaintance has said that they don't know what Obama will "DO" if elected.   All they have heard is the rhetoric.   I keep directing them to his website.

    They keep saying they don't know how Obama wil accomplish tasks and pay for them.

    They don't ask the same questions of McCain.  They simply "like" McCain and "love" Pallin.   I think that they have bought the Republican brand and are sticking with it.

    Obama has to talk issues...and fast!

    Just @$#% unbeleivable... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    to have ANOTHER close election!!

    Mostly expected it (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    /Krugman, the country is divided for good reason.  That said, I think what we have here is the Repubs with a weak hand they've played well, and the Dems with a strong hand they haven't played as well as they could have.  

    Not trolling but I have to say (none / 0) (#44)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:19:37 PM EST
    Let's see if its close, in either direction.

    McCain controlling the narrative and the airwaves (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    Obama had better do something right out of the gate tomorrow to take back control of the narrative.

    From Politico-These won't cut it. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:52:00 PM EST
    Sun Sep 7, 10:00 AM ETPolitico

    Barack Obama says his answer about abortion at the Saddleback Church forum was "probably" too flip.

    and then goes on to explain what he really meant rather than what he said. And,
    Obama disclosed that he had once considered serving in the military.
    "And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option."

    Time for Biden to 'feel sick' (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Gabriel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    and be replaced by HRC?


    Just, the spark needed, (none / 0) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:30:14 PM EST
    and a media re-focus.  Not all good, of course, lots of "desparation" talk, much review of the Eagelton misadventure, albeit for a difference reason, but, in this case, not too late. One nice thing about many mistakes, is that they can be corrected, even though a price may need to be paid.  Having said all of this, it is not going to happen.

    Worry (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:47:20 PM EST
    No but it should light a fire under Obama. Of course, I don't think he knows how. He's spent literally months and months thinking that he could coast into the presidency. NEWSFLASH: Never, never underestimate the GOP and I'm afraid that's exactly what has happened.

    Demographics for Improvement (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:55:54 PM EST
    Obama is not having trouble with women of all ages, races and economic standing true before and after the Republicans announced their vp pick.  

    The gender gap for Obama is with men.  So what's up fellows are you still waiting for Edwards  :)

    The gender gap for Democrats is always (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    with men, white men specifically -- I don't think even Clinton, who did better than most, got more than about 44% of the white male vote.

    That's why energizing women is so important. You need LOTS or women to offset the disadvantage among men. Bush is in office because in 2000 and 2004 women split their vote more evenly than in the Clinton elections. (Democrats also have women to thank for winning the house back in 2006, and, unfortunately, to blame for losing the house in 2004 -- an election in which they mostly stayed home.)


    I'm sorry that should have read 1994 (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    I guess it's what they call "chemo brain"

    Why should we change to Bush Third Term? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by blogtopus on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    The current method of not attacking the enemy's weakest point is working out GREAT.

    Absolutely disgusting. The GOP are once again convincing the nation to vote against its best interest.

    I wonder how Obama feels, knowing this year was supposed to be a slam dunk and instead it will be a close race (and possibly a crushing disappointment)? Why do I bother asking? The answer is going to be (has always been): Blame the Clintons.

    I think the 3rd term (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by BernieO on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    argument has been used so long it is not as effective. Just like McCain decided to drop the experience argument because is had already won whoever cared about that issue, Obama needs something else.

    Jon Stewart is setting the standard on this (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Knocienz on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM EST
    His comparison of Bush's 2000 acceptance speech and McCain's 2008 acceptance speech was brilliant.

    The Right Analysis (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    You, BTD, agree with Sean Quinn over at FiveThirtyEight.  In his very good analytical piece, Sean draws a hockey analogy.  Palin is the dirty fighting player that a hockey team puts in to force the opposite team to react to her rather than to the team's main offensive players.  Palin is the one who high-sticks you when the ref isn't looking so you spend your time trying to get back at her instead of focusing on where the puck is and who has it.

    This is exactly right.  People pay more attention to who is at the top of the ticket.  The Dems should keep their focus on McCain. To its credit, the Obama campaign (as opposed to most of the left blogs) seems to be doing that, continually putting out ads calling McCain more of the same and not spending much discussing Palin.  

