home

Landslide?

Quinnipiac has terrific news for Barack Obama today. In Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania:

This is the first time Sen. Obama has led in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College. Results from the independent Quinnipiac University polls show:

* Florida: Obama edges McCain 47 - 43 percent;
* Ohio: Obama tops McCain 48 - 42 percent;
* Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 52 - 40 percent.

(Emphasis supplied.) If these numbers are real and hold up, Obama will win in a landslide.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Michelle Obama's Makeover Begins Today | Live-Blogging Michelle Obama on the View >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    These internals are not great.  

    The Democrat trails among white voters in Florida and Ohio, but gets more than 90 percent of black voters in each state. He also has double-digit leads among young voters in each state.

    Every election cycle it's the youth vote that's going to SAVE us.  And every cycle they don't turn up.

    Forgive me for the cynicism, but meh.


    mmm (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    Pretty good trends for a guy that is supposedly unelectable.

    I mean, I wasn't expecting any Florida numbers to look like that until post convention at best.

    Parent

    It's excellent news (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    If it were out of Zogby, I wouldn't have believed it.

    Parent
    More excellence from PPP in VA (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by magster on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:58:12 AM EST
    Obama + 2 with Obama supposedly receiving only 67 % of AA vote.


    Parent
    I'm aware of that poll (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    Honestly, I don't trust it. Adjust the AA numbers to where they're supposed to be, and Obama nears a double-digit lead. That can't be.

    Parent
    I see (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:13:03 PM EST
    the propaganda campaign has already started.  Just keep publishing that Obama's ahead and voters will start to think, "Well, I might as well vote for him, he's going to win anyway."

    Parent
    Propaganda Campaign? (none / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:16:16 PM EST
    You are starting to sound like a GOP troll. Are you rooting for McCain? Sure sounds like it.

    Parent
    heh! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    Eleanor....sounds more like you are being (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    practical.  These polls aren't all that and what happens down the road is what will be more telling.  Are these within the MOE or close?  If yes, means not so much.  The bounce obama has rec'd since the nomination was given to him, has not been stellar...that says alot.    

    Parent
    Different times (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:22:11 AM EST
    The DNC spent over 40 million dollars to advertise on MTV etc.  Young people are on the internet or otherwise plugged in.  Fads usually last a year.  Through November should take Obama through the product cycle.

    Parent
    Good luck with that (4.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:25:39 AM EST
    Seriously.  It's just that I remember a lot of talk in 2004 about the youth vote.

    I've gotta run out the door and don't have time to dig up numbers right now, but I remember the projections and the actuals differing significantly.

    Parent

    These polls aren't modeling unusually high (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    youth turnout, though.

    Parent
    But they did vote in the primaries (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    The primaries saw lots of new voters and why would they vote in the primary and not in the more important, General election?

    This is the first year I ever voted in a primary. By the time my state voted, it was always a done deal.

    And this year they (young and minorities) have a young minority candidate, one of their own so it at least appears as if it matters.

    Parent

    Good grief! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    He's 47 years old. I didn't realize that "youth" included the over 45 set. I would have guessed that it stopped somewhere short of 30, if not short of 25. Can I call myself young as well, or does this extension of the "young" category only apply to Obama?

    Parent
    It all depends (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50:53 AM EST
    If he won your demographic in your state, you may just be "young". I think it was Iowa that had the "younger" vote going up to 50, lol!~

    Parent
    Yup, you're young (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    if you voted for Obama, old if you voted for Clinton.  I'm in the 41-45 demo, and over and over I saw it reported as young or old depending on which way the group went.

    Parent
    Yeah but what if he didn't win your demographic (none / 0) (#116)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    in your state?  Does that make you old?  

    Parent
    He didn't win (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    any demographic in my state, because he wasn't on the ballot.

    I guess that makes us ageless.

    Parent

    If he lost 18-24 year olds or 18-29 year olds (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    in a state, are those 18-24 year olds now old people?  Or Appalachian?

    Parent
    No, because the DNC and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM EST
    know how you would have voted, silly.

    You're young!

    Parent

    His ideas and presentation are young.I (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    I know lots here are invested in tearing him down, but he is fresh and new and looks very young.

    Parent
    Sorry, but his ideas (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    aren't young. Appealing to "change" is one of the oldest political ploys in the book. Selling yourself on your image and your biography isn't fresh either. You just personally haven't seen it before. A lot of us have, therefore we aren't impressed. Not meaning to harsh your mellow here, just speaking truth.

    Parent
    No Matter How Much You Hate The Guy (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    You cannot deny that he embodies young energy. Bright youthful energy is a force to be reckoned with, and a force in effect, big time, during this election.

    His ideas and presentation are young. I know lots here are invested in tearing him down, but he is fresh and new and looks very young.

    It is true that his policies are mainstream democratic, nothing new, but his style, ways of relating and message all reflect his youth and have indisputable appeal to the younger generation.

    Whether or not he is will be anything like John Kennedy as POTUS, he has the very appealing youthful glow that always embodies bright ambitious young people.


    Parent

    I was responding initially to this (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    And this year they (young and minorities) have a young minority candidate,one of their own so it at least appears as if it matters
    .

    That sentence makes sense when  applied to blacks, but it makes no sense when applied to young people. His style may appeal to youth but is not a youthful style. I don't hate the man, I just don't think he'll make a good President, and I think his style and appeal parallels that of Bush's successful style and appeal during the 2000 campaign. (I'm talking campaign style here, not governing style; that's yet to be determined. Nor am I talking about issues.)


    Parent

    No Sense? (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    To you, but that must because you are not paying attention.  The stats are out there. Young people relate to Obama irrespective of race or gender.

    link

    link

    link

    etc.....

    Parent

    I am 51` (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    so I have seen a lot of elections in my time.

    He is just as inspiring to me as Bill Clinton was in 1992.

    Parent

    Same Difference (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:01:33 PM EST
    Bill Clinton (Around the same age as Obama the first time he ran, right?) was also perceived as youthful.

    When you stack these guys in their forties who you haven't seen that much of before against the older Washington hands (GHWB and McCain), they not only are younger but the age difference accentuates that image.

    They seem (and are, really) young and new.

    Parent

    You've got to be kidding. (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by tek on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:23:35 PM EST
    He's nothing like Bill Clinton.  Bill Clinton never got up and read a canned speech in his life.  He was the best debater in the group. He could rattle off numbers and facts from the top of his head. Obama is just a programmed like a droid.  He's already stealing all of the Clintons' ideas because he doesn't have any of his own.  That's why he had to destroy the Clinton legacy.  He and his handlers are going to do everything the Clintons did and claim credit for themselves. Just sayin.'

    Parent
    Yes, I do not like Obama (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:15:33 PM EST
    but does that immediately keep me from seeing the obvious? His message is the same as previous candidates (change change change), the only difference is the he's energized the media as well, which I have to give him kudos for. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop, but so far it looks like fair weather.

    The youth vote does not have a dependable track record; if we go into Election day with a lead solely depending on the youth vote, I will be skeptical indeed.

    If I wasn't so much into evaluating candidate's actual records and policies, I would be ecstatic about Obama; as is, I'm disturbed but not surprised that the establishment candidate has the nomination. I hope the stretcher that they wheeled him across the finish line will hold him up through November.

    Parent

    Sweet. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    I hope they hold and think they will. McCain is running a campaign that will one day be seen as a blueprint on how not to run a campaign. Dreadful - and that's a good dreadful.

    that is one big IF (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:18:59 AM EST
    you got there

    A huge IF... (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:22:24 AM EST
    actually I think this is his (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:46 AM EST
    post nomination bumb

    Parent
    It is a HUGE if (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Claw on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    but it certainly isn't bad news.  I don't think we can win FLA.  Too many voting shenanigans, too much voter fraud.  I think a dem would need about a 20 point lead to win FLA.  But if these numbers hold up in oher states (and these numbers are very premature) I'm very optimistic about our chances.  I also agree with the other posters that the more people hear McCain speak, the more they realize he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.  

