From a hot-off-the-presses interview between McCain and the Columbus Dispatch:
This is not wholly different from what McCain told voters in New Hampshire, or told Katie Couric. But after taking some heat for his remarks, McCain is not backing down. In fact, he has broadened his criticsm: now anybody who fails to acknowledge the success of the surge -- and probably anyone who opposed it in the first place -- is apparently branded as something just short of a traitor.Q: Does that mean it's the same as putting politics ahead of country?
A: It means ... I said, I will repeat my statement again, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign. Because anyone who fails to acknowledge that the surge has worked, who has consistently opposed it, consistently never sat down and had a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander there, would rather lose a war than a political campaign.
The McCain campaign has taken a couple of cheap shots at the Obama campaign while he has been in Europe and the Middle East. This is one of them, and the other was McCain's new commercial directly blaming Obama for high gas prices. This is smart politics I suppose, considering that Obama's staff isn't in a good position to respond. But McCain clearly thinks this phrasing is a winner for him, and if the Obama people don't get on the case pronto, they may find themselves going down John Kerry's well-worn path.
220 comments
First!!
I love how liberals are so scared of success in Iraq. I bet they were hoping it didn't work and that more Americans would die just so that it would fit their political agenda.
Well McCain saying Iraq was the first major conflict since 9/11 must sound good for those who have fought in Afghanistan.
My guess is that the Obama campaign will respond with something like this...
"The American people are tired of the politics of division in which candidates hope to gain political ground by questioning each other's patriotism. John McCain knows better than to suggest that Barack Obama wants us to lose in Iraq. And we all deserve a presidential campaign that rises above such empty sloganeering."
Obama has to turn it around this way: McCain is willing to say x,y and z about me in order to win the election. Then, proceed with how McCain's policies would make America a global loser (there's no pot of gold in Iraq, Brandon, even with a successful surge).
Personally I find it a bit scary that anyone talks about Iraq in terms of a war that will be won or lost.
That kind of nuance might be a hard line to spin, though.
Well.... isn´t the Iraq War over? Isn´t Saddam Hussein beaten? Isn´t the war McCain is talking about the war on terror?? Isn´t Afghanistan the place where we have to win the war on terror?
McCain is arguing with a wrong premise here.
McCain = Faust, Karl Rove = The Devil.
McCain: "Help, what can I do to win?"
Rove: "Say personal victory is more important to Obama than American victory. Start calling him 'far left' and just keep making people suspicious of him. And stay away from supermarkets - you just look silly."
McCain: "Thanks. But won't the media keep reporting on all my foreign policy gaffes? I keep mixing up countries, ethnic groups etc. I'm worried that I am starting to look silly as the 'foreign policy expert'."
Rove: "Don't worry. Now that you've sold your soul to me, I'll tell you the secret. Keep calling the media biased towards the other candidate, then they will feel bad and ignore all your gaffes."
McCain: "It's funny. If Obama made half the gaffes I did, he'd be finished...Thanks Karl."
Rove: "See you in hell."
McCain: "Not if I don't see you first!"
(Both laugh heartily)
It's a bit of a leap to "traitor." Just like it's a bit of a leap to say he "directly blam[es] Obama."
Why is it that conservatives are willing to guarantee American defeat in Afghanistan in the pursuit of a hollow, muddled victory, at best, in Iraq? Traitors all.
Simple response: If the surge worked, then we are done. If it didn't, there's nothing else we can do. Either way, it's time to come home.
Remind me again, what is McCain's definition of victory in Iraq?
Perhaps Obama could simply remind folks that we there is no way to "win" an occupation. You either annex the country or you depart when the sovereign government asks you to leave.
McCain is no chess player. Obama needs to call this the slime it is and talk about his vision for the FUTURE of the Middle East - for which he now has the cred.
By the way has anyone noticed how McCain was found outside a restaurant in Ohio that looked at least 50 years old, the photo with Pappy Bush - the old and tired image is being given some legs.
Bill B says: There are two things all Americans, that is Liberals, Conservatives, and everything in between have in common. They don't like losers, and they don't like quitters. There is another thing they also don't like,and that is liars, but politicians all do it so they have made an exception for them. Nobody is always right, and nobody is always wrong. Wouldn't it be refreshing if Republicans would admit in hindsight we probably should not have invaded Iraq, and Democrats would admit the surge has worked and they are pleased that it did. Oh well! There I go with my wishful thinking again.
It's time to take off the gloves:
"McCain would rather start his own war, I will end George Bush's war."
Another victory like Iraq and will be our undoing. Call it McCain's King Pyrrhus strategy.
Guess you could say John McCain would rather win a war than save his country.
This comment "...and if the Obama people don't get on the case pronto, they may find themselves going down John Kerry's well-worn path" pretty much sums this situation up along with Anonymous 6:38's remark. McCain knows that what he's saying is intellectually ridiculous but he's being advised to go down exactly the same "red-baiting" path that Bush did against Kerry. "It worked in 2004, it'll work now" is the logic. Is enough of the electorate stupid enough to go with the divisive, low road "either you're w'us or agin us" nonsense? McCain's campaign clearly thinks so. How much will they be able to add onto Bush's refractory 28% with this tactic?
Exactly Anon @7:38.
McCain would rather win a war than not wage one.
or
McCain would rather win a war than do what's best for America.
or
McCain would rather win a war than spend the trillion dollars it costs here at home.
or
McCain would rather win a war than do just about anything in life.