    Sean Quinn (how's that for an Irish name?) notes that Biden gave what Quinn thinks is exactly the right response -- acknowledge that she's good at throwing red meat, compliment her on it, and then go on to note that McCain is just McSame.

    The unanswered question, though, is what is the effect of all the left-blog focus on Palin?  Is this keeping public and courtier media focus on her?  Or is it mostly irrelevant left-blog circle jerking?  

    I suspect it's mostly the latter and I suspect it's also a function of one of the weaknesses of left-blogistan.  With a few exceptions, left-blogs are mostly reactive to what is being published in the courtier media.  People watch Press the Meat and then write a piece about what they saw.  In this sense, many left-blogs are letting the courtier media they claim to despise set the agenda for them.  And that agenda is set for the courtier media -- more often than not -- by the political party more adept at manipulating the media, IOW the R's.

    Kind of ironic that left-blogs are acting as an amplifier for the right wing noise machine. But there you have it.

    An Extension (none / 0) (#53)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    Paul Rosenberg over at Open Left, extends the analysis and the hockey metaphor (and mentions BTD's piece here), explaining what the R's game really is an making some interesting suggestions as to what we -- us in left blogistan -- can do.  

    These kinds of pieces -- and not those that focus on hand wringing, cheerleading and the sky is falling -- are what makes reading the left-blogs worthwhile.


    Two months away from an election (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by karmadillo on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:39:50 PM EST
    the Democrats could have and should have owned, and here we are tied or worse. I vote panic. I think we face some genuine structural problems. First, we've chosen not to run on issues. We're going to hope and change and reach across the aisle to our brother and sister Republicans. Unless Obama wants to admit that's just a schtick and start running a sensible, Hillary-like populist campaign, I'm not sure where he's going to get the traction he needs to climb over 50.00001% (about the best we can hope for at this point). Second, hitting out at the Republican ticket to drive up negatives runs the risk of accusations of misogyny, an issue it will be hard for the Democrats to defend against since they're already guilty of misogynistic attacks on Hillary. Third, the electoral college looks OK at the moment except for the fact a slew of the battleground states have a historical tendency to go right. It doesn't take heaps of imagination to see McCain making up the electoral deficit and gong over 270 by November.

    Moral: nominate the strongest candidate, run on issues, don't snub the strongest VP candidate, don't nominate an insider VP when you're running an outsider campaign, and treat women decently on principle (if it's what you say you're about) and for pragmatic considerations (you can't win without a significant majority of them).

    I never thought the Democrats could lose the Presidency in 2008, but I think it's very possible now.

    According to RCP's current estimates ... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:49:58 PM EST
    without toss-ups all McCain would have to do is flip New Mexico to get to 270.

    New Mexico is the Hamlet of the electoral college.  They can't make their mind up on anything.  Bush '00, Kerry '08 and both by tiny margins.

    Is that what we want to be counting on come election day?


    I think New Mexico goes blue. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Southsider on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    It's Colorado we have to worry about, as well as Michigan (see my post above).

    And though I didn't mention it there, we shouldn't ignore the real danger in New Hampshire as well.  In a Dem year, with the shifting demographics of the state (as more ex-Massachusettsians move in to escape taxes), NH should be totally out of reach for the GOP despite its previous swing state status.  But McCain has always had special ties to NH - they made him as a candidate in 2000 and resurrected him from the dead in 2008 alongside Hillary - and the fact that Obama only has a lead of 0.3% right now is intensely disturbing.  Ultimately I think Obama will hold NH - the regional pressure and nationwide trend is just too strong - but I wouldn't bet a dime on my hunch.  

    Furthermore, if McCain manages to take NH, Sununnu will probably win reelection: he's reasonably popular in the state and has only run behind in polls because of the general disgust with the GOP brand.  If McCain can get the Granite State to turn out to vote for him, those folks will likely vote for an inoffensive downballot Senator as well.


    Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by bigbay on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    That's the election and always has been . Forget about NC , or piecing together a group of states that includes Colorado. This is ridiculous.

    The Democrats thought this was a safe (4.83 / 6) (#71)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:10:50 PM EST
    year in which to play internal power games.

