ABC/WaPo Poll: McCain By 2

In line with other polls released today (see, e.g, today's CBS poll, which has McCain 46-44), the ABC/WaPo poll shows a tight race, McCain 49-47. The highlight however is the big move among white women:

White women have moved from 50-42 percent in Obama's favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift in the margin that's one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences. The other, also to McCain's advantage, is in the battleground Midwest, where he's moved from a 19-point deficit to a 7-point edge.

In essence, Obama opened the door by not picking Hillary Clinton and McCain walked through it. McCain's Palin gamble clearly has worked. He is in the game. And he would not have been if he had not chosen Palin. And McCain would not have chosen Palin if Obama had picked Clinton.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Bush to Increase Troops to Afghanistan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    We got trouble with a captial T (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Saul on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:11:21 PM EST

    Ditzy? (5.00 / 12) (#162)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:31:18 PM EST
    Sorry...but, as a lifelong Democrat, I'm sensitive to sexist slurs (or, perceived sexist slurs.) Let me just acknowledge that you who write of "ditzy" that I understand your concern/anxiety/wonder/bewilderment, but I do not accept throwing out words or phrases ascribing a ditzy (or other imbalanced) characteristic to women who would support someone that we don't want to see succeed. I'm a woman; a Democrat; a feminist; a lawyer; and, in the past, the "first" woman in a number of positions. I have a particular aversion to our side throwing out the sex-based comments because we feel insulted or angry. Sorry, I lived it in my own way. So...please, try another avenue of attack...one devoid of her gender. Again, sorry, but it hits hard for me and a number of my friends. After all, it is an unusual situation.

    I'm not sure why you feel the need to (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by leis on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:14:06 PM EST
    apologize for calling this garbage out. Own it. It was a bullsh*t thing to say.

    And she can cook! (1.00 / 1) (#154)
    by addy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:20:18 PM EST
    Nonsense! (none / 0) (#113)
    by Nevart on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:18:03 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but there is no way that 20% of women changed their minds in the space of a few days.  Not to mention that all the other polls showing Obama still with a healthy lead among women.  The idea that by picking Hillary he would move women's votes enough to make a difference is just silly.

    Stop being such nervous nellies about these polls.  It's a dead-cat bounce from the GOP convention, that's all.  By this time next week it will be right back where it was before the conventions, with BO a couple-three points ahead.


    the idea that picking hillary would (5.00 / 8) (#125)
    by sancho on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:36:09 PM EST
    help obama with women voters is "just plain silly"?

    keep telling yourself that.


    over 6 percent unemployment, and continuing inflation. But our dem candidates are arguing about Palin, and a bridge to nowhere. McCain has them talking about what he wants to talk about.

    We need a message change, and fast.

    Don't be naive by saying there is nothing to worry about.


    You got it (none / 0) (#166)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:35:12 PM EST
    Thank you, ChuckieTomato.

    Can't argue with that. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Faust on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:11:38 PM EST
    I'm sure they are kicking themselves behind closed doors. If they aren't too busy sweating.

    Just covered on my local news (5.00 / 14) (#4)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:16:22 PM EST
    they went over the poll and then 'discussed' that Obama needed Hillary for appeal to women and showed a snip of her stump today asking people to vote for Obama (economy stump I believe). The snip they showed of O, was him saying how McCain stole his message. {sigh}

    ouch. (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:25:09 PM EST
    Tres painful, that.

    Obama strikes me as a poor ex temp speaker.  I remember Hillary's "baking cookies" comment and how far she has come since then.  Obama could learn quickly what to say and more importantly, what NOT to say, but I doubt it.  Obama may talk about Change, but he is reluctant to embrace change personally.


    O needs to trim those things OUT of (5.00 / 10) (#30)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:33:46 PM EST
    his stump. It's what makes the news. He's got several. You would THINK after 19 months (as he keeps reminding us!) he would have a clue.

    Comparing his idea of change to McCain's on issues and method would be much more effective, imo. Especially for the women's vote that he needs.

    Gibson mentions O losing women right off the top, race dead even. In the mid-west Mc has gone from a double digit deficit (all voters) to a 7 point lead. 20% shift in women nationwide. OY.


    just showed him live on CNN (5.00 / 10) (#44)
    by bjorn on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:42:59 PM EST
    he sounds sarcastic, but I guess that is okay for man....just don't do it if you are a woman!  Seriously, he needs to watch some video of Clinton out there right now and change his tone.

    He also sounds mocking (5.00 / 14) (#50)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:50:37 PM EST
    which he doesn't have down to a digestable art yet.

    This is the same type of tactic he tried with Hillary. It didn't help him then, why on earth would it help him now. Especially in places where he LOST to her?! They may like mocking at the fund raisers, but it sure isn't working for him on the campaign trail outside of his base.


    sarcasm doesn't sound (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:50:49 PM EST
    like leadership and I trust McCain will pivot whatever he's doing in order to sound reasonable and serious, yet still funny, just to play off the sense that sarcastic, sweating Obama now seems a bit desperate.

    And I think he is.  Where he is now post-Convention is probably nowhere near where his campaign's flow charts said he would be.  And they're not quite sure how to fix it.

    So, start lashing out and see what sticks.


    Obama mocks Palin (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by S on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:48:39 PM EST
    Obama on Palin: 'Mother, governor, moose shooter'

    More from Parnes in Farmington Hills, MI:

    Obama told the crowd that McCain and Palin spent most of the convention talking about their biographies.

    Palin's bio is "compelling," Obama said.

    The crowd booed. "No, it's an interesting story." More boos. "No, no, it is. I mean that sincerely. Mother, governor, moose shooter."

    The crowd broke out in laughter. "That's cool. That's cool. That's cool stuff," Obama said.


    Obama is trying tooo hard to be cool...this is not presidential...his ego is his problem

    does he think this behavior will attract women?


    Obama's sarcastic tone (5.00 / 8) (#114)
    by S on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:20:38 PM EST
    I completely agree - Obama needs to change his tone...frankly he sounds too casual and it is offensive to many...reminds me of when he metaphorically 'flicked' Hillary from his shoulders...AND it does not look or sound Presidential to people that are just tuning in...ironically, Obama is the one that is starting to sound shrill, but you will never hear him called that...

    Kind of similar here (5.00 / 11) (#24)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:31:51 PM EST
    in Chicago. They just talked about McCain being here for a fundraiser and a clip of Obama complaining about "change" being his and how McCain and Palin aren't change.

    The strange thing is that they're using a clip of Barack sweating and seeming agitated talking about Governor Palin saying "they must think you're stupid." Certainly not the hopey shiny image of Obama I'm accustomed to seeing.


    Makes me cringe (5.00 / 13) (#45)
    by nell on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:43:04 PM EST
    In the past few days, he has used the "they must think you are stupid" line for various attacks, and it just makes me cringe. It sounds SO unpresidential and just makes him look childish. I mean I just don't think the Presidential candidate should be using the word stupid, but maybe I am just old-fashioned like that. The clips I have seen of him the past few days make him look angry and petulant and not cool, calm, and in control. You want a fighter, but not one that tells you the other side must think you are stupid. Really rubs me the wrong way.

    yikes (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:48:04 PM EST
    Can't wait for the McCain Campaign to jump all over that "they must think you're stupid!" line in the next few days.