    Parent
    precisely... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    considering the fact tha the right-wing noise machine remains dormant, its a huge "if"....

    the only question is why the right isn't going after Obama right now.... either they want to make sure that he gets the nomination, and then go after him, or they realize that Bush has left the next President with an impossible task -- and the public has a very short memory, and will blame whoever is running things when things REALLY hit the fan for the problems.

    One of the reasons I'm thinking seriously about voting for McCain is because if Obama wins, by 2013 the Dems will have lost both houses of Congress, and the White house....

    Parent

    My theory: Hillary is running interference (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:59:03 AM EST
    As long as there is a possibility that she could pull off a miracle in Denver, they won't go full force on him.  When/if it's a done deal, they'll pull the trigger.  

    Parent
    I think thats about right (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    the hammer wont come down until after the convention.

    Parent
    Your theory (none / 0) (#151)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    they realize that Bush has left the next President with an impossible task -- and the public has a very short memory, and will blame whoever is running things when things REALLY hit the fan for the problems.

    ...is why I sometimes these days have a fantasy that the Democratic leadership wants to lose this election (but be able to say "look, we tried, but you were just not ready for a black president" or something like that).

    Going a little OT, but I wonder if anyone can tell me... a very long time ago, my mother told me about a SF story in which, for some reason (possibly because of a historical situation like the one we're in today, where everything is likely to go further to pieces in the next few years) both major parties decided that they didn't want to win, so they decided to go down in a splash and one party nominated a woman while the other nominated a black man. This story would have dated back to the 1960s or maybe even the 50s? Anyone recognize it?

    Parent

    are you sure you are not thinking (none / 0) (#160)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    of the classic Robert Downey Sr movie from the 70s, Putney Swope?

    Parent
    No, I'm sure not (none / 0) (#162)
    by A little night musing on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:43:28 AM EST
    She told me about this sometime in the late 60's, and it was definitely a story (i.e. written matter, not a film). (I have it in my head that it was Asimov, but that could be way off. Howard Fast? He did write some SF)

    Parent
    Florida (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:00 AM EST
    I just don't see him winning there.  Ohio and Pennsylvannia look really good so far.

    If McCain's polling says what the Q poll does, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:07 AM EST
    then McCain is going to have to sink money into Flordia. That's less money he'll have for Ohio. This time electoral "white elephants" work in favor of the Democrats, because we have a money advantage.

    Parent
    McCain (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    will have as much money as he needs.  he is a republican.

    Parent
    That's what they said about Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    Fact is, Obama is breaking all fundraising records. He will probably be able to outspend McCain 2:1.

    Parent
    he outspent Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:26:16 AM EST
    3 and 4 to one and barely won the primary.
    this election wont be decided by fundraising IMO.


    Parent
    I simply don't believe (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:28:11 AM EST
    McCain won't be competitive financially.  He's gonna cuddle up to Wall Street and Halliburton REAL fast this fall.  If he hasn't already.

    Parent
    And he'll have to make the sale (none / 0) (#94)
    by anydemwilldo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:51:35 AM EST
    The financial interests that have traditionally bankrolled republican candidates aren't idiots.  They want something back for their investment.  If they don't think he has a realistic chance of winning, they won't invest.

    Right now we're on the knife edge, with McCain still holding on to life as a "potential" president.  If he falls much farther behind, his fundraising operation is going to collapse.

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by neoliberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST
    Is vastly superior to McCain as both a candidate and a person. Imo, she was the hardest test for Obama.

    Parent
    I think that's probably right (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:33:01 AM EST
    Right, it'll be decided by how (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM EST
    voters feel about the incumbent party in the WH as it relates to the tanking economy, $4.50/gal gas, and sliding home values to go with rising unemployment.  Not to mention voters' overwhelming dislike of the nitwit fratboy in the Oval, aka John McCain's running mate.

    Though having a financial advantage in the fall will not hurt to drive home the above points.

    Parent

    He would have been ouspending her (none / 0) (#44)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:31:04 AM EST
    8-1 if she would have stayed within budget.  Money is always a factor.

    Parent
    He outspent her in states where (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    he was behind. The only really ominous example is Indiana, where he apparently started out ahead, spent, and lost.

    Parent
    Indiana (none / 0) (#63)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:38:08 AM EST
    She was ahead in the month prior to the Indiana primary.  His only lead was small one for about four days in the week before.

    Parent
    IMO The Key Is Not About How Much (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    McCain has in his campaign chest but how much will Republicans be willing to fund the 527s. If McCain has enough to compete on a 2:1 basis and the Republican 527s are well funded and actively make up the slack, Obama loses the funding advantage. The 527s can attack in ways that McCain can not. If OTOH, the Republicans are more reluctant to fund the 527s this election cycle, then Obama definitely has a big funding advantage and can IMO use this advantage more effectively against McCain than against Hillary.

    Parent
    The question is how effectively the money is spent (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    surprisingly (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:37:07 AM EST
    republicans are actually pretty good at that

    Parent
    I don't think he'll get Florida in the end, but (none / 0) (#23)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:52 AM EST
    what this does is it puts John McCain on the defensive. Now he has to defend Virginia, North Carolina AND Florida, meaning he has less time and money to spend on places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
    Florida was John McCain's last firewall, and now it's gone.

    Parent
    FiveThirtyEight (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:14 AM EST
    currently gives Obama a 74% chance of winning.

    FiveThirtyEight (none / 0) (#36)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    is my new favorite blog.  I think it's going to be a huge part of my life for the next five months...

    Parent
    The oil drilling issue (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:19 AM EST
    is worrisome, tho. The response from Obama is crucial and tricky. All rural and suburban voters are listening in particular.

    Let's hope they all understand the facts (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    We are drilling currently off Florida and if anyone thinks that building more drilling platforms will lower the price of gas, they are wrong. The price of gas will go down when an alternate energy source for cars and trucks is found. Until then, demand rises daily and more drilling will take years to turn into actual gas at the pumps.

    That is all I want, the facts.

    Parent

    McCain's call for offshore drilling (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:28:01 AM EST
    can only hurt his chances in FL (and CA, not that that one is in jeopardy whatsoever of going R).

    This Q poll, while it's early in the campaign, seems w/n the margin of reality right now, and McCain's stupid decision to side with Big Oil will probably help O keep and even slightly increase his lead there.

    O is very lucky to be running in an anti-incumbent, anti-Repub year, especially against an uninspiring and aging candidate who seems determined to side with big ripoff corporations instead of the people.

    It looks increasingly like a huge Dem year.  The Rs can only win by stealing it massively in OH, FL and elsewhere by targeting heavily minority and college town precincts, gumming up the voting works and the usual stuff.  

     

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    the GOP can still win it by making Obama so toxic that voters will reject him.

    Parent
    This isn't 2004 or even (4.50 / 2) (#82)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    1988.  The economy is in the tank, and we have a candidate who doesn't seem to be quite as clueless as the knuckleheads we nominated those years who decided to lie down and take the punishment the Rs dealt out daily.

    The Repub Recession will trump all this year, count on it.  No pastor eruptions or similar is going to change the favorable outcome for Dems.

    Parent

    Keep (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    dreaming. There was no way Kerry was supposed to lose in 2004 either because of those numbers. Obama hasn't been very good at responding to the GOP so far. We'll see if that changes. The largest problem Obama has is that he is an unknown and failed to define himself during the primary. This leaves him open to being defined by the GOP.

    The election will probably boil down to who are you voting against not who you are voting for.

    I've seen us lose in favorable climates before. Besides, Obama really isn't making much of an economic policy push so far. He's way too reliant on the University of Chicago Milton Friedman economists.

    Parent

    In 2004 the economy wasn't (3.33 / 3) (#114)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:00:31 AM EST
    in the tank and the Iraq situation wasn't nearly as unpopular as it is today.  Too, Junior's popularity is much more in the tank than back 4 yrs ago.

    Sorry to bring this news to you but this cycle is going to be about the public's view of the 2-term party in power in the WH as it relates to the economy -- and all other considerations of character and the like are going to take a backseat.

    I will add that Rs will likely try to drum up some sort of NS-related October Surprise once again this year, as they do for almost all pres'l elections.

    Folks won't be buying this time I predict.  The little boy has cried Wolf! once too often.

    And no, not even Wolf Blitzer crying Wolf! will be able to help the McCain/Bush ticket ...  