    I don't blame Obama -- he's an idealistic, ambitious and confident man who was being told by powerful backers that THIS was his moment. But I do blame those powerful players in the Democratic establishment who saw him first and foremost as a vehicle for defeating Hillary and diminishing the Clinton's power -- while aggrandizing their own -- without giving serious thought to the handicap his unknown status and brief national resume would present in the general election.

    Perhaps he will carry this off on sheer personality alone, or an unprecedented turnout among a younger generation of voters.

    If he doesn't, his loss may have bad long term consequences for the party (and all the rest of us) but also, sadly, it may do long term harm to his once-so-brilliant political prospects.


    If he loses... (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jeffhas on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:06:31 PM EST
    Those party Power Brokers will be gone.  The Clinton wing will be able to write an 'I-Told-You-So' story so powerful it'll wash them all away.  

    I look forward to that cleansing.  

    Pelosi, Dean, Reid, Brazille and many others are on my personal doppler radar... and there may be another hurricane on it's way come Nov. 5.

    There will be no long term damage to the party, only to Obama - he'll be lucky to remain a Senator... I'm sure he could still write books (maybe Oprah will make one of them a Book Club winner), or maybe go back to being a community organizer... Really, can you actually imagine what Obama's career will look like if he doesn't win? ...At least with Hillary (whom I still support) you could see her carving out a future for herself and the American People, no matter what adversity she is dealt that girl just picks herself up and goes on - another staggering difference.


    To Esmense: Another thank you! (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:45:24 PM EST
    I think that this is the second time in 2 days that my compliments go out to you for your perspicacity. More directly: I think also that you hit it with the reference to the internal Democratic power struggle that happened when everything was going our way. Yoiks! How foolish we have been!

    I think that the concentration (5.00 / 9) (#49)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    on Palin has less to do with her positions on the issues and more to do with the monkey wrench that she has thrown into the Obama strategy for winning. I think the Obama camp ran its campaign as though once the primary season was over, if they secured the nomination, they could pretty much phone in the general. The Republican base was not very enthusiastic about McCain, Bush's approval ratings were low, some of the younger evangelicals were beginning to consider Obama, and Hillary's supporters "had nowhere else to go". The people who are complaining that McCain should have picked Romney or Pawlenty for VP aren't as much concerned about the experience level as they are about that while either of them would have continued the snooze level of McCain's campaign, Palin actually makes this a race. It's the excitement that she has generated that has changed the metrics, and some on the left are so angered by the shift in the playing field that they are blinded to the contribution that their diatribes are adding to McCain's positive polling. Whether Obama will be able to switch gears and fight for the votes he needs to win will have more to do with him than with Palin. He's got to start asking people for their votes instead of assuming he deserves them.

    The Republicans backed a man disliked by (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:14:05 PM EST
    many of the party's most powerful players -- because he had the best change of victory in this election.

    The Democrats worked like hell to push the candidate with the best chance of victory out of the race -- because she and her husband were disliked by many of the party's other powerful players.


    This was a race that should have been a lock (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Bob K on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM EST
    if the party bigwigs hadn't blatantly ignored rules violations by some states and placed odious penalties on others in order secure the nomination for Obama. Then to not have even offered Hillary the slot as the VP candidate was idiocy.

    I expect Obama to continue to slide for a couple more days. He peaked mid-week after the convention and I expect the same for McCain. This has been a seriously bungled campaign. Win in November or not, many heads should roll at the top of the DNC.


    Ras: Tied due to "Palin bounce" (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Exeter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST

    Plus the movement has come almost completly from women:  McCain went from being down 14 points before Palin's speech to six points now.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by snstara on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    We need to get off the Palin pile-on and get back on message.  The pile-on is what the McCain people want, because they will win that fight; not on the facts, but on the emotions the fight provokes.

    In fact, I think this distraction from the issues was the real reason McCain chose Palin.  Moreover, I believe he counted on the extreme overreaction to Palin from many in the media and on the left blogs. Rather than a cynical ploy to attract women who supported Hillary Clinton, it was McCain's cynical ploy to attract the disdain of the media and the more hotheaded blogs.  Amazingly, he learned something from Clinton's campaign that Obama never did: namely, that the more the press and the Obama surrogates derided Clinton and screamed WWTBGO?, the more the actual voting public espoused Clinton's cause and showed up to vote for her.  Wasn't that in part because people perceived her as the underdog, the fighter, being attacked - one of them, in other words?  