    Add that to the "bitter cling" comments and you might as well just forget Obama getting ANY votes from blue collar or rural voters.


    Very true. (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:15:17 PM EST
    The 6pm ABC affiliate news just covered McCain here for fundraiser and talked about Governor Palin again. The political reporter said that Obama was "mocking" Governor Palin and McCain. Not "attacking," not "criticizing" but "mocking." I thought that was an interesting word choice.

    All right (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by standingup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:48:46 PM EST
    Which senior Democrat is going to handle this and tell McCain to give Obama back his change message?  

    Pelosi, Reid or maybe Leahy?  I don't think Richardson has the authority to make members of Congress play nicely and to keep their hands to themselves.  


    I am sure that it is Hillary's job. (5.00 / 7) (#110)
    by honora on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    Isn't everything that needs to be done in this election a job for Hillary?

    well, maybe instead (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by sancho on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:51:44 PM EST
    of saying mccain stole my idea he can go back to the "i agree with hillary" strategy he employed so readily in the debates.

    i saw that Obama clip (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:31:44 PM EST
    too where Obama is talkin about Palib being for the bridge before she was against it. I cringed. The first thing that came to mind was Obama being against FISA before he was for it. And, the repugs have started to respond to the bridge question with an explanation. Palin was for a "bridge" BEFORE the US senators got ahold of it and inflated it to a 400 million dollar boondogle. The she was opposed it. Id she comes out in her interview with ABC and explains that and gives the original figures for the version od a "bridge" she supported she will deflate the dem argument one more time. The dems need to stop talking about Palin.

    Obama voted for the bridge (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by S on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:41:50 PM EST
    I heard one commentator say that Obama and Biden both voted for the bill that had the bridge to nowhere in it...if that is true, then Obama really better start doing better research before he opens himself up like that ... in addition to the point you made about FISA...

    getting sloppy and perhaps desperate?


    From what I read (none / 0) (#171)
    by ding7777 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:45:30 PM EST
    Palin was for state-funded financing of Alaska's infrastuture (including the bridge).

    So in efffect, she could be both for the bridge and against the Bridge to Nowhere earmark.


    the point the commenter (none / 0) (#177)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    that i heard was making was that Palin was for building a "link" to that island in some form. But, she was never in favor of a 400 mil dollar super bridge that her state's senators earmarked for AK.

    I guess the horse has left the barn (5.00 / 18) (#5)
    by hairspray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:17:46 PM EST
    but would dumping Biden for Clinton at this point help at all?  Personally I'd like them to dump Obama but it ain't gonna happen.  We told them, but no the egotists at the wheel are driving this truck into the river.  The only good I can see if Obama loses is that the caucus system may finally bite the dust. It is criminal and was so cleverly manipulated to choose the wrong candidate. I'd like to give Brazile and Dean the back of my hand. I sure hope the obamabots have lots of younguns out there who can be promised a concert to come to and vote for Obama.

    Dump Obama Instead of Biden (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by supertroopers on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:16:58 PM EST
    Hillary-Biden has my vote. Heck Hillary-Bill would have my vote. Never underestimate the power of the Clintons. I think the Dems have.

    Remember Hillary complimenting the heck out of McCain in the primaries? Think about her 3am AD. That's anti-BO and PRO McCain if ANYTHING.


    Economy (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Coral on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    I posted this link below, but I think people ought to see this video of Biden on the campaign trail. I think he hits the right notes very forcefully. With more like this, especially in ads, I believe Obama/Biden can come out on top.

    But Biden is running for VP (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:24:57 PM EST
    Obama should be hitting the right notes and if anyone is going to whine about McCain stealing the message, it should be Biden. The news isn't playin Biden clips, just Obama ones.

    That said :) I liked the way Biden handled the Choice issue Sun on MTP. I hope O took notes . . .


    Me too (none / 0) (#173)
    by wasabi on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:48:01 PM EST
    I thought his response was stellar and from the heart.

    I'll bet Pelosi would like to have taken her answer back.


    BTD you nailed it today! (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by delacarpa on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:18:12 PM EST
    IMO Obama would have been in the lead today by 12pts had he picked Hillary. Also along with the media dishing on Palin has changed the game. Looks like Obama has peaked and Hillary can't help him now. It goes to judgement IMO for not picking her.

    nailing the current dynamic (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by S on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    actually I think Obama peaked before the Ohio, Texas, RI primaries which I think were in Feb...after that everything seems was inflated and based on pressure for delegates to make up their minds and switch to Obama...but the actual votes were not lining up for him...

    I honestly believe we have a candidate in Obama who is very popular and has a lot of hype but the strength he needs to win is artificial based on how our dem delegates and caucus system worked...and that is in addition to the fact that he acquired many of those delegates in red states the dems probably will not win...

    ...this has been a gamble from the beginning...we'll see...

    ...however don't count on Palin dropping out as was suggested here...she has a lot of momentum and is really going to surprise many in the debates - she has that 'it' factor going on...


    Hubris Sandwich with Bitter Mustard (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by blogtopus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:18:56 PM EST
    Looks like someone made a bad choice for VP and it might sink his campaign. C'mon Barack: STEP OUTSIDE THE BALKS.


    One small disagreement (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:26:03 PM EST
    I believe that even if Sen Obama had picked Sen Clinton as VP McCain may have still picked Palin for both shoring up the base and in attempt to somehow blunt the power of the ticket.

    I think it would have failed miserably in the second front and probably would have looked like a complete desperation play in that case, rather than the smart tactical move that it is being seen as now.

    Clearly, You Did Not Get the Memo BTD (5.00 / 18) (#16)
    by BDB on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:29:13 PM EST
    None of this is Obama's fault. The question isn't what can or should Obama do, it's what must Hillary Clinton do to save him?  It's her responsibility to fix the Palin mess.  Heh.

    Hillary can't fix this. (4.63 / 11) (#36)
    by tootired on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:36:33 PM EST
    She can't promise women what John McCain has already given them. A chance to elect someone who looks like them right now. She can't even promise 2012 or 2016 if they elect Obama this time. I did GOTV for Hillary. There are too many women out there who are afraid they will not see a woman elected president or even VP in their lifetimes. It's now or never for them, and Sarah may not be "the perfect", but she's good enough. McCain listened.

    Sarah is Perfect Actually (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by supertroopers on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:19:22 PM EST
    If we can't have Hillary Sarah will do just fine. Roe-Wade won't be overturned anyway.

    Heck, she as more experience than the top of the Dem ticket!


    I strongly disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:43:11 PM EST
    Many, many important issues:  SSN, health care, Iraq, and on and on.  

    Biggest Mistake ever made by a candidate (5.00 / 14) (#20)
    by Saul on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:30:13 PM EST
    period if Obama looses.  The sad part of it is it did not had to happen.  I would have great respect for Obama if he had not picked Hilary and stuck with that idea and never asked Hilary for one iota of help  or Bill but what makes his choice of Biden so bad is that Biden was such an insider which is how he labeled the Clintons and moreover Obama now admits that he desperately needs the Clintons to win. What a waste and what a terrible choice of judgment especially when he knew it was a slam dunk to win if he picked Hilary.  Obama decided to gamble winning this election when he knew he did not have too.  That my friend is what pride can do to some people.

    false pride (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by S on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:21:57 PM EST
    Saul, you have described what happened so simply and so well...actually it should have been Clinton/Obama and we would be coasting to victory and the dems would really be so united and HAPPY...