    Parent

    Re: Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    One word: Vietnam One Year: 1972. Do you realize that exactly 20% of americans approved of the WVN in 1972? And people really hated Nixon. Do you realize that the Dems in congress have been an abject failure? That they are even more disliked than Bush?

    You might hope that this election is a referendum on Bush but it could be a referendum on Obama. Have you considered that fact? The race is close right now and all the GOP has to do is raise enough doubt in people's minds that Obama simply can't be trusted so the voters can't pull the lever for him.

    Every year I hear from people like you who say "This time it will be different". Well, it's almost never different and the things that have worked in the past somehow work again no matter what the environment.

    Parent

    "Woe is me, we are going to lose, we always lose" is no way to go through an election. What are you going to do to make it different?

    Parent
    I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:52:27 AM EST
    saying that we're going to lose. I'm only looking at this realistically. All the Obama is going to win and McCain is going lose shouting doesn't make it so. I can't fix Obama's electoral problems any more than I can't fix McCain's. Both of them have some pretty serious problems. Ignoring those problems doesn't make it go away.

    Parent
    Maybe it just seems this way to me (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:07:25 PM EST
    Every year I hear from people like you who say "This time it will be different". Well, it's almost never different and the things that have worked in the past somehow work again no matter what the environment.

    This sounds to my ears very much like "woe is me, we can't win. We almost never win."

    No one expects you to fix any electoral problems. If you had that capability you need to get thee to campaign HQ immediately.

    However, you are not totally powerless either. Can you get one other person to vote Democratic? How about 2?

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:21:46 PM EST
    that's what you want to hear and see. Whatever. The problem is that the same thing Obama supporters are saying HAS all been said before. Somehow this time it will be different because of X. Somehow the GOP attack machine won't work this time etc.

    I can easily get people to vote democratic for downticket races. Getting people to vote for Obama is quite another task altogether. And don't play the race card. Obama's race is the least of his problems.

    Parent

    Was there a Repub Recession in 72? (none / 0) (#145)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    I don't think so.

    What were Nixon's job approval numbers?

    Anywhere near Junior's over the past two years?

    I don't think so.

    VN War?  Tricky had taken care to largely take that one off the election schedule with his Vietnamization effort starting in 69 and the end to the draft.  By Nov 72, VN, which obviously by then had not been a popular war, was successfully neutralized as an issue by Dick.  

    He'd also gained in popularity (iirc) with his bold trip to Red China and the summer detente visit to Moscow.  No longer the rabid anti-communist who was unwilling to deal with the red menace.

    Now he was almost Nixon the olive-branch offering peacenik.

    Heheh ...

    Parent

    Nixon's (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    numbers were terrible. They were similar to what Bush has. Goldwater conservatives hated the guy. The problem in the end was that McGovern was so unpalpatable by the populace that Nixon won in a landslide. Obama has done a lot of damage to himself even before the GOP starts on him. The GOP has said all along that they were going to let Obama coast through the summer and then unleash the dogs after he's nominated at the convention. Get back to me then about the Nov. election.

    Parent
    Gotta cite for Nixon's (none / 0) (#157)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:36:09 AM EST
    job approval #s in 72?  Because I don't think they were remotely close to the dismal ones Junior has had since he began seriously dipping in 2005.  Voters then were also not passing judgment on a two-term incumbent party in the WH, as they are today.  That in addition to the generally okay economic conditions back then (one year before OPEC lowered the boom) created favorable conditions for Nixon.

    Then he enhanced his chances not so much for victory (that had been assured when he and his band of Tricksters "arranged" for McGovern to get the nom over the feared Muskie), but for a landslide when he skillfully went after McG's character.

    And like in 1988, 2000, and 2004, he got a very flawed opponent who was inept at fighting back -- when he wasn't creating unforced errors for himself that is.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM EST
    I know Nixon arranged for McGovern to get the nod. Much like the Republicans here in GA went and voted for Obama simply because they knew that he had zero chance of being competetive in GA.

    According to CBS news, Bush's rating is slightly below what Nixon had. All the yammering about Bush's approval rating would be much more salient if Cheney were running. I would have no doubt that we would win in a landslide.

    Well, so far Obama has been pretty inept at fighting back. When he actually shows that he knows how to fight the GOP I might change my opinion. I do have a question though. How is Obama going to fight the GOP when he constantly wants to hold hands with them and is even considering a Republican for VP.

    Parent

    After Re-election (none / 0) (#201)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    Nixon's numbers started to slide to a low of 27% in early 1973 as Watergate began dominating the news. That as his lowest rating, according to an article on the CBS News site comparing recent presidents' lowest ratings.

    Presumably, they were higher six months earlier when he was running and getting re-elected.

    Parent

    Nixon's approval ratings (none / 0) (#192)
    by texasobserver on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    Here's a cite showing Nixon's approval in 1973 and 1974.  They declined as the Watergate scandal unfolded but were not low at the beginning:

    Nixon (Gallup)
    1/1973
    Approve 51%
    Disapprove 37%

    6/1973
    Approve 44%
    Disapprove 45%

    1/1974
    Approve 27%
    Disapprove 63%

    8/1974
    Approve 24%
    Disapprove 66%

    Parent

    It is terrific (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:43 AM EST
    Q poll is a quality poll that I trust. If they say Obama is up in Florida, then he probably is. If I were him, I would start thinking very long and hard about how I'm going to answer questions about the death penalty and Cuba, because that's how McCain is going to go after him.

    And then there's Virginia, where PPP says that Obama has a small lead. But if we adjust his AA numbers to where they will inevitably be, Obama has almost a 10 point lead. I do not trust that poll.

    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:48 AM EST
    The way the Q poll casts putting Hillary on the ticket is simply wrong. Their own data show that Hillary on the ticket is a net advantage in all three states.

    Parent
    It seems all info producers do not like the idea. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    Dunno why, but it's very hard to find anyone in the information production industry that likes Hilllary in the VP slot.

    Parent
    Because the media hates her (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:06 AM EST
    She's an evil calculating you know what, you see.

    Parent
    Yeah that and (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:53:50 AM EST
    it's a Clinton thing. I really do believe it's not MERELY a sexist thing against Hillary because she's a woman but a anti-Clinton thing in general.

    Sooo often when I hear people discussing the VP angle I hear them talk about Bill and how he would be lurking in the background, "opening his loud mouth," and otherwise getting "in the way."

    So it's a global Clinton thing and not just about Hillary. Though arguement could be made that the above are coded comments about how Hillary can't control Bill etc.

    Now given that Clinton hatred is substantially a media generated phenomenon, this is no suprise when MSM outlets push it. But the associated memes are very widespread at this point and crop up even in the analysis of pollsters who dispute their own data. That's a bit suprising to me. Though I suppose I shouldn't be suprised.

    Parent

    Here's something you won't see reported (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:56:03 AM EST
    in Florida, blacks support having Hillary on the ticket more than any other Demographic group.

    Parent
    Q Poll in FLorida (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:26:24 AM EST
    has always had Obama tied with McCain. this not that big a change.

    I think Q poll in Florida is especially suspect.

    Parent

    It's eight points over May, which is something. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM EST
    But yeah, Q's been consistently high on Obama in Florida relative to most of the other outfits.  I'm guessing Rasmussen will show a dead heat there with their next one.

    Parent
    The appearance of a dead heat in FL (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:33:46 AM EST
    is good enough to spend Ohio and Michigan off the table. At least, I hope so.

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    Their 2004 work was good though, IIRC. They always seemed to have a slight Republican tilt, but that was just compared to Zogby (who fooled us all).

    Parent
    Obama's best campaigner (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Coral on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:19:52 AM EST
    is McCain. Everytime I read or hear about McCain proposals, I lose a bit of my disinclination to vote Obama. The stuff about off-shore drilling has really set my teeth on edge.

    I have to say you are right about that. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    Gives me a bit of hope.  Hopefully a lot of Democrats who have grown to dislike Obama, or at least his campaign and their tactics, will turn out to vote against McCain.

    McCain is not the happy warrior campaigner who duped many moderates and centrists in 2000.