    Palin is a daily reminder to Clinton voters that Obama had the opportunity to make a similar choice and didn't.  And doesn't having Palin engage Obama set up a dynamic similar to that in the primaries?  For that reason alone, Obama ought to stay clear of direct criticism of Palin.  Plus, it takes the focus off McCain - the candidate he's running against.  But McCain knows that.

    Also, choosing a female Washington outsider certainly has the appearance of change, no matter what we know about the real McCain.  The media pile-on seals the deal with most Republican holdouts: no matter how they may feel about her, they will stay on message to defend her.  The real danger is, it may also attract voters who feel the urge to side with a candidate they perceive as 'just like them' and under attack.

    Engaging with Sarah Palin in any way that allows her to present her case as a fighter and an underdog is a strategy which dooms Democrats to well-deserved failure.  Presenting her as someone who is part of  the Bush failure, and leaving her to Biden and carefully trained surrogates (No sexism! No referring to a Governor as a mom first, even if that's how she refers to herself! No Caribou Barbie quips!) would be a far better strategy.  McCain knew exactly what he was doing when he chose her  - and it's worked.  Isn't it time to stop playing into these people's hands every d--n election?! ;)

    Aiming all their fire (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by DaveOinSF on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:36:54 PM EST
    "I think the Media and Democratic surrogates have done McCain a great favor by aiming all their fire on Sarah Palin"

    I think this includes Jeralyn.

    Ignore the Gallup national polls, pay attention to (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Southsider on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    ...the state polls in Colorado and Michigan.  The Gallup poll is alarming - because Gallup is historically so solid - but the real bellwethers of the McCain/Palin effect will be the movement in upcoming CO and MI polls.  

    The ugly truth is this: if McCain can flip CO back to red whilst only sustaining losses in NM an IA, it's over.  He won't lose FL or VA - if I were Obama I'd pull out of them now, and start spending smarter elsewhere - and I honestly think that Palin gives him the edge in OH.  Obama CAN win CO and NV, however, and he ought to be pouring his money into those states.  

    The most terrifying state of all is MI.  Hasn't gone Red in 16 years, but a perfect storm of political factors (Kilpatrick, economic misgovernance by Dems, racial polarization, inability to mobilize black voters in Detroit, likely gangbusters popularity of Palin and her Yupper accent in the northern red counties) threatens to flip this one to the bad guys.  If we see movement in McCain's direction in upcoming MI polls, be afraid, be very afraid.  Most upsetting of all is the memory of the 2006 AA ballot initiative: even in a super-democratic year, the anti-AA initiative polled around 45% during the run-up but ended up winning by 56%.  If there's any state where the "Bradley effect" could really play a role, it's MI.

    One hope is that McCain wastes time/money in PA.  PA is the GOP's presidential Moby Dick.  They keep hunting it, and keep failing, and it keeps threatening to lead them to their doom.  Even with best efforts by McCain (absent an Obama self-immolation) PA stays blue.

    Michigan is what worries me ... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    the most.

    I don't believe a Dem can win without Michigan.  You can get there mathematically, but I don't see it happening.

    If Michigan gets called for McCain on election night, you might as well go to bed.  McCain has won the election.

    So Michigan is the firewall.

    And I agree with the rest of your analysis.  But I've very uncomfortable counting on those skittish western states.


    Being Michigan-Born and (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    still holding blood ties to the state, I cannot tell ya how much I love this concern for the state. But the problem is not relegated to Michigan alone, even though it is the motor state and it is ground zero for the automotive meltdown.

    The problem stretches from Indiana, through Michigan, down to Ohio and Kentucky and up to western Pennsylvania. Each and everyone of those states is a toss-up, and Obama and McCain would be kidding themselves if they can discount them.


    This isn't really true. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Southsider on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:38:03 PM EST
    Every election year, it seems, the candidates on both sides chase after electoral shadows in states where they don't win, don't even come all that close, and never really had a chance.  In 2000, it was Bush's folly of wasting time in states like CA when he should've been shoring up support in FL.  In 2004 it was Kerry wasting time in MO and FL when he should have pushed more in OH, NM, and NV.  This year Obama is foolin' if he thinks he's going to come within 10 percentage points of McCain's margins in KY, and I predict the margin won't be all that close in IN either. OH, MI and PA are obviously battlegrounds.