    ...instead there is so much doubt, disappointment, anger and sadness for many...not all...but many Dems...Obama was determined to make it his party...the Obama Democratic party...at all costs...if he had only shared the power with the other half of the Democratic party and made it Obama/Clinton...

    if he had that amount of respect and deference...all Dems would be catapulting us to victory...

    Sarah Palin is a manifestation of Karma


    How to Rectify? (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by WS on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:32:34 PM EST
    I think a high profile acceptance of Hillary's health care proposal could help with women.  It'll show that he takes guidance from her and also brings health care back in the news.  

    That and Hillary's health care plan is better than Obama's.  

    RE: How to Rectify? (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Badtypist on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:47:20 PM EST
    I don't think that will be much help, Obama has developed a reputation for not keeping promises already in this campaign. Who would switch to him based on a health care "promise"?

    More than just a bounce for McCain (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by barryluda on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    Picking Palin helped him extend and even reignite a little bit the disappointment Clinton supporters feel toward Obama from all that went on in the primary.  Hopefully that won't last until November, but one never knows.

    If Oboma and Biden (and all of those supporting them) can stay on message that McCain - Palin = 4 more years of Bush, Obama should still pull this out.

    Message (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:37:51 PM EST
    The message that McCain is four more years of Bush is not scaring people. Obama is scaring people with the prospect of a completely inept first term.

    problem is, (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by sancho on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:56:28 PM EST
    few actually believe mccain is bush. and they definitely think palin is not bush. obama needs to switch themes just as mccain did.

    that these Polls are (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:33:29 PM EST
    so consistently tight doesn't bode well for the Dems.  Especially in light of the fact we have yet to endure the "uh ... um ... uh" fest that will be Obama during the Debates or the "what will Joe say?" gaffe-waiting-to-happen game when Biden meets Palin in their one debate.

    These polls are also before the BIG stuff hits the fan -- although, with the way things are going, McCain may never need to unleash his "A Game" of Gotcha 527 Politics.

    Oh, these numbers also don't reflect any influence the reemergence of Wright during his book tour may have.


    Book Tour? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:35:57 PM EST
    There is no book, that was debunked a while back.

    thank you (none / 0) (#43)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:42:14 PM EST
    I was unaware of the debunking.

    Per AP, Wright is doing a one-week (none / 0) (#198)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    evangelism stint on the east coast.  

    This election wasover when Obama picked his wrong (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by democrat1 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:36:55 PM EST
    running mate. period.

    It was over when the DNC (5.00 / 8) (#124)
    by ding7777 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:34:47 PM EST
    picked the wrong Presidential candidate.

    The ABC/Post poll in line with other polls now (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by AF on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    But before the conventions it was an outlier, with Obama up by 6 instead of 1 or 2 like most other polls.  So the before/after picture is a bit exaggerated.

    Soccer Mom Strikes Again! (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:43:12 PM EST
    I don't believe that Palin is pulling Democratic woman away. (None than I know) I think she's attracting those borderline or independant suburban women that see her as a strong intelligent woman that adds vitality to the McCain ticket

    Yup, It is the soccer/security moms (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:04:57 PM EST
    that swung to Bush twice. Demographics wise the kids that these soccer/security moms were voting to protect in '00 and '04 are now in the Obama youth demographic. It will be interesting to see if the youth vote changes due to any pressure from their moms.

    Looks like we may be blowing what should be (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by Teresa on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:43:43 PM EST
    a slam dunk win.

    Maybe Bill can knock some sense into Obama's head Thursday. Too bad he didn't pick the best person (woman) for the VP job.

    The mystery of this entire election season, (5.00 / 16) (#52)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:52:38 PM EST
    for me, is this -- why did so much of the Democratic establishment show so little respect for the women's vote?

    I'm not talking about liberal and activist "Hillary voters." I'm talking about the female electorate in general -- including all those less partisan, less committed women voters whose participation, or lack or participation, has proven to be so significant in terms of Democratic wins or losses in the past?

    Clinton on the ticket, at the top or VP, was bound to generate greater than normal interest and participation in this election on the part of those women. Exactly the kind of interest and participation Democrats need to overcome their long-standing disadvantage with white males.

    Not putting her on the ticket left the door wide open for McCain's Palin gambit. A gambit that won't win him votes from liberal Hillary supporters -- but may bring out less politically committed women, in larger than usual numbers, to vote for this "historic" ticket.

    Anything that diminishes the female gender gap is bad news for Democrats.

    Because it was all about the DNC - Dean, et al, (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:30:39 PM EST
    trying to get rid of the Clintons once and for all.  That meant everything to them - even taking a gamble on losing the presidency.  But Hillary and Bill are as beloved and popular as ever so they did not succeed.  And now they want the Clintons to help push Obama over the finish line! How ironic is that?

    Point taken (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:45:54 PM EST
    You got it, Angel.

    I saw the ABC report too (5.00 / 10) (#58)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:01:42 PM EST
    and was very surprised... or perhaps not.
    This was always Obama's race to lose and it's proving to be true.

    Actually, I always felt that Hillary should have been on the TOP of the ticket, but Obama (and his followers) were way too arrogant to see that if he was VP, it would pave the nature course to President in 2018 and he would be the thoroughly experienced and accepted.

    Instead, the DNC decided to let the few loudmouths and sycophants control the primary.  And now, the Republicans are falling in line and circling the wagons.  Also, this Palin woman and the McCain "reform" schtick is appealing to the "Reagan Democrats".  Hillary was able to communicate with those folks.  Obama has yet to make these kinds of connections.

    That is a problem.

    Soccer/security moms (5.00 / 12) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:16:08 PM EST
    Ok, not to keep saying I am brilliant or nothing, but all during the primary I kept asking, "heh, what happened to them? where are they hiding? "  
    Well, our gal Pallin found them.  I don't think the RNC forgot about them, it's just that we, the Dems, sort of put them aside for "the Movement".  

    Oh Stellaaa (5.00 / 15) (#77)
    by kmblue on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:19:38 PM EST
    We Dems "put soccer moms aside for the Movement"?

    You are the master of understatement.  

    Obama and his kingmakers thought they could diss women voters with impunity (Where are they gonna go?)

    If Obama loses it will be because of dissing women from Hillary on down.


    Shh... (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:21:34 PM EST
    be very, very quiet, it's my new effort to speak while riding the unity pony, sort of tricky.  Got busted on my first try  

    Was Obama's overwhelming AA support (5.00 / 9) (#75)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:18:16 PM EST
    in the primaries based "solely on" race? I guess you could look at it that way. Or, another way to look at it is that it was an opportunity to vote for someone who they think, or at least hope, is likely to have a much better, deeper, more personal understanding of their community and issues than a more traditional candidate. Plus, Obama's candidacy has, for them, very important aspirational and especially historic significance. A significance that certainly deserves, I believe, respect.