    Parent

    I gave $50 to McCain in 00' (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    It makes me feel dirty.
    My though process was that if the Democrat lost, at least we'd have a decent Republican. Boy was I wrong.

    Parent
    Kerry offered the (none / 0) (#70)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    Vice Presidency slot to McCain in 2004.

    Parent
    I voted for him, I gave money to him, but (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:45:01 AM EST
    Kerry was not a good candidate.

    I hope Obama has enough sense not to reach out to Republicans in that way.

    Parent

    If he does (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    the only rational conclusion I could make is that he really wants to lose. I don't think he's that crazy.

    Parent
    he certainly seems to be (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    laying the groundwork to do exactly that.  talking about dead beat dads, the religious thing, its not looking good IMO.


    Parent
    also I disagree a bit (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:02:09 AM EST
    I think he is smart enough to know, or at least the people around him are, that these numbers are not going to hold and he is going to have to try to get some of McCains voters.
    rock, meet hard place.


    Parent
    not going to happen (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by VicAjax on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:14:15 PM EST

    when Kerry was running, the GOP was far more popular; so there was a credible thought that Kerry would have to reach to the right to get elected.

    now the party is in shambles and the Republican brand is badly damaged.  There's no real advantage for Obama to go for a red VP.  and Hagel, despite his opposition to the war, does not have much in common ideologically or policy-wise with Obama.

    it's all just silly talk to give people something to type about.

    Parent

    Club Obama's already canoodling with Repugs (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:56:28 AM EST
    It's fellow Dems that are the bad guys, remember?

    Now, some Democrats want Obama to look outside the proverbial box for a running mate, courting the independent voters Bloomberg would have sought. "He was not the candidate of the Democratic establishment although he's courting the establishment now," Democratic strategist Donna Brazile told Salon. "This is an opportunity to go outside the traditional walls of looking for some kind of geographic or political balance [in a running mate]. The country's in such a mood now, it's in a pickle almost," she added, referring to the possible appeal of the national unity ticket.

    Hagel would also bring some strong credentials, says former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat and fellow Nebraskan [...](And Obama's veep is ... a Republican? By Mike Madden, Salon, 06/17/2008)



    Parent
    Brazile!!! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    The country's in such a mood now, it's in a pickle almost," she added, referring to the possible appeal of the national unity ticket.

    Put a sock in it, Donna.  Ugh.

    Parent

    Once Again (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    Hagel is an extremely CONSERVATIVE Republican. Progressive Punch gives him a score of 9.46%. In fact, he is more conservative than McCain who has a score of 13.89. Health care - Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 9.89. Corporate subsidies Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 50. Environment -  Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 27.60     Education, Humanities, & the Arts      Education, Humanities, & the Arts - Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 5. Fair Taxation - Hagel has a score of 0, McCain has a score of 17.46.

    The only area that he has deviated from Bush is that he has spoken out against Bush's actions in Iraq. Even when he has made statements against Bush's Iraq policy, when it came time to actually back up his words with his vote, he voted with Bush.

    Hagel would put choice and every other Democratic value just a heart beat away from being on the line. It would give his positions validity within the Democratic Party. It would also set Hagel up as the future presidential choice in 8 years.

    I am currently not inclined (subject to change) to vote for Obama but Hagel as VP would be a deal breaker for and might actually get me to vote for McCain for the reasons stated above.

    Parent

    I can't believe the Dems are putting it out there (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    ... even as BS to try and keep the VP discussion lively without Sen Clinton.

    Brazile's pathetic.

    Parent

    there is even growing talk (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    of VP Hagel.  personally I could totally see him doing that.


    Parent
    Yup, Hagel was the specific potential VP mentioned (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    ... in the Salon piece.

    Parent
    Yeah ditto for me (none / 0) (#191)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    Volunteered for him too.  Helped organize on campus for him.  I knew he wasn't a good candidate from the get go but I supported Howard Dean in the primary so I'm no one to talk.

    Parent
    Hubris level orange. nt (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:21:37 AM EST


    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    I think what we're seeing is the post-nomination bounce, now that HRC has gone underground.

    Parent
    It's only mid June (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    There's a lot of time between now and November.  Why just the other night, my beloved Lakers were leading the Celtics by 24 points.  They somehow managed to blow the lead and lose the series in humiliating fashion.

    Parent
    Lakers got the smackdown last night (none / 0) (#150)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:28:34 AM EST
    It was sad, really.  I stopped watching after a while.

    I was rooting for the Celtics, but it was sad about the Lakers.  There's gonna be alot of changes in LA, that's for sure.

    Parent

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#182)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    The Lakers have a great team.  A few ball bounces one way or another in Game 1 or Game 2 and the Lakers would be celebrating a championship right now.  That's just the way basketball is.  The Lakers didn't win the championship but they did win the Pacific Division, had the best record in the west, and won the Western Conference Championship by defeating the defending world champions.  That's not a team you make a lot of changes to.  

    If you're a Celtics fan, you should be happy with the blow out.  I love watching victory lap clinchers that are big blow blow outs.  

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#190)
    by oneangryslav on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    "There's gonna be alot of changes in LA, that's for sure.

    This is LA's first trip to the finals in the post-Shaq era, and they only really started to put it all together this year after getting Gasol in mid-season trade.  The Lakers are young and will have a healthy Bynum back for next year.  There will be very few changes.  Maybe Derek Fisher and/or Lamar Odom.  Otherwise, the foundation is there for a couple of more runs at the title.

     

    Parent

    The Laker fans comin' out in full force (none / 0) (#198)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:15:27 PM EST
    I love it.

    I'm not a Celtic fan, I just preferred them over the Lakers.  While the Lakers has a solid team, it hasn't paid off for them over the last 4 years or since Shaq got the boot.

    The Lakers fought hard to get to the finals and they played good ball.  it's just Boston wanted it more.  It was a good series all around.

    Parent

    Now we wait for VP picks. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Faust on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:24:25 AM EST
    I think polls will continue to favor Obama going foreward. I was expecting this, but this is far better news, far earlier than I expected.

    I think the VP picks on both sides will be the next major thing that could shift things around one way or the other.  

    Fan-tastic (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    If this holds up, the majority Democratic Congress AND the Democratic President will be able to cave to the minority GOP on FISA and other issues.  

    Sorry, not feeling very much joy about the party today (Obama has become the least of my complaints).  Their complicity in destroying the Constitution (including non-leader Obama) makes it kind of hard to care as much about their electoral success.  And, of course, their participation in the petty, every day corruption that has become life in our Nation's capital.  

    Hip, hip, hooray Democrats!  You're slightly better than the GOP you cravenly cave to at least some of the time!  Go team!

    The next SCOTUS nominations are among the most (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by imhotep on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    critical issues.  It's essential that a Dem wins.
    However, Obama is an appeaser, so I'm not sure that we'll get what we want there.

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    If only there was some way a Democratic Senate could stop a right-wing Supreme Court nominee?  

    I was at a luncheon where Barbara Mikulski was speaking and was railing against Alito and Roberts.  I almost couldn't take it.  The only reason either are on the Court is that enough Democrats in the Senate went along with putting them there.  

    Do I think Obama's picks would be better than McCain's?  Yes.  But that doesn't make the Senate Democrats any less accountable for what the Court has become.  If you can stop something, but don't, it's your fault, too.  

    Parent

    Yes, it's their fault (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    But saying "you should," doesn't mean they will. The evidence shows that a President can get his appointments through, even if he has to compromise a bit.

    We're faced with a choice between center-left appointments and hard right appointments. I know which ones I'd rather have on the court.

    Parent

    Personally (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    I'm getting sick of the entire "We're Weak and Pathetic, Vote for More of Us!" routine from the Democrats.   It's particularly tiresome when it comes from Democratic Senators themselves.  We'll cave so elect one of us President!

    At some point, one they're rapidly approaching for me personally, they are going to have to do better than simply be less awful than Republicans.  Because when you cave on all the awful things Republicans do, you're not really a choice I can get all that invested in.