    Why do campaigns do this?  Perhaps they're genuinely confused.  But I think not, most of time.  I think it's part of the kabuki theatrics of presidential campaigns, a "show of strength" for media consumption.  "Look," a campaign like Obama's is saying, "we have such broad-based appeal that we're competing for out-of-pocket states like Indiana!  North Carolina!"  At the end of the day, though, I doubt David Axelrod & Co. think they really have a chance in hell of rolling up states like IN or NC or MT or SD.  You'll see them pulling their operations out of there soon enough.  The only way they win those states is in either an outright Nixon/Reaganesque blowout or in a genuine "map-changer."  Neither scenario seems likely at this point.  The states that look like they could possibly flip this year are the ones which have looked vulnerable for the last four years: CO, NV, NM, IA, OH, PA, VA, MI, NH, WI, more or less.


    The only thing wrong with your analysis (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    that I can see is that you misspelled Yooper dere, hey.  

    Did McCain-Palin go to WI first (none / 0) (#89)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    to test their strategy for MI?

    It's not the "economy stupid" (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Prabhata on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    And it's not the issues or policy.  This time the DNC messed up royally.

    In 2004 Kerry was the most unexciting candidate since Dukakis.  I voted for him because he had the "D" next to him.

    Now we have another candidate with no spine and the voters are making their decisions fast.  The voters are the same ones that elected Bush in 2000 and 2004.  Yeah, I know that the Supreme Court tilted the scales in 2000, but it should not have been that close, and it should not have been close in 2004 and now in 2006.


    Polls are over-rated (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Abbey on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    I'm a poll addict, but this year the polls are not capturing an accurate picture.  The likely voter model is not reflecting Obama's advantages on the ground.

    Obama is not conducting a "national" campaign.  He's focusing on specific swing states, and specific areas of opportunity within those states.  At the same time, he's head-faking in some red states to make McCain spend more heavily.

    The polls simply don't measure the race that Obama is running.  If they did, I believe he would have a 10-point lead.

    Evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Nike on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    This sounds great, but what specifics do you have?

    Plus, of course, if it gets within something like the margin of error, then my sense is that the election can be stolen.

    Maybe, you feel confident that Obama will be better at election stealing than the RNC? I am willing to hope for that if that is what is comes to, but, otherwise, I do not think that being complacent or even just confident works here.


    I feel confident that (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Abbey on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:20:22 PM EST
    the polls don't reflect current electoral reality, nor the race that Obama's running.  

    No, I'm not confident that Obama will win, but he is so far.


    Fair enough, but there's no partial credit. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Nike on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:24:35 PM EST
    You only get to win if you are ahead on Nov 4.

    But, still, where are the specifics for your claim/intuition that the polls are wrong?

    I take you to be saying something more substantial than just polls are usually wrong, so I would be interested to hear on what you base that sense.


    I thought? (none / 0) (#104)
    by supertroopers on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:36:37 PM EST
    Once McCain had picked Palin he was finished?

    According to the latest polls (McCain now ahead? That's a first) and ratings (R's > D's by 500k watchers) I'm just so confused now.

    Hillary 2008 still?


    Polls aren't "wrong" (none / 0) (#105)
    by Abbey on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    On average they reveal trends, and they are "correct" in comparison against themselves if the methodology is consistent.

    However, none of the polling companies have fully taken into account some special matters in this election of new voters, new likely voter models, intensity, and difficulty in reaching some Obama supporters such as students, cellphone users, roommates, mobility, and minorities.  


    I'd like to hear BTD's take on this... (none / 0) (#109)
    by jeffhas on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:24:03 PM EST
    none of the polling companies have fully taken into account some special matters in this election of new voters, new likely voter models, intensity, and difficulty in reaching some Obama supporters such as students, cellphone users, roommates, mobility, and minorities.

    Because I've read/heard most/all polling companies poll cellphone users... and crosstabs on many polls call out and take into account likely voter models, new voters, and intensity - especially within party and ethnicity.