    I see no reason to offer less respect to women whose participation in this election may be inspired by similar reasoning and aspirations.  


    This is the positive view of (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:28:08 PM EST
    identity voting, to which I happen to ascribe. As a logical explanation of the phenomenon, it sure beats the "boy, are those [fill in: women, minorities, etc.] stoopid to vote against their own interests. They deserve what they get" line of attack.

    Liberal and progressive women won't be (5.00 / 9) (#121)
    by esmense on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:31:25 PM EST
    inspired to vote for the Republican ticket because of Palin. Because obviously important ideological differences make the ticket unacceptable, despite the historic nature of, and their aspirational desire to see a woman successfully compete on, a presidential ticket.

    But not every woman is a liberal. There are a lot of independent, moderate Republican, and simply less ideologically committed women who will be more than usually enthused about this election because of a woman is on a major party ticket. Swing voters who are very likely to have swung the other way with Hillary on the Democratic ticket.


    Enthusiasm (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:42:17 PM EST
    I completely agree with you. Because so many people typically do not vote, the importance of the enthusiasm factor cannot be underestimated. There are lots of votes that can be turned out with the right message/candidate. I think there will be a fair number of people who would not normally have voted but who will come out to vote for Gov. Palin.  Of course she will likely also energize voters for Sen. Obama so it could be a wash.

    these are the voters (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by sancho on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:01:00 PM EST
    i thought would cross over to hillary and given us a decisive win in november.

    My mom (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by eleanora on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:46:57 PM EST
    has several Catholic women friends who usually vote R but were crossing over to vote for Senator Clinton. They said they liked her "Prevention First" bill's approach to reducing abortion rates, trusted her to fix the economy, and thought she'd know how to clean up the mess BushCo has made of FEMA and other gov't agencies. A couple of them really stressed that she'd be the first woman pres candidate, and they wanted to support that.

    She's only talked to two since the conventions, but they were both going to vote R now that HRC wasn't an option. I'll bet this latest swing is partly women like them.


    No Clinton. (5.00 / 8) (#81)
    by tree on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:22:49 PM EST
    I think this poll result includes both the time period when Obama didn't pick Clinton as well as the time period when McCain picked Palin. A lot of the swing can be be attributed to voters who mistakenly thought that Obama was going to pick Clinton and now know that he didn't, IMHO. And Palin just reminded them of why Clinton wasn't picked--because the new Democratic party has a problem relating civilly to women.

    Absolutely....... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Salt on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:29:59 PM EST
    ....Add critical press won't dent Palin because of what they pulled orchestrated against Hillary. Not to mention picking Biden was IMO rubbing salt in an open wound.

    Ner vous Nellies (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:41:27 PM EST
    I can't believe some of the messages. Last week many were chortling that McCain should dump Palin and after one lousy speech and a couple of dead cat bounces in the polls, you're ready to dump Biden!

    Victory has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.

    i like how everyone is (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:48:42 PM EST
    only talking about the closest of today's polls, ignoring the fact that Obama led by 6 - 8 after the dem convention and now is behind by from 2 - 10 in today's polls and refuse to refer to it as a swing of anywhere from 8 to 15 points in a week.

    electoral-vote.com pal. (4.00 / 1) (#190)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:38:57 PM EST

    I try to comfort myself... (3.66 / 3) (#3)
    by sweetthings on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:14:37 PM EST
    With the thought that people get the government they deserve.

    Anyone who thinks Palin = Clinton deserves her administration. I just with the rest of us didn't have to go along for the ride.

    No one thinks Palin = Clinton (5.00 / 19) (#12)
    by Manuel on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:25:59 PM EST
    Many, however, are understandably upset with the Democratic Party and the Media.  McCain has managed to turn Obama's media darling status into less of an asset.  It is truly unfortunate that Obama chose not to consider Clinton for VP.  The Obama camp have noone but themselves to blame if they lose.

    Probably Over-Simplifying (5.00 / 41) (#14)
    by BDB on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:26:20 PM EST
    I doubt most of those swing voters think Palin = Clinton.   With the exception of some bloggers and MSNBC personalities, most people are able to see women as individuals.

    But Palin is able to do a couple of things.  First, thanks to the fact that for many Obama supporters, sexism is a progressive value, she's given Democrats and others a chance to engage in sexist attacks and that gave the opportunity for the GOP to call out sexism.  Calling out sexism is generally quite popular with a lot of women.  The Democrats should try it sometime.

    Second, she is able to emphasize the class warfare aspect of the GOP rather effectively.  While the GOP's policies favor the rich, the language they use is one of class resentment by middle and working class families - the Democrats look down on you.  Thanks again to many Obama supporters and Obama himself (I thought her line about saying one thing in Pennsylvania and another in San Francisco was a very effective hit), Palin is set up to play this tune.  She's perfect, in part, because so many of the attacks on her have had not only sexist undertones, but urban condescension.  The Obama campaign mocking her small town.  Maureen Dowd mocking the University of Idaho.  The bloggers and many other supporters basically calling her white trash.

    In short, Palin is able to hit a lot of cultural touchstones and it's a fairly common mistake people make in politics and life to assume people who share their cultural touchstones, share their values and beliefs.  Think the Blogger Boiz assuming Obama was liberal even as he ran to the right of the rest of the field on domestic issues.  But he seems just like us, he must think like us!

    People are likely making the same mistake with Palin.  Her speech wasn't about policy, it was about culture.  And thanks to the focus on her reproductive life in the week leading up to the convention, she was positioned perfectly.


    If one Dem could just say (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Salo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    I'm for the working class folk...they'd win by a freaking landslide. Why they say middle class etc just blows me away!

    Scranton v. San Francisco (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:31:48 PM EST
    You are dead-on.  That line in particular was a HUGE hit with the blue collar union women my sister works with.  

    They love Sarah Palin - to paraphrase an old saying, they want to have coffee with her.  Or maybe even a beer.


    Issues? What Stinking issues? (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by fercryinoutloud on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:43:37 PM EST
    No you didn't say anything about issues but your post brings home the fact that it is just not issues that win elections. It's, unfortunately, more about hitting the heartstrings of voters.

    Selling to emotions...

    That is what all sales is about and politics is sales and never has been and never will be any different.


    how many times do we have to say (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:51:16 PM EST
    all dems are not liberals. all dems are not pro-choice. all those voters in WV, KY, OH, PA etc were not voring for Clinton because she is pro-choice.

    This is a pro-choice country (none / 0) (#178)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:01:47 PM EST
    Seriousl poll after poll puts support for choice at 60-80% depending on the wording.

    BDB - great post, I wish I could give you (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:33:56 PM EST
    multiple 5s.  This article too should send chills down Obama's spine - on 10 reasons Palin has shaken up the race.


    Contrary to what Obama tried to foist onto Palin, looks like it might be Obama who should be opening a can of Eagleton right now.  Maybe that is on the menu for the upcoming luncheon that Bill Clinton invited him to?

    I like your line about attacking sexism as resonating with voters and the Dems should try it.  I agree!


    That's the real question: (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by blcc on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:36:57 PM EST
    Can Obama go Eagleton on Biden and pick up Hillary?