    As for Roe, as a practical matter there are parts of the country where you can't exercise the rights it purportedly gives because there are no providers left.  And what rights Roe does give have been steadily eroded in the last 20 years.  Something a lot of people don't notice because Roe hasn't been "overturned."  The current status is terrific for Democrats and the GOP.  The Republicans get to soak the anti-choicers for $.  The Dems get to take pro-choice votes for granted while using right-wing framing and squishy language to try to appeal to anti-choicers.   I think reproductive rights should be enshrined in the Constitution, but I'm not convinced Roe does that.  I think it's simply a tool for the political parties to play both sides for suckers while women suffer.  

    Not very happy with the Democrats right now, can you tell?

    Parent

    Yeah why is Roe never on their First 100 Days menu (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    For all the election-time talk about it you have to wonder why it's nowhere to be found in their priorities list.

    They only trot it out to scare voters when the Dems need to use the magical cornucopia of Voter-ATM. RoeVWade must be their PIN code.

    Parent

    I'm not happy with them either (none / 0) (#111)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    But I'm a lesser of evils voter, and nothing's going to change my mind about that.

    It's not just Roe we're talking about, it's all sorts of civil rights issues.

    Parent

    wait for it (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:30:07 AM EST
    you'll see Polls come out over the next several weeks that show Obama doing well, beating McCain, etc and so on and then ...

    He'll "nosedive" (or so will say the Media Narrative).  Then all you'll hear is how Obama "lost it" and how his campaign is in a "meltdown" against a "resurgent" and "suddenly strong" McCain.  How Voters are now "turned off" to Obama, etc and so on and so forth.

    This is usually how it works.  The media sets up the Dem as running strong only to knock them senseless like a political pinata right before the Election -- usually sometime in September or October -- and give the Republican the necessary assist they need to bring it on home in November.

    I wouldn't get too excited over these numbers.  The higher they go, the more damaging the "media fall" will be for Barack.  And it's inevitable.  What will make the difference between losing and winning in November is how well Obama handles the Media Spin ... and past experience shows him to be easily riled, put on the defensive and quick to anger when criticized and challenged.

    McCain has gotten counted out a lot (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:04:22 AM EST
    I thought McCain was toast several times now but he is like the engergizer bunny in a way. I suspect the numbers to change back and forth a lot for a while at least. Then I will wait until after the votes are counted. I thought Kerry was going to win. I was sure Kerry was going to win. The polls said so. The exit polls said so. And then out of the fog came George. What the heck??How did that happen? The polls were wrong you say???????? I can not see Florida going that way but then we will see.

    Parent
    If he runs with a young vibrant woman VP (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    That's the ballgame.

    Parent
    The PA (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    numbers are good. OH and FL not so much. We've seen that Obama can drop 10 pts. literally overnight with a pastor disaster. Obama needs at least a 10 pt cushion, imo, for him to have a good chance of carrying the state.

    I think he's fresh out of pastors. (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:37:36 AM EST
    So there shouldn't be any more disasters coming from that direction.  ;)

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    there is one more. And there is his brother now making claims. So there's lots of material out there that will be damaging to Obama. The question is just how much?

    Parent
    But remember 1988 (none / 0) (#84)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:46:26 AM EST
    Dukakis weathered the weekend furlough issue during the primary. It was when the Willy Horton ads ran in the general that it became apparent what a negative the weekend furlough program was for Dukakis. We ain't seen anything yet.

    Parent
    Also, Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:04:55 AM EST
    The Swiftboaters actually started to get some press in May, but came out in full force right before and after the convention.

    I remember being astonished that it had any traction whatsoever.

    Parent

    Apparently Kerry has been emphasizing (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    rapid response in his advice to Obama.  OK, it makes me laugh to read that sentence, but maybe he actually learned his lesson and is trying to pass it on.

    At any rate, Obama's definitely going to need to look at Kerry's reaction to the swifties as what not to do.  I'm hopeful that he and his people are smart enough to recognize that.

    Parent

    I think they've got to be (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by tree on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    careful not to go overboard with the "rapid response" or they'll get pegged as whiners. It worked against Clinton 'cuz the press loves to hate her and twist whatever she or her surrogates say in the most negative way, but that's not going to be a winning strategy against McCain.

    Parent
    I remember falling asleep (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    every time Kerry spoke along with the rest of the country.  Was it the swiftboat or the fact that Kerry tripled word count in nearly every speech written for him?  

    Parent
    Kerry=Ambien (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:30:59 AM EST
    It was both (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    or maybe better said all from the same source.  Kerry had that stoic thing going on and the boring thing going on.  He didn't take them seriously (I didn't, either), was too late and too lecturing in the his response.

    Parent
    that's fair (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    but this country loves its great speakers....

    Parent
    (sigh) 1988 wasn't a Repub Recession (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:16:44 AM EST
    year.  It therefore created an opening for Atwater to talk about non-issues.  Like Willie Horton.  And flags.  And card-carrying members of the ACLU.

    And Ds got a candidate in the Dukester who refused to fight.  WOuldn't dignify his opponent's charges with a response!   Thanks again for that principled stand, Mike!

    2008 is not 1988, and Obama is not Duke.  2008 is not 2004 and Obama is not  Kerry.

    Parent

    time (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:18:46 AM EST
    and only time
    will tell about that

    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    about the recession thing.  the financial guy on Joe this morning had nothing but dismal news.  one in particular was news that the Royal Bank of Scotland was telling people to get ready for a major collapse in the markets over the next three months.
    if that happens it could certainly pitch everything into a cocked hat.  so to speak.


    Parent
    IMO the SOP of the Republicans is to throw (none / 0) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:18:34 AM EST
    bits and pieces of their narrative out onto airwaves just enough to get the public aware of the problem(s). They test what parts are getting the most traction for future use. They generally wait to closer to the end of the GE cycle to pull all the most effective pieces together into the complete picture that they want presented to the American public.  

    Parent
    yep (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:19:34 AM EST
    expect the proverbial october surprise.

    Parent
    They used to talk about (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:40:48 AM EST
    "bimbo eruptions" with Bill Clinton (remember that classic piece of sexism?).  Now it's "pastor disasters" with Obama.

    I hope this election is about issues, but it's a bit much to ask with our media.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:45:20 AM EST
    Obama's hugest problem is that he hasn't been campaigning on issues. He's been campaigning on personality and "judgement". If he hadn't chosen those then he would have less of a chance of the impending 527's having an influence.

    Parent
    "Change that Works for You" (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    is an improvement. I hope Obama sticks with it.

    Parent
    The Kerry swiftboating was excused on the basis .. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:06:44 AM EST
    ... that merely by mentioning his BIO as a decorated combat veteran meant he put it "out there" so the swiftboating was "fair game" -- even though the swiftboaters demonstrably lied and padded their hate with sheer invention.

    Yet the media went along with the Rethuggernaut's justification that Kerry (honestly) said he was a combat veteran so all hits at his (exemplary) military record were fair game. They continually repeated debunked information AND presented Pres. Missing-Year, AWOL as the hero.

    So everything Obama has claimed to be -- and his personal record as an ANYTHING is pretty dismal -- will be fair game.

    Parent

    The difference, though, is they (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by songster on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:58:13 AM EST
    will probably continue their Obama-love.  Why shouldn't they?  It's not about ideology.  He's the fresh, new brand that makes them (reporters and pundits) feel young again, hip, and oh so politically correct.  His policy proposals are not especially threatening to the rich or the corporate world.  And most importantly, Axelrod has shown that he knows how to create, push, and maintain a favorable media narrative, one that arguably forced the nomination of his client by creating an atmosphere in which any other outcome would look like a historic injustice.

    See John Judis's inadvertent confession in the New Republic (h/t Daily Howler).

    I think BTD was right when he said the media won't turn on Obama.  So we may get to see how much power they have, if the Republican 527s let loose with the worst stuff they can get their hands on.


    Parent

    IMO the movement was Teh Hip and it's yesterday's (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    ... hot new thing. It didn't meet its own expections or promise, and on closer look the glitches are showing up more.

    That was more of a post holiday, nothing better to do phenomenon and IMO won't last the summer.

    Obama's charming one on one but I suspect people will be more likely to wonder what all the fuss was about.

    Parent

    There's a difference (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    One that won't always be admitted.  There are a lot of people out there who may not have approved of Bill's little daliances (sp?) but they were ready to vote for him because Bill shtupping around didn't threaten them.  And there was only so much outrage because conservatives also suggested Hillary was a lesbian.  If Obama is perceived as a racist, it will hurt him.  Because that will threaten people.  