    ... of course that holy grail of holy grails... the 'roommate' segment of the electorate could prove me completely wrong...


    Chuckle if you wish, but (none / 0) (#111)
    by Abbey on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:42:01 AM EST
    sharing addresses is a factor among young people that are more likely to support Obama - and it makes polling them more difficult.

    Polling companies are only making token efforts against a range of factors that are peculiar to Obama voters, and the likely voter models are not taking into account the surge of new Democratic registrations - especially in red states such as Virginia and North Carolina.  


    How to sqaure this with (none / 0) (#1)
    by Polkan on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:06:57 PM EST
    McCain's new-found populism about pledging to have more than one Democrat in his administration and serving on $1 a year?

    I still agree with the strategy, but my doubts are growing about its effectiveness overall.

    Wait a minute! He said that? (1.00 / 2) (#2)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:12:32 PM EST
    $1.00 per year? How can a single working mom with small children, presuming he hires a few,  work in his administration, and pay the bills on $1.00 per year?

    What he said was that the "best off" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:26:49 PM EST
    in his cabinet would be asked to serve for $1 a year; to forego the traditional salary for that position.  

    Looking to History (none / 0) (#20)
    by BrianJ on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:30:01 PM EST
    During both world wars, American captains of industry donated their services to the federal government for the minimum binding legal consideration of one dollar a year.

    Here's a 1942 Time article, describing the concept and then-Senator Harry Truman's skepticism (because many of these men were still paid by their corporate employers):



    oh sheesh... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    John McCain says he'd impose a little fiscal discipline on his Cabinet -- by asking the best-off to work for one dollar per year.

    But did he say (none / 0) (#27)
    by ohmercy on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    that HE would also take $1.00 a year?

    I'm guessing he did but just wondering.


    dunno... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    I stopped watching the Sunday shows ages ago for my own well-being.

    I'd assume yes...but that's simply an assumption.


    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#30)
    by Pianobuff on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    but I believe a sizable, if not all, of his personal income is donated to charity.  

    I did not hear him say that (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    and I watched the interview.  I'm sure he will be asked now.  If he already donates his income it is a moot point.

    Until he donates... (3.50 / 2) (#102)
    by Thanin on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:15:48 PM EST
    some of those houses he has, Im not impressed.

    About convention bounces... (none / 0) (#7)
    by EL seattle on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    Is it possible that in the current era of hyper-media (cable, internet, texting. etc.) the traditional "post-election bounce" is becoming no more significant than a bounce from a new YouTube-able faux pax, or any big media event bounce?  

    Maybe momentum can be built from a series of small bounces, but the conventions don't provide a mega-bounce the way they used to?

    Well, in this case.. (none / 0) (#60)
    by vj on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    One parties convention followed immediately by another, with the intro of Sarah Palin (and a Hurricane threatening New Orleans) in the middle there.

    There's been a lot to digest, and not much time for digesting.


    it's just an expected convention bounce (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:25:00 PM EST
    polls won't mean anything for another week or more. I don't think the poll has anything to do with how the media has treated Sarah Palin. It's to be expected he would be ahead right after the convention, just as Obama was after the DNC.

    Whatever J (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    You are going to be stubborn about it I know.

    The Obama campaign is not.

    Maybe you'll get on board the Obama wagon soon. But it does not matter, I think everyone else has already learned their lesson.

    Maybe you and Josh Marshall will be the holdouts.


    My only problem... (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Exeter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM EST
    Yes, mccain=Bush third term is a very effective argument that should be used, but it, in and of itself, won't get Obama elected.  For two reasons: 1) People don't believe that McCain or anyone could be incompetant as Bush. 2) Bush wasn't very popular in 2004 either, but was still re-elected... "voting against" strategy has limitation--you need give something people to vote FOR.

    Obama needs to start talking about health care and the economy and juxtaposing himself on these issues against McCain.


    And focus on the fixes to the problem ... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    more than the problem.

    People know the problem.


    Sorry Jeralyn (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    but your spin has become ridiculous.

    CW would say if Obama was truly a front runner at worst what would have happened was his bounce would have been bigger than McCain's bounce and Obama would still be leading by a few points - not trailing. That didn't happen.