    Or would she say "You're on your own buddy.  I've got an election in 2012 to plan for.  Buh-bye.  & don't let the door hit you on your Howard Dean on the way out."


    Agree. Good post. (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by fercryinoutloud on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:24:58 PM EST
    I'll just add one thing and that is BTD's comment that

    "McCain would not have chosen Palin if Obama had picked Clinton".

    Of course there is no way to know. But I think he would have had greater reason to pick Palin to try to counter Clinton.

    Granted Palin would not be having the impact she is with women who, as I mentioned in an earlier post, are very likely to be not only women base voters but moderate swing voters, undecideds, and disgruntled women who are pissed at what happened to Hillary, but Palin still would have made an impact. Someone posted an article today by Tammy Bruce that is at realclearpolitics.com and it will be an eyeopener for some and confirmation for others.


    I Agree with BTD (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by BDB on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:32:50 PM EST
    McCain would've still needed to shore up his base, but Palin would've looked like he was following Obama in picking a woman (because all women are the same to the boys in the press, even when those boys are girls) and she would not have burnished his maverick image.  My guess is that then it would've been Bobby Jindal if he was going to go young or maybe Pawlenty and run on the white guy ticket.  

    But really it wouldn't have mattered because the election would've been sealed for Obama the day her selection was announced.  It's only by selecting someone else that Obama even gave McCain the opening to try his Palin Hail Mary.

    I still think Obama is going to win.  It's a Democratic year.  But it could've been a huge Democratic year, one where the outcome wasn't in much doubt.  Now, the Democratic candidate could lose, which after the last eight years is shocking.


    I still think he would have picked Palin (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by fercryinoutloud on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    The timing is not locked in stone. We all knew Clinton was not going to be the pick long ago for if it would have been her Obama would have named her long before he named Biden. It would have been to his advantage to do so. But...

    If we knew, and McCain knew, that she was the likely  pick then he could have preempted Obama and named Palin first and not looked like he was following but leading instead.

    The womens vote is important and they were in play right after Clinton dropped out. McCain was not going to leave all of them on the table. No way. Especially the swing voters like he is picking up in the Midwest and elsewhere.

    Plus Palin brings more than just women to the table as has already been discussed.


    The GOP (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ding7777 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:24:38 PM EST
    would have gladly fueled the rumors of Hillary's sexuality (b!tch, ba11 buster, lesb!an, etc), but this tactic would only work if Hillary was the only female candidate.

    That was a very good comment (none / 0) (#126)
    by addy on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:39:26 PM EST
    It pretty much put the current dynamics in a nutshell. Think you can send that off to the Obama campaign?

    Of Course Palin <> Clinton (3.00 / 4) (#67)
    by supertroopers on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:13:49 PM EST
    Hillary should be the Democratic Presidential Candidate and a lock for the White House. I fully supported her. Obama shows he's all talk with this change nonsense by picking a Senate lifer like Biden over Hillary for VP.

    Instead, I'll happily vote for McCain now that he has proven through actions (picking Palin) and his record in the Senate that he will change this country for the better.

    The Dems really blew this.

    Hillary 2012.


    Agree with your summary. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by 0 politico on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:55:44 PM EST
    Since you are a new commenter and (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:15:10 PM EST
    voting for mccain you are limited to four comments a day. You are over limit now. Please return another day. Thank you.

    WTF? (3.00 / 2) (#80)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:21:54 PM EST
    What makes you say McCain wouldn't've picked Palin if Obama had picked Clinton?  Did McCain tell you this?

    Can you imagine Obama (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:00:37 PM EST
    selecting Hillary for his VP and then, in response, McCain choosing Palin?  Can you really?  Think about it; that would be VERY funny.  LOL

    I can't imagine (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:56:31 PM EST
    Obama choosing Hillary, but if he had, Palin would have been the only possible choice for McCain - much more certain than what has actually happened when McCain had some choice.
    Any other choice would have been sheer disaster.

    But, I honestly think it would have looked so (none / 0) (#193)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    funny!!  Palin as a counterpart to Hillary?  Hillary debating Palin?  

    Obama is totally f. (3.00 / 2) (#203)
    by evidencebasedliberal on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:56:55 PM EST
    His only hope is the debates. That's the only game changer left, and he needs one. He has only his arrogance to blame. The Obama campaign never had a plan b. It was all Virginia and Colorado. The Repubs haven't even hit him on the Weatherman stuff, which is probably the most damning of all of his baggage.

    What's worse? Trying to get wife-beater fired, or having a an indited slumlord buy the property next to your so you could build a bigger house?

    Palin has no foreign experience, but she visited Kuwait an year before Obama did.

    And do they really want to talk about her church (goddamn Americans)?

    They need a better plan than saying Palin is a "bad parent" as Obama's finance chair proclaimed.

    This is actually good news (2.16 / 6) (#104)
    by dailygrind on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:57:53 PM EST
    because it means its a demographic that we can win back. If it were something like white men- I would be more worried.

    Wow (1.50 / 8) (#54)
    by bluegal on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:54:23 PM EST
    This doesn't speak too highly of white women then. I mean are they really voting solely on gender? Such a huge swing seems so ridiculous.  

    I'll wait to see the polls in a week or so.  This one is just so hard for me to believe.

    Not all white women are (5.00 / 11) (#57)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:01:06 PM EST
    liberal Hillary supporters. And they may be voting for more than gender.

    They could be GOP woman going home (5.00 / 8) (#132)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:52:57 PM EST
    I knew of quite a few who were going to vote for Hillary. I think they have made the change back to the GOP now.

    I wonder if they ever really looked (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:12:47 PM EST
    at Hillary's women voters? There were a few options for the GOP VP in the female area. I was looking at exit polls and her breakout was interesting. And she was pulling conservative voters. The O camp never tried to secure her voters, even after poll after poll showed how many weren't backing O. {sigh} and his stump now isn't all that appealing from what I've seen.

    "It's the economy", but it's also more than that. They just don't seem to get it.


    Exactly right. (5.00 / 7) (#133)
    by huzzlewhat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:54:18 PM EST
    Anecdotal evidence to follow...

    In my family, there's my sister and myself -- I'm liberal, she's conservative. My sister is frustrated with Bush, didn't much like McCain, was bewildered by the fuss over Obama, and was prepared to cross party lines to vote for Clinton ... she liked that Clinton knew what she was talking about, and she trusted her to run the government competently (even if while pursuing policies my sister didn't agree with); as extra-tasty icing on the cake, she was jazzed that the best candidate, from her perspective, was a woman. My sister (being a Pennsylvania swing voter) was polled three times during the primary season, and answered pro-Clinton each time. Now that the primary's over, she's taking her vote home to the Republican party while I'll be voting Dem -- she's much more socially conservative than I am, and Palin, though farther right than her, isn't the anathema to her on the issues that she is to me.

    I pointed out to my parents when they were bewailing having "lost" her vote, that they didn't actually lose it -- they never really had it. They would have won it if Clinton had been the nominee, but her voting Republican now doesn't represent a swing away from the Democratic Party -- just a potential swing toward the Democratic Party that didn't materialize.