    And goodluck on your issues kick.  People always say they want that but it almost never happens.  People always love the attacks and smears.  They won't admit it but they love it.  

    Parent

    Factor in the 527s... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by cosbo on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    of Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Muslim, Bitter, and then get back to me. General Elections are not won on the issues in the end...

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:37:49 AM EST
    that's why I think that Obama needs at least a 10 pt. margin to weather the storm in the fall. With those nos. in PA, it would indicate that he would win the state by about the same amount Kerry did.

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    And I believe there is more behind Obama than is being told right now.

    Moving the DNC to Chicago and making Chicago politics the center of his campaign structure reminds of a "circling the wagons" mentality.  And it reminds me a lot of Bush in 2000 because the Democrats are "protecting" Obama in the same way the Republicans "protected" Bush.

    Neither man has real experience at governing anything, but their respective party used the media to make any criticism of the candidate almost blasphemous.  After using race card against Hillary and maligning President Clintons successful presidency, Hillary and her "people" are supposed to fall in line.  

    Very Republican, IMO.

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#87)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:47:51 AM EST
    those people surveyed have all heard about Wright and company.

    Parent
    Just a reminder... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:39:57 AM EST
    it's only June.

    Will these numbers hold?  No.
    It's wishful thinking from Democrats and Obama followers.
    The Republican machine hasn't even started up yet.

    Those same polls said Hillary was going to be out of the race in March.  Too many pollsters are making too much money slanting polls for political gain.

    Let's see those numbers in October.  If you think the Republicans are going to give up that White House without a fight, think again.

    Not everyone is blinded by the "light" that is Barack Obama.

    Let's just wait until (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:47:38 AM EST
    we see what the right wing attack machine has to say, OK? We haven't been hearing about the downside of Obama for a pretty long time by now, and voters will respond to vivid reminders.

    My expectation is that these kinds of polls will lead Obama and his camp to take the smuggest possible attitude toward the election -- continuing to diss Hillary and her supporters, for example -- and when push comes to shove later in the election process, as the right wing launches its attacks, they will not be able to turn for support to the people they were just dumping on.

    Quite possible. nt (none / 0) (#93)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:51:08 AM EST
    If If If If and If (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50:23 AM EST
    More:

    "... [G]etting Sen. Hillary Clinton out of the race has been a big boost for Sen. Barack Obama. He now leads in all three of the major swing states, although his margins in Florida and Ohio are small," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    "Sen. Obama is certainly not out of the woods, but these results are a good indication that he enters the summer slightly ahead in the race to be the next president."

    While Democrats support the idea, independent voters in each state say Obama should not choose Sen. Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. Results are:

    • Florida: Democrats want Clinton on the ticket 57 - 33 percent
    • Ohio: Democrats want Clinton for Vice President 58 - 31 percent
    • Pennsylvania: Democrats say yes to Clinton 60 - 31 percent

    "If Sen. Obama seriously is thinking about picking Sen. Clinton as his running mate, these numbers might cause him to reconsider.

    (Republicans and Indies polled didn't favor Sen Clinton on the ticket; numbers can be crunched at the link.)

    FWIW, Obama showed bad form in his VP selection process and looked petty and juvenile with his gratuitous smacks against Sen Clinton.

    I prefer that Sen. Clinton stays away from all VP suggestions. She did what Obama only claimed he'd do: started a real grassroots movement. That kind of top notch talent shouldn't settle for second place to the less qualified, less experienced candidate.

    He hasn't faced a formidable, organized opposition yet like she has endured for two decades (and still come out on top).

    Even if Obama is bubble wrapped from criticism, IMO he's a toxic candidate in his ability to turn voters off not because of what others say but by his own attributes leaning towards arrogance, unprovoked contempt for huge groups of voters and a myriad other issues that have repeatedly come to the surface.

    DISCLAIMER: No, I'm not a bitter knitter clingy dumb old racist white b!tch but I'll cop to having lying eyes attached to working brains.

    What in the world has McCain done or said (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by oneangryslav on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
    in the last 4 years to make you think that he has even the faintest clue about what to do with the housing crisis, getting out of Iraq, Global Warming and restoring civil liberties?

    Did you not hear his response to the recent SCOTUS decision on Guantanamo?  Jeebus, just come out and say that you don't want to vote for Obama, but don't cloak your dislike for Obama with this type of mental gymnastics.

    I think you need to Chillax (none / 0) (#205)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    It's almost unfathomable that I would ever vote for a Republican.  I don't like McCain.  

    But I've laid out criteria here.  These are possibly the four biggest issues facing this country today.  

    It's a criteria I lay out for a lot of people leaning towards McCain.  

    Parent

    well, right off the bat, (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    So what are you going to do to make it different?

    i would nominate the most qualified candidate, the one who actually has real policies, can explain what they are and how she'd pay for them.

    of course, that's me, not the DNC. they seem bound and determined, for the third election in a row, to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.

    if the election were held today

    as my dad says: "if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped."

    the election isn't today, it's in nov. call me in oct., after the repub. 527's have raped and pillaged sen. obama and his madeover wife.

    frankly, only a politician with career suicidal tendencies would be foolish enough to be sen. obama's running mate, should he actually be crowned in aug.

    in order for sen. obama to be successful in the GE, he's going to have to totally reinvent himself, which will negate his entire primary campaign schtick. it will also give the mccain campaign additional ammunition to use against him.

    sen. obama will be hoist on his own petard, come the GE, absent some miracle.

    all this goes back to my original concern with him: an almost chilling lack of experience. too bad really, in a few years, he coulda been a contender.

    Have to think they'll settle some, but... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:18:43 AM EST
    ...man, that puts me in a good mood this morning.  Standard caveats about early polling etc.  But jeez, Florida!?!!  I've been assuming it to be out of play for a while now.

    The likliest outcome. . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    is a Democratic landslide -- and that's with or without an actual Democratic candidate.  This is simply not a Republican year.

    If I had to guess I'd say 45% chance of a Democratic landslide, 35% chance of the tighter Democratic victory, and 20% chance of a Republican victory.

    Of course things can change on the instant but barring any really substantial surprises those are my odds.  And the chance of surprises favors the Democrats, I think -- the most likely surprise is some age / health related issue cropping up with McCain.

    Heh (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:30:45 AM EST
    If Obama wins Florida I will take everything back.

    I've been feeling reasonably bullish about this election of late, because McCain has been running such a lame campaign.  The question, as it always is with Democrats, is whether Obama will have the guts to challenge McCain's extremist views head-on and thus marginalize them once and for all, or will he play it safe as he usually does?

    McCain's global warming ad is pretty good (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    it will play well in the Philly burbs. I'm not counting out Rick Davis yet, no matter what he claims about California.

    Parent
    Here's a yuk (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:36:09 AM EST
    Andrew Sullivan's take on these polling numbers:

    The last argument of the Clintons evaporates.

    You know you're deranged when your first reaction to good polling numbers is not, "Yay! My candidate is going to win!" but "Yay! This refutes the Clintons' electability argument!"

    Obama could be president for 8 successful years and by the end of it, I predict Sullivan will view everything through a Clinton-hating prism.

    Parent

    Indeed, and he has no (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:37:36 AM EST
    credibility. If he bothered to actually read the poll, he would see that Hillary on the ticket adds about 3 points net in each state.

    Parent
    And They Stopped Polling Her (none / 0) (#67)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:39:52 AM EST
    as the nominee (not a complaint, an observation) and my guess is that she'd run stronger than Obama.  Her electability argument was never that Obama absolutely couldn't win, it was that she was a surer bet.  None of this goes to that question at all.

    Indeed, the sigh of relief many appear to be feeling - and Sullivan immediately reaching back to Clinton - seem to indicate concern that he could lose, no?

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    WWTSBQ was almost entirely a product of their lingering concern that Obama just wasn't so strong in November. For Sullivan, of course, it also included extreme Hillary hate.

    But yeah, if they asked about Hillary this time, I'd expect her to be over 50% in all three states. The election would essentially be over.