    So you are saying that because McCain's bounce was bigger than Obama's bounce it is no big deal?

    I also disagree with you on Palin and the press. She had a great deal to do with the current polls. She is the News and the new Rock Star. And with the MSM and the bloggers including you who are Palin 24/7 she will remain the news. And as long as she is the news Obama's message doesn't get out and McCain's does.

    And that is where BTD has it wrong. Obama doesn't have to 'get back to' Bush III because he never stopped. Yes one has to dig through articles to find it but his speeches the last week have not abandoned the Bush III theme. Not at all. What has happened is the MSM has found a new Media Darling. McCain stole that from Obama with the naming of Palin and as long as she can keep that up for the next 58 days Obama's message won't get out. And don't think the GOP doesn't know how to play her card and keep her fresh. And with you and the rest of the blogosphere obsessing over her along with the MSM and talking heads the GOP's job will be easy.


    question... (none / 0) (#75)
    by canadian gal on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:24:11 PM EST
    JM's bounce was higher than BO's?  someone told me that the post-convention bounce been an indicator of the winner the past four-cycles...  anyone know if that's true?

    I've read... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:44:58 PM EST
    ...that Obama's biggest post-convention bump didn't show up till last Tuesday so that we'll have to wait till this Tuesday to fully measure McCain's post-convention numbers.

    Personally, I'm more anxious to see the state polling after both conventions, particularly for OH, MI, CO and NV. I'm really hoping SurveyUSA releases some state polls tomorrow.


    How interesting (none / 0) (#32)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    I was thinking about changing the narrative more in terms of slamming McCain on his pis$-poor economic plans and you two are still fighting the primary.

    Biden just gave a strong performance on MTP, especially regarding Iraq and how McCain doesn't have a clue about how to get us out or what to about Middle East neighbors when we do get out. That's called "changing the narrative."

    The best way to hit McCain (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by BernieO on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:58:54 PM EST
    on the economy is to keep hammering home the great economy under Clinton which had as an added bonus A SURPLUS! Obama mentioned Clinton's record in his acceptance speech, but I have a feeling that might just have been to reassure those of us in the base who think Clinton was da' bomb on economics. I am afraid he will stop bringing this up even though it is proof positive that things like the tax cut on upper income people that Obama proposes helps everyone. The rich did extremely well under Clinton in spite of the bite from the tax cut. What was even more impressive was that the poor did too (6-7 million moved into the middle class, a record), as well as those of us in the middle. Obama needs to embrace this legacy as proof that Dems know how to govern!

    I heard Obama mention (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Bluesage on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    Clinton's economy this week-end in a speech and he got very lackluster approval on all the points he tried to make.  I really think that at the point people are less impressed and have less faith that he is up to the job.  He is certainly no Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton and he really does pale in comparison.  People are finally noticing that we nominated the weakest and least experienced candidate and are getting very nervous.  Thank you median and manipulators at the DNC.  I'm thinking Hillary Hatred won the primary and McCain/Palin will win the GE.

    Oops! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Bluesage on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    I can't seem to type today.  That would be "at this point" and "Thank you media".  

    From Rasmussen (none / 0) (#76)
    by wasabi on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    "Data from Rasmussen Markets currently gives Obama a 57.4 % chance of winning in November."

    I think McCain is thrilled by those odds (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by davnee on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    Hard to believe, in this cycle and at this point, he's got a 40+% shot at winning.  Obama needs to get busy.  His campaign has been pretty miserable since February.  You can only coast on hype so long.  

    Exactly! The Issues! (none / 0) (#81)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    But you were commenting about misogyny which, I think, is a topic Obama and Biden should stay away from altogether.

    It's all about issues and who appears strongest and clearest now. That is what Obama lacked in this morning's interview on ABC while Biden was very good on NBC. They need to get their act together and create one message to keep hitting McCain with from now until November: McCain is wrong on everything because his policies are from the past.

    New CNN poll has McCain/Palin up by 10 pts (none / 0) (#110)
    by nsw43 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:33:16 PM EST
    This is among likely voters.

    Up by 4 pts among registered voters.

    Too soon to say for sure, but it looks like an entirely new race, with McCain/Palin leading and Obama/Biden trying to catch up.