    Has it occurred to you (5.00 / 14) (#59)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:01:51 PM EST
    That there are women who actually may like Gov Palin as a candidate? Some may disagree with her positions, some may not, but it sounds vaguely offensive to assume they are shifting just because she is a woman.

    For some it may be a protest vote, or even a shout out to the men that women do have voting power and can not ignored (as the democratic leadership seems to think they can).


    And I am sure there are lots (4.33 / 6) (#141)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:03:42 PM EST
    of women, like me, that absolutely can't stand Obama for many reasons. One of the reasons is the nastiness and sexism that he showed in the primaries, where he was such a jerk to Hillary.
    He will get what he deserves. And I will cheer. I don't agree with Palin on many of her right wing issues, but I love her spunk and her attitude and her obvious competence.

    Heh, ya know what might work (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:16:55 PM EST
    {evil grin}

    If Obama went out and said we should be scared of Palin being 1 heartbeat away because she is smart, competent and efficient and can get policy through. And then outline some of her conservative views, lol!~

    It would be a 2fer. Show he can recognize competent women and praise them, and scare the heck outta women with her policies outlines.


    Not so simple (5.00 / 15) (#68)
    by nell on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:14:05 PM EST
    I don't think it is unreasonable for women who identify with Palin to also feel like she will be able to advocate for their special interests. Whether it is ultimately true or not is up for debate, but it does not seem unreasonable for a woman to think "she has my life, she understands my life," especially in the face of a candidate, Obama, who in my view has not gone out of his way to show women that he respects them and their unique interests.

    Also, remember, the group of women swinging to McCain now is the same group that gave GWB victory in 2004. So it isn't really crazy that they are voting McCain now that they have a good reason too.

    If I remember correctly, this same group started out with Kerry and ended up with Bush. It's happening again...

    Not all that surprising. And Hillary would have changed that dynamic.


    Palin goes to the grocery store (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:29:38 PM EST
    and Cosco etc. How many women can relate to that? And which of the male candidates do the same? Women have a unique view of life. Hillary also understands that. She worked after Chelsea was born, and while many working mom's aren't on the public stage, they can still relate. Plus, they didn't really have all that much until the WH. Bill's gov pay was pretty low iirc.

    The NYT piece today on Palin and her latest birth is interesting. It brings up a lot of the issues women face to different degrees. Things men never have to face.

    I just thought of something, McCain has 2 high profile women as an active part of his campaign along with his wife (he may have more, I just know of 2). Duh moment for me here. Explains some of the more sensitive issues he's picked up on perhaps?


    Mcain-Palin 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by standingup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    thanks you.  

    I wouldn't be under estimating identity politics (4.60 / 10) (#60)
    by pluege on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:03:20 PM EST
    A lot people vote identity...like say greater than 90% of blacks voting for Obama in the primaries; against a Clinton of all people who have been great friends of the black community. Accordingly, it was plain stupidity or arrogance or both for Obama to not put HRC on the ticket.

    Um, no (1.00 / 6) (#66)
    by bluegal on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:09:02 PM EST
    That argument would work for blacks if they didn't vote overwhelmingly for dems anyways.

    Try again.


    You try again (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:15:27 PM EST
    There are few African-American politicians, and very few Republican ones. So the fact that African-Americans tend to vote Dem in the general election does not deny that identity voting occurred in the primaries this year. And, yes, there was some female identity voting in the primaries too, and I think you'll see some in the general.  Not sure how much.

    Sigh (1.50 / 4) (#108)
    by bluegal on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:05:07 PM EST
    I'm talking about in general. I could see you making this argument if blacks didn't vote for dems.

    If we want to talk about identity politics I think it is safe to say that white women that white women get the gold based on this poll.

    I still find the poll highly suspect and it could be the initial excitement surrounding Palin (why, I don't know) but let's not compare blacks and white women because there is no comparsion.


    Funny story but (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tree on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:36:42 PM EST
    the only black co-worker of mine who continually makes a big vocal deal about his voting for Obama, is himself a conservative Republican.

    I doubt if McCain gets 2 percent of the AA vote (none / 0) (#98)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:46:01 PM EST
    The argument applies (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Jane2009 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:40:46 PM EST
    specifically in the example involving two democrats, to explain the influence of identity voting in general. Your reply is both illogical and unresponsive.

    That's exactly the point HELLO (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:48:28 PM EST
    Two dems running basically on the same issues, yet over 90 percent of AA's vote against Hillary. Why? There is no other reason, except identity politics.

    BTD (1.00 / 11) (#79)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:21:37 PM EST
    This is a new low.  All this culpability for Obama, huh? It is his own fault?

    What about the culpability of the voters?  If true, the voter swing this poll suggests only testifies to ignorance and pettiness on the part of the voters who swung.  

    There is definitely a class of Americans who is going to most deserve McCain.

    The great masses (5.00 / 18) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:27:24 PM EST
    of the unwashed and stupid voters.  Yep, it's their fault.  

    Here's a poem you might like (1.25 / 4) (#112)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:17:20 PM EST
    No right to complain/
    About McCain.



    Many of those ignorant, petty voters (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by blogtopus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:44:33 PM EST
    Were called that for going to Barack from the GOP. Switchovers hardly get called nice names.

    It works both ways. Many people wanted to vote for Hillary, but not only did she not win, she was quite visibly pushed out by her own party in a demeaning and unapologetic way. Who wants to be in a party that does that to their most successful family?

    My 2 cents.


    So.... (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:12:45 PM EST
    people who don't like Obama are ignorant and petty? Hmmmm?

    People (none / 0) (#167)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:35:52 PM EST
    philosophically and politically aligned with Hill and Obama, but who are supporting McCain and Palin as a result of Dem infighting.  
    Or people who think that the Primary run was more important than whether we keep starting wars or keep giving everything away to the top 1 percent.

    Those people are ignorant and petty.  If they exist.  The jury is out.  We'll see.  


    blame the voters? (none / 0) (#200)
    by AlSmith on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:49:25 PM EST

    Sounds like a great plan.

    I found this on Political Punch:
    ""I gotta admit these folks are shameless," Obama said, "because the record is indisputable," he said, describing how Palin had originally supported the project.

    "I wouldn't do that," Obama said. "I mean, I'm not perfect --"

    "Yes, you are!" shouted a woman in the crowd. "


    OT: Florida? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:25:33 PM EST
    BTD, what do you make of the Rasmussen state polling that shows McCain actually losing points in Florida post convention (it tying at 48-48), is there something to the whole "Palin hurts in Florida" thing that's been floating in the blogosphere?

    I think there is (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:30:12 PM EST
    Especially with Jewish voters.

    This could ... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:18:14 PM EST
    I repeat COULD be the silver lining in the bad polling news of the last few days.

    It would be virtually impossible for McCain to reach 270 without Florida.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:35:09 PM EST
    Because of the Jews 4 Jesus thing, because of not taking Lieberman, or something else?

    In my experience (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    Jewish voters are very wary of fundamentalist Christians.

    But W is basically a fundamentalist (none / 0) (#42)
    by nulee on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:41:01 PM EST
    at least that was known from experience in 2004 when he ran again and he won Florida.  How does that figure?