    Parent

    LOL Sully never disappoints (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:13:10 AM EST
    That's what comes of getting his brain-wheel Hamster to use online readers to do the research and critical thinking because Sullivan has urgent armoire-shopping to do.

    Parent
    Yeah, McCain is going to have (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:38:44 AM EST
    a lot of credibility with voters re tackling global warming as he seeks to help Big Oil to drill offshore.  Global warming?  Hey, we can drill our way out of it!

    Parent
    You cannot (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:55:44 AM EST
    simultaneously argue that gas prices are a major reason why the Democrat will surely win in November, and contend that offshore drilling is a surefire loser because people will be concerned about the global warming implications.

    My sense is that voters are overwhelmingly opposed to offshore drilling in the states that are actually affected, but inland voters may be enticed by the prospect of lower gas prices.  We'll see.  I just question whether the average Jane or Joe paying $4.50 for gas is going to worry more about the glaciers than about their own family.

    Parent

    You know the standard litany against (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:57:42 AM EST
    Ted Kennedy includes the suggestion that he blocks wind turbines off of Cape Hatteras because they would interfere with his view.

    So you, the meme that it's elitist to block drilling could catch fire.

    Parent

    Off shore drilling snobbery (none / 0) (#122)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    Interesting that Americans would be upset about off shore drilling in American waters, but the Brazilians just found a HUGE oil reserve in their ocean space and they are looking at drilling.  

    Shouldn't we be complaining about that too???  I don't think the Brazilian government is going to give a rat's ass about that global warming thing... look at what they are doing to the Amazon and that is a more immediate impact on our environment than off shore drilling.

    Parent

    You mischaracterized my post. (none / 0) (#127)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:09:48 AM EST
    I merely argued that McCain is going to have little cred with voters on his supposed concern about dealing with global warming to the extent that he reaches for a majorly pro-Big Oil offshore solution to the gas price/supply problem.

    The overall concern of the avg voter about global warming as it might relate to high gas prices is another matter.  

    Especially as they see daily the considerable change in weather patterns and as they personally experience increasing frequency of severe weather events, including massive MW flooding for instance.

    They might conclude, reasonably, that just doing more of the same by way of burning more fossil fuels because of more oil drilling isn't the right answer.  In fact, I suspect they will.  And that they'll also conclude that the fossil fuel industry needs to be brought to heal with Dems' approach of higher taxes on excess profits.

    Parent

    Look (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    You've already finished counting your chickens.  Every one of Obama's arguments will resonate, every one of McCain's arguments will fail miserably.  We all understand this is your position, because every one of your comments is a variation on the exact same post.

    Parent
    Gee, that's pretty rich (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    coming from a poster who's been fairly consistently negative and hostile re the Dem nominee's chances.

    In fact, a pretty fair percentage of posts in many of these election threads recently have been mere variations on your predictably skeptical anti-Obama/Dems Will Lose theme.  Perhaps you can allow for a few non-conforming, dissenting Dems here to have their say, you know, the ones who actually want to see our party win this Nov.

    Btw, I don't consider O to bat 1000% this campaign.  But unlike some here, I don't want to get into the habit of only looking at his downside while expressly or implicitly touting his Repub opponent.  I am a Dem in the final analysis.  Dunno about some of the rest of you however ...

    Parent

    I thought it was me (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    Cheney Energy Bill (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:25:02 AM EST
    Obama=Yes
    McCain=No

    Also I could have sworn I heard on the news last night that Americans were not against off-shore drilling as much as we would think. If McCain is proposing it with other alternatives, it's not the same as just trotting it out as the answer to high gas prices. He also says it won't be an immediate solution. Americans may be willing to compromise at this point?

    Parent

    They MIght Be Able to Tighten the Polls in CA (none / 0) (#59)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:36:48 AM EST
    McCain will never win here, but he is from Arizona.  And California isn't as blue as people think and we have an anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot this Fall.

    Obama will carry California, but McCain might be able to tighten polls enough to give the Obama campaign some cause for concern.

    The question is how much resources would that take from McCain?  California is not a cheap state to play in generally.  So the question is whether the GOP smear machine combined with McCain's new BS Green stuff can do it without him spending money here.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    Please oh please Mr. Davis, don't try to run against me in California!

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#76)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:42:50 AM EST
    I don't think Davis falls for that though, if only because he knows he doesn't have the money.  It's not like he's got an extra $10 million laying around and Obama is trying to help him figure out where to spend it.

    The Green thing is very smart for McCain, however, and combined with the inevitable smear campaign could cause the polls to tighten here in California.  McCain was within 7 at one point and it wasn't that long ago.  

    Again, Obama will carry California, the only question I have is whether McCain can make him work for it.

    Parent

    I think the answer is that he can't (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:44:59 AM EST
    Ohio and Florida are simply too close for him to play games with CA.

    Now, free media could help. If there's one really good, nasty, ad that CNN et al will play over and over for free, it could tighten CA. But frankly, McCain can't win CA, and money he spends there is money wasted.

    Parent

    I Agree on the $ (none / 0) (#89)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:49:16 AM EST
    I don't think McCain can spend a dime here.

    But the BS Green stuff combined with the upcoming smear (some of which will be picked up by the news, the internet, or email) could put McCain back to where he was a couple of months ago, within 7.  

    Absent an Obama meltdown, I don't think he surpasses Obama or ever really puts the state in play.  The question is whether he can simply get the polls up to where they were a couple of months ago.

    That depends, as so much does for McCain, on getting more enthusiasm for his candidacy on a national level.  His VP pick is crucial, IMO.  Right now he can't raise money and no one is going to see him, and yet we're still relieved Obama is ahead in swing states.  If he can somehow improve on that, this race will become a lot trickier for Obama.

    Parent

    As BTD said yesterday, (none / 0) (#95)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:52:02 AM EST
    it will be a close election. I take these Q poll results as being a bit optimistic, frankly.

    Parent
    not so sure (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:14:49 AM EST
    I have always thought Obama would either lose big or win big.  I still think so.
    (big being more than 5 pts)


    Parent
    You've got to be kidding. (none / 0) (#75)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:42:31 AM EST
    McC has no chance in CA -- and that was before he called for offshore oil drilling there.

    It's a highly popular idea here.  Even Gov Arnold is against it.

    O will win CA with a sizable margin.  That's how bad the Repub brand is out here.

    Though I would encourage the McCain campaign to squander as many of their resources trying to win CA ...

    Parent

    I Said Obama Will Win California (none / 0) (#81)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    But it's conceivable McCain could tighten polls here.  If he spent enough time and resources, I think he could.  He was within 7 points not that long ago.

    Yes, offshore oil drilling is a killer for him.  But people would have to know that's his position first.  Which would require an expenditure of money from Obama or other Democrats.  And that was my point - McCain can't win California, but he might be able to force Obama to spend money and time here.  The question is whether doing that would then be too costly for McCain.


    Parent

    Off shore drilling (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:55:48 AM EST
    depends on who lives there.

    People who support off shore drilling are not in the area where the drilling would be.  When gas hits $5-$6 a gallon, I don't know if people will care about that off shore drilling.

    What they need to do is up the refining of fuels too.

    Parent

    People in CA care about off-shore drilling (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    because of the Santa Barbara oil spill.

    Parent
    What is Rick Davis claiming? (none / 0) (#171)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:52:35 AM EST
    If McCain wants to have a shot in California, he needs to come in and visit blighted, urban neighborhoods.  He's wasting his time if he goes and campaigns on Lido Isle (unless he's getting money).  He needs to go and visit Westlake, Echo Park, Pico-Union, Boyle Heights, the Figueroa Corridor, and really appeal to people who might even be open to voting for him.  Surprisingly, Obama only took narrow advantages in Alameda and San Francisco counties.  If McCain is smart, he's going to go to the neighborhoods and precincts that didn't vote for Obama and campaign there.

    Also, I honestly think McCain is wasting time and money with any appeal to black voters.  I heard about him going to Selma and giving a talk about poverty.  That's a waste of time.  Go to Westlake, stand in MacArthur Park and give a talk on immigration and opening up the borders, that's a much better use of time.  