    Bush donesn't = Palin for evangelicals (none / 0) (#48)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    From what I remeber there was some, carryover goodwill from Bush I, and I don't think a lot people Jews includeed view Bush's evangelicalism the same way they view Palin's-- think about it does Bush even attend church, has he ever?

    They arn't the only ones (none / 0) (#117)
    by DaleA on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    wary of fundamentalist Christians. Had Obama not continuouly pandered to Evangelical/Fundamentaliststs, this block would have been sewn up.

    Help me with Jewish Voters (none / 0) (#39)
    by barryluda on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:37:00 PM EST
    I have a friend in Colorado, so I figure his vote counts ten times more than mine and my wife and my parents, and my two over 18 kids (we're all from Chicago), so I'm trying to feed him anything I can.  He's big on Jewish issues, so any facts that could help me would be greatly appreciated.

    The Biden rally in Florida ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:03:51 PM EST
    last week was almost totally devoted to "Jewish Issues."  Good, forceful stuff.

    If your friend has access to the Internet the rally should still be available on C-Span's website.


    Well, I heard from a good source (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    that she does Christmas decoration parties...Time Magazine
    The women are still friends 15 years later, still living in the same valley, still meeting up, though less often than before. They make time for their annual Christmas-ornament exchange the first week of December, just the six of them. They used to make the ornaments by hand, but who has the time now? This year they exchanged store-bought pieces.

    Yes, and Obama refuses to give his kids Christmas (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Nike on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:14:23 PM EST
    presents, so maybe that will help, too.

    You could mention the Jews 4 Jesus thing (none / 0) (#53)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:54:14 PM EST
    The reaction that got from a Jewish Friend of mine actually shocked me, seriously I thought it was just another evangelical thing, but my god you would have thought it was a antisemitic group from the reaction.

    The group has been around for (none / 0) (#63)
    by Coral on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:04:10 PM EST
    a long time, and in the religious Jewish community is seen as an anathema.

    It's the nightmare we all predicted. (none / 0) (#15)
    by WillBFair on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:28:05 PM EST
    Looks like the only people who can pull this out are the Clintons. I think if they hit the ground running, they could install Obama and Biden with ease. And I'm just desperate enough to beg them to do it.

    Clinton is hitting all the right (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by bjorn on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:31:47 PM EST
    notes today.  I love it.  At the same time it reminds me of what could have been had Obama picked her....she has no equal right now in terms of articulating the message is a clear and focused way.

    I hate it. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:17:49 PM EST
    I think she should back off and work for down-ticket Dems and let Obama attract his own voters. Or not.

    Idea: take Obama off the stump. (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:39:48 PM EST
    Let's here from the Clintons.

    There's a part of me (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Salo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:31:58 PM EST
    that would prefer a serious Dem like Clinton in offcie in 2012 instead. Biden and Obama are Tory boys under all the rhetoric.

    Its way to dangerous for that. (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by pluege on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:55:12 PM EST
    This is the election that counts: begin recovery or say sayonara USA for the foreseeable future.

    • The Constitution is hanging by a thread
    • SCOTUS is hanging by a thread
    • US global leadership is probably irrecoverable
    • The American dream is obliterated for most
    • The plutocratic, fascist, theocratic barbarians at at the gate

    Yes, Obama was the wrong choice, but he is the choice. Electing Obama now comes before all other considerations.

    My thoughts exactly! (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    You stated them concisely and clearly.

    "Obama was the wrong choice, but he is the choice" would make a great bumper sticker.


    I agree, kinda (4.66 / 3) (#94)
    by blogtopus on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:41:15 PM EST
    But how can we elect him if he refuses to fight at all? Biden's the only one, and apparently he's not doing well enough, and the more Hillary displays how effective a speaker she is, the harder it is for many women to reward Barack for snubbing her in the face of overwhelming reasons to have her as VP.

    Many of the women who are upset and voting for Palin aren't voting FOR her, they're voting AGAINST Barack. They've had a lifetime of sexist BS from the Establishment, and they've had 8 years of Bush... they don't see the next 4 years as being as awful as another 30 years of male-dominated politics.

    • The Constitution has been hanging for 7 years; it can last
    • SCOTUS is already beyond our control, 5-4 Conservative vote
    • US Global Leadership is lost for AT LEAST the next 4 years
    • America Dream has been dead for several years
    • Plutocrats, Fascists, etc: These are all arguments we had 4 years ago, and they didn't help Kerry, and they won't help Barack.

    I'm voting for Obama, but it won't be enough. Obama has to apologize, Man Up and Move On. Otherwise those women aren't going to care how much Hillary asks them to vote for him; they'll just see her as a beaten wife apologizing for her spouse to the police.


    Apologize? (none / 0) (#115)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM EST
    Apologize?  Are you serious?  To whom does Barack Obama need to apologize?  

    There comes a point where he has to say you know what, if voters are going to knowingly vote against their self-interests and against their politics, then that's just a level of crazy no politician can fix.

    All hail identity politics.


    IIRC, one of the things Obama (none / 0) (#122)
    by ding7777 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:32:04 PM EST
    admired Reagan for was getting people to vote against their self-interests

    Not sure if he used the word admire (none / 0) (#138)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:57:51 PM EST
    but you do indeed recall correctly.  Unfortunate.  This whole election has been a clusterf#!@  

    The truth is that the election will come down to us, the voters.  After eight years of what we have been through, and in light of what we know is coming with McCain/Palin.  Will we really be so stoopid as to do what BTD and these commenters find so "understandable."

    Crow on, gaggle.  Enjpy what is coming.

    Blaming Obama for not picking Hill as his running mate maybe will bring back some soldiers and civillians killed in Iran?  


    Do you really think (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:21:33 PM EST
    that Obama will do more than his buddies Pelosi and Reid? They have been weak and useless, and they support him. So what are your expectations?

    Expectations not so high (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:30:49 PM EST
    He's not going to go all Hyper Progressive on the criminal justice system, or deconsolidate the media, for example.

    But I do have a few humbler expectations of an Obama Presidency.  Put reasonable people on federal benches, includinf SCOTUS.  This way civil liberties, you know, will be a little safer in the long run.

    I also expect him NOT to look to start wars with Iran or anyone else.  I know, know, that's a negative expectation; but some might think it important.  Not as important as Hillary's Primary run, I grant, but important nonetheless.
    So there's two.  I expect that with a Dem majority in Congress, the tax code under Obama might get a little closer to Saneville as well.  But now we're reaching for the moon.

    Here's the thing.  Eight years have taught us, GOP out for blood.  If we enable it through our little squabble, then we deserve it.  It will not be Hill's fault OR Obama's fault, so much as our fault.  For enabling it.


    All other things being equal are never equal (none / 0) (#18)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:30:06 PM EST
    I know many people here wanted Hillary as either P or VP, but from a purely data oriented point of view, there is no basis for assuming that Hillary as VP would make a difference.

    Sure, Obama would pick up 10% more Dems.  But the R's might be just as energized as they are now.

    And who knows how the Independents would have reacted.  The only polls I saw showed that Indies did not want Hillary picked as VP.