    Parent

    Norcal (none / 0) (#209)
    by texasobserver on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    "Surprisingly, Obama only took narrow advantages in Alameda and San Francisco counties" -- you are dreaming if you think McCain will even come close in the SF Bay Area counties.  The fact that Clinton prevailed in the primary is completely irrelevant to how the general will play out for Obama.  This Texan has lived in the SF Bay area for many years, and I'll bet you any amount you want to put on the table on that score.  The Bay Area always votes very blue.  Any chance McCain has is in the Central Valley or northeastern part of the state, and LA suburbs.

    Parent
    The political climate (none / 0) (#49)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:32:40 AM EST
    in the country right now is a huge asset for the Democrat's. The Republican's can't even drag out the standard issues this election. With the economy tanked nothing else will matter. Voters will be out for blood!

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by SoCalLiberal on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:55:25 AM EST
    That's the only reason Obama really has a chance.  If you really think about it, Obama is a worse candidate than McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis.  But things are just so bad right now, he might get elected.  He's got a good shot.  

    Obama in many ways reminds me of William Jennings Bryan, who was considered one of the best speakers of his day if not all time and inspired massive crowds and deep, loyal followings of people.

    Parent

    The SurveyUSA Report card (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:35:51 AM EST
    considers Q-polls only so-so accurate:

    Link

    Oversampling Democrats (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mad Donkey on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    I believe all of the state polls have been found to be wildly oversampling Democrats. Regardless, if Obama were that far ahead in those states, shouldn't he be considerably farther ahead in the tracking polls as well? I mean, those aren't even close.

    Polls have been so inaccurate I wonder that they're used at all.

    Agree with the oversampling (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    I believe there has been oversampling favoring Obama this entire election.  By making Obama's poll numbers seem "insurmountable", it give the appearance that Obama is the "winner" which discourages those who may want to vote against him, feeling their vote would not matter.

    It is really very, well, Rovian.  But then again, the Obama campaign has been taking from the Rove playbook this entire election.  

    Parent

    My understanding (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimotto on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    is that most pollsters are not adjusting their samples based on party identification (they make their adjustments based on age, sex, race demomographics).  So the increased number of people identifying as democrats in polling samples appears to be due to increases in the percentage of democrats across demographic groups.

    Parent
    Republican Election Projections (none / 0) (#96)
    by JayHub on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    The Republican blogger at Election Projection, who is highly regarded and whose projection formulas have been right in the past, sees the 2008 Election shaking out as follows, if the election were held today:

    Projected Electoral Votes
    Barack Obama:  309
    John McCain:  229

    Projected Popular Vote
    Barack Obama:  51.69%
    John McCain:  47.31%

    He says, "Barack Obama continues to lead John McCain by a comfortable margin [and] appears to have this presidential contest well in hand at the moment."

    Other Republican predictors, such as Cold Hearted Truth, The Hedgedhog Report, Election Junkie and FiveThirtyEight, also all have Obama winning.

    Link to Election Projection site is here:

    http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml#update

    Well, one can get (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    caught up in these projections. A bumper crop of Zogby polls in 2004 made electoral-vote.com project a Kerry win. So I'm wary of projections.

    Parent
    I checked Zogby daily up to that election. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:04:00 AM EST
    Boy do I feel foolish.

    Parent
    Yes, but (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by JayHub on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:04:21 AM EST
    Yes, but for what it's worth this guy was right in 2004 and 2006, and the other Republican predictors linked to his site are all consistent. He uses state by state formulas of his own design to turn raw poll data into election projections.

    Key point, of course, is "if the election were held today."

    A lot can happen between now and November. Nice to see in any case that Repubs are predicting defeat.

    Parent

    Republicans are lowering the bar (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by stefystef on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    I think they are predicting a "loss" in order to fire up their base.

    While these over-sampled polls are showing Obama success, there is a real underground movement going on.  And I believe that while people may be telling the polls one thing, when they get into the voting booth, these change.

    The Republicans are playing the "underdog" game, like Obama did early on in the primary season.  The Republicans did the same thing in 2004, making Bush seem like he's just a regular guy against the elite Kerry.

    IMO, the Republicans are setting the Dems up.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#109)
    by pie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 10:58:40 AM EST
    He says, "Barack Obama continues to lead John McCain by a comfortable margin [and] appears to have this presidential contest well in hand at the moment."

    Those three pesky little words:  at the moment.

    Reality!! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:16:34 AM EST
    The Republicans will lose no matter what.  Any Democrat would have won.  Think of it, for months people have been listening to the Democratic agenda, having McCain come back again and talk the same old, is really not working with people.  Lets see how the campaign will play out.  But, if the Dems lose, forget it.  The public does not want the Republicans.  

    GOTV strategies (none / 0) (#167)
    by laurie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:46:48 AM EST
    Obama has had over 500 enthusiastic unpaid volunteers out working in Florida for the past month now. Their aim has been to target AAs and the "creative class" there, and to register new voters such as Haitians, Cubans, single mothers, youth vote etc. maybe its paying off.

    Who's missing? (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    No time for blue-collar workers, middle-aged women and Jews, eh?

    Parent
    They're trained to tell their 'personal stories' (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    ... of how 'they came to Barack Obama'. UGH, if ever there was a recipe for turning off potential voters that has to be it.

    They're trained to get their stories under two minutes, stick to that script, not to answer any questions about issues and to deflect attention from that. It's all about how the magical Obama Charisma saved them.

    Blecch, little walking commercials.

    Parent

    So nu? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    And this approach works on intelligent people?

    Parent
    I can't imagine it working on anyone ... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    ... not holding a SuperSchlurp while hanging out at the SchlurpyMart (and even that would take priority on election day.)

    Parent
    Since 1932... (none / 0) (#180)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:00:32 PM EST
    ...the only consecutive elected Presidents from the same party were FDR/Truman and Reagan/Bush I.  It should be noted that Truman won a squeaker, and that Reagan was about twice as popular as W is now, while Dukakis was about half as appealing a candidate as Obama.  
    History tends to favor Obama in this regard.  The fact that he has more money, more volunteers and more enthusiastic support at this point also points toward a substantial win for him in November.  We'll see what the GOP rolls out, but I don't think we should either under or over-estimate the capabilities of their smear machine.

    Who knows if they'll hold up... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Tom Hilton on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM EST
    If these numbers are real and hold up, Obama will win in a landslide.

    Well, numbers change...but the real import of this is that it drastically narrows the ground McCain can consider 'safe'.  I doubt Florida will go for Obama in the end, but McCain is going to have to fight like hell for it...and for Virginia...and so on.  And Obama can afford to outspend McCain in states McCain absolutely has to win.  

    Didn't mention Hillary VP (none / 0) (#211)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    Text below is taken from Quinnipiac Poll. It really feels a bit editorialized. Republicans would not want Hillary to be VP because the rationale has always been it would be a stronger ticket. The Independent opposition is close for and against. I find these numbers do not indicate strong opposition to her as VP. Then why write it that way? Quinnipiac has had some reliable polling, but frankly I'm not buying anything at this point. The pollsters and media have shown themselves to be lacking an ethical bone; ditto the party apparatus and all that conveys...

    "While Democrats support the idea, independent voters in each state say Obama should not choose Sen. Clinton as his vice presidential running mate."

    Results are:  
    Florida: Democrats want Clinton on the ticket 57 - 33 percent while Republicans are opposed 59 - 17 percent and independents oppose it 46 - 37 percent;
    Ohio: Democrats want Clinton for Vice President 58 - 31 percent, but Republicans say no 60 - 19 percent and independents turn thumbs down 47 - 31 percent;
    Pennsylvania: Democrats say yes to Clinton 60 - 31 percent, while Republicans say no 63 - 20 percent and independents nix the idea 49 - 36 percent.

    "If Sen. Obama seriously is thinking about picking Sen. Clinton as his running mate, these numbers might cause him to reconsider. The people who really matter come November - independent voters - turn thumbs down on the idea. And, many say they are less likely to vote for him if he puts her on the ticket," Brown added.  

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1187


    Bounce (none / 0) (#212)
    by texasobserver on Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    Here is actual data showing state by state "bounce" numbers.  Average is 5.4%.