    I hear what you're all saying emotionally, but I just don't think there's any kind of hard numbers that could prove the "woulda, coulda, shoulda".  It's just something we'll never know.

    if even a sliver of her 18 million voters (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Salo on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    are Poed at Obama it's a complete rout in november.  There's an 18 million dollar data point.

    But that's all... (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:35:38 PM EST
    A Hillary pick might have energized the Republican base (although that is debatable).  But it would have denied the Republicans the Palin pick which energized the base AND white working class voters.  The latter group may well have stuck with Democrats with Hillary on the ticket but are now flocking to their cultural touchstone Palin.

    Hillary VP = No Palin or a Diminished Palin Impact (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by WS on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:36:02 PM EST
    and no large switch of white women to McCain (that we can win back but it shouldn't have happened in the first place).  

    actually BTD (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by ccpup on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:37:11 PM EST
    had polling info before the pick that showed a very nice gain for Obama in the numbers if he were to have picked Clinton.

    That his numbers are as frightfully anemic as they are and McCain has gotten such a monumental bounce from picking Palin -- a woman -- shows that your assumptions about the efficacy on Obama's campaign had he picked Clinton may not be sound.


    A significant shift in those numbers (none / 0) (#21)
    by Green26 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:30:24 PM EST
    doesn't surprise me, but the extent of the shift does. Based on the limited sample of women I know, I figured Palin would have an impact. While most liked her--even if they didn't want to like her--my small sampling hadn't shifted to McCain yet.

    Some are trying to criticize McCain's judgment for picking Palin. That argument could also apply to Obama for not picking Clinton.

    That is a very large shift (none / 0) (#56)
    by Natal on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:58:08 PM EST
    in the polls. Palin hasn't even given a press conference and been questioned by reporters. Did the polls show a drop in the uncommitted? If not, who were they that moved over to the republican side?

    They were always there but (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:07:40 PM EST
    the media and pollsters didn't pay attention.  Plus, the Republicans were not enthusiastic about McCain.

    Now that has changed.  They have someone to rally around and it is a modern conservative woman who has the same values as many more women in this country that progressive liberals and feminists are willing to admit.

    Pushing Hillary back out there is no going to solve Obama's problem of reaching Middle America.  It is only a way of setting up Hillary to take the blame if Obama's loses.

    That's not fair.


    We're the "Invisiable Women" (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:27:59 PM EST
    Ignored and taken for granted. At their peril  ;)

    Exactly (5.00 / 9) (#89)
    by stefystef on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:34:29 PM EST
    I guess many Democratic women didn't "get over it" and "get on board" with Obama.

    Yes because you are really going to be heard (1.00 / 4) (#143)
    by dailygrind on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:05:22 PM EST
    with a President who is anti choice, equal pay and healthcare to name just three issues that McCain is anti woman on. This is straight out voting identity politics over your interests.

    That's silly. (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Jeannie on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:27:32 PM EST
    Choice is not really on the table - and is not the factor for most women. It is an idle threat. Obama doesn't give equal pay to his staff and McCain does. Healthcare? If you believe that Obama will do any good - when is the last time he gave a substantive discussion on that? He is not for UHC.

    So what? (5.00 / 6) (#179)
    by echinopsia on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:05:28 PM EST
    We are heard even less by Obama/Biden.

    I'm not saying I'll vote for Palin. But it is very refreshing that McCain chose a woman. And very smart. It shows me that to him, at least, women voters are not invisible.

    And BTW, McCain pays his women staffers the same or more than the men. Obama pays his women staffers less across the board.


    I really can't believe... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    ... that the conventions actually swung any segment of the electorate by twenty percent.  Nonetheless, while the poll may be exagerated, I think it is broadly true, and agree with all your points about it.

    The convention no one was going to watch (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:59:37 PM EST
    After the Obama stadium speech people walked away with the warm fuzzies for their guy. Then McCain nominated Palin. She was blasted from the blogs and media. They created enough publicity that a lot of non watchers turned in to see her speak. Then when she did not fall off the podium, they gave McCain a view also. None of this would have happened without Palin and the publicity.  I would not have even turned into the GOP convention.  

    I do think it's clear... (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    ... that McCain is more formidable than he's been given credit for, and that the Obama campaign has some blind spots. I still think Obama ought to win, and probably will, but it really shouldn't be this close.

    If the Ras polls are to be believed (none / 0) (#111)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:16:32 PM EST
    Obama is running even with Gore just about everywhere-except for Colorado where he is ahead.

    This can be salvaged.

    It can be salvaged, but if the other Ras (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:56:14 PM EST
    polls are also right, then Obama is pretty far behind in Ohio and losing ground in Pennsylvania.  The Michigan poll earlier was no great comfore either. We're getting to the point here where I'm anxious to see New Hampshire polls. So, obviously, it's gonna be close.

    I marvel at how people here view polling data (1.00 / 2) (#142)
    by dailygrind on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:03:49 PM EST
    2 up after the GOP convention isn't losing ground. It's maintaining it. Can you tell me what Ras was pre convention. Bet you haven't looked it up.

    Why holy S*&T gee willikers I can. (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:14:37 PM EST
    Less than 2 months ago they had Obama up by 6.

    because its literally less than a week (2.66 / 3) (#156)
    by dailygrind on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:20:58 PM EST
    after the GOP convention. Can you tell me where KErry was in the polls- I can answer that question for you, but ifyou are going to argue as you are arguing- you should tell me. For the record- in Gallup- 2 weeks after teh GOp convention- Kerry was down by 15 points.

    At this point in 2004 Kerry was 40 electoral (5.00 / 6) (#159)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 08:27:45 PM EST
    votes ahead of Bush. He was polling slightly better in Pennsylvania, much better in Michigan and the same as Obama in Florida.

    Actually (none / 0) (#180)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:06:32 PM EST
    That's a gain for Obama in PA, Ras previously had him down there.

    No, the last Ras poll had Obama up by 3 (none / 0) (#192)
    by tigercourse on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:40:43 PM EST
    and the one before that had him up 6. So, a steady decline.

    That's even with where Gore was... (none / 0) (#116)
    by EL seattle on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:23:49 PM EST
    ... in Sept. 2000?

    Nope--November (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:26:01 PM EST
    Also with the exception of VA, of course. (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 07:34:17 PM EST
    McCain cannot afford to lose either CO or VA.

    Feeding the Goose. (none / 0) (#182)
    by lansing quaker on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM EST
    Obama's surrogates along the Netroots aren't helping him with their sexist smears.

    Obama happily fed from them like a goose during the Primary.

    Now, even though Obama is "rejecting" the personal-Palin talk, the Netroots are happily force-feeding him this as if it will catch on.

    The latest righty-blogs meme is Matthews warranting that Sarah Palin is a "VP/First Lady" hybrid.

    If his supporters keep force-feeing Obama this stuff, his candidacy is going to explode.

    At that point: welcome to foie gras, Obama style.  

    The surrogates just aren't getting it.

    One good thing (none / 0) (#201)
    by eleanora on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:49:29 PM EST
    about the polls and media swinging against Obama at the moment--some partisan Dems may come back to his corner. At a barbecue Sunday, one of my uncles said this downswing, "Somehow makes him seem more like a Democrat." We tend to work harder for the underdog.