Barack Obama is not just another Democrat - its different this time - but being a Democrat who has seen alot of disappointment over the last decade or two I am of course a little paranoid too - but still its different this time
What Obama must do is to hit back now - hard. For a whole month he has been letting McCain and the media directing the narrative. The media whines now that the media is biased (yes, the media whined about that first. I've seen six op-eds about that in the week before McCain made a statement, many more afterwards) and too much focused on Obama - that, actually, is a good thing for McCain and most people either deliberately ignore it or are simply too idiotic. Most of the coverage of Obama right now has him on the defensive and most coverage of McCain has him on the offensive - these are both good for McCain. Their media-whining now is simply another tactical maneuver designed to make a fool of the American people since they know very well the media benefits him right now, and sadly, the Americans are buying into it like they have been for the past fifty years.
I was going to vote for McCain but after this kind of talk I feel he has no grasp of the situation in the mideast. If we elect him it will be non-stop war.
It doesn`t matter how great the surge worked the Iraqies want us out and McCain doesn`t seem to understand this fact.
I think this kind of talk will hurt him in the long run considering 60% of Americans want a timeline let alone his hypocrsiy about wanting an issues oriented campaign and then going into the gutter by questioning Obama`s patriotism.
Obama needs to fight back, he seems to be taking these insults to easily.
I love how liberals are so scared of success in Iraq.
You don't know what "success in Iraq" would even look like. You guys have been in Iraq longer than you were in World War Freaking Two, spent over twice what you spent on World War Two, and the thing's a worse sinkhole than when you started.
"Success in Iraq" doesn't even exist. Forget about being scared of it.
Jim S. @ 7:49 : McCain has no plan to win any kind of "war". Remember, no operational definition for "winning" or "success" has ever been provided either by Republican war-promoters or the U.S. Military.
The only thing that has been proposed is a long-term military holding action, with a massive fortified U.S. presence within Iraqi borders, completely cut off from the local populace but in a militarily impregnable position such that it no longer suffers military attacks.
"Success" in Iraq, on McCain's terms, involves a longterm plan to spend some three to five thousand dollars for every inhabitant of Iraq, every year, forever, which is triple the GDP of the whole of Iraq itself, devoted to the goal of having thousands of soldiers sit on their asses behind barbed wire.
If this sounds useful to you, by all means, talk about winning and losing.
If Obama would rather lose the war then Republicans would rather the war go on forever, so they can keeping using it to win.
Tybalt, you were in Germany and Japan LONG after the end of the war
Brandon said...
... I bet they were hoping it didn't work and that more Americans would die just so that it would fit their political agenda.
you are one sick puppy if you truly believe that. I feel sorry for you.
Nate,
Rasmussen has new polls for PA and NH.
Cheap shot? I believe McCain's basic point is true. Obama didn't want the Iraq war in the first place. He has over the years proposed strategies to get out of Iraq quickly with little to no regard to the mess we'll leave behind (ie: not our problem).
He is even so wed to his position that he can't acknowledge basic facts like putting Petraus in place with a new strategy and backing that strategy with more troops has turned around the 'civil war' that he was advertising.
McCain's basic charge that Iraq is all about politics to Obama rings true to me and a lot of others.
Now, to be fair to Obama - he doesn't think about Iraq in win or lose terms. He simply wants out and wants out quickly. That's not a position that excites me about Obama.
On your 2nd cheap shot - directly blamely Obama for high gas prices. You are correct - it is a cheap shot. Obama is too new to the national scene to have finger prints all over the gas price isue.
Although - I would hope you would agree that both the democrats and republicans share blame on this. Both sides played politics for years. There is a very reasonable compromise that could have happened 6-7 years ago with increasing renewables, conservation, average fleet milage increase, upgrading the electrical transmission system, and drilling offshore and in Alaska. Doing that years ago could have mitigated the problems we are seeing today. But both sides are driven by fanatics that won't compromise. How do we fix the fanatic part? I haven't a clue.
McCain Memo: 'Respectful Campaign':
"Throughout the primary election we saw John McCain reject the type of politics that degrade our civics, and this will not change as he prepares to run head-to-head against the Democratic nominee.
...
Throughout his life John McCain has held himself to the highest standards and he will continue to run a respectful campaign based on the issues."
no operational definition for "winning" or "success" has ever been provided either by Republican war-promoters or the U.S. Military
The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as "Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."
McCain Memo: 'Respectful Campaign':
"Throughout the primary election we saw John McCain reject the type of politics that degrade our civics, and this will not change as he prepares to run head-to-head against the Democratic nominee.
...
Throughout his life John McCain has held himself to the highest standards and he will continue to run a respectful campaign based on the issues."
no operational definition for "winning" or "success" has ever been provided either by Republican war-promoters or the U.S. Military
The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq defines victory as "Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."
Thanks, Brandon, for trotting out the 'ole reliable of conservative claims. "Libruls hate victory. They want our troops to die!"
The number of Americans who want American troops to die is vanishingly small. It's a disgusting accusation to level at "liberals."
Setting aside for the moment that we don't even have a clear definition of "victory" in the first place, liberals are pleased that things have improved, but remain very skeptical about the mission. Things have gotten better (after several years of getting worse and worse), but things are still bad and could easily go to hell again. The Iraqis themselves would like us to leave (some want us out now, some want us to stay for a year or two more).
For a proponent of the war to crow about how great things are now is the height of arrogance. Well, we fought an unnecessary war, we totally screwed up the occupation/reconstruction, and now after several years of screwing the pooch, things are finally improving. So we're supposed to look at that and go "well, gosh, the people who started this war are so smart. I was totally wrong." WTF?
Incidently, the Obama campaign does need to hit back.
Today, Obama lead by 5(49-44) in the rasmussen tracking.
Just three days ago, the candidates were tied at 46% (with leaners).
"peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism"
Ok, that's a definition of victory all right, albeit a vague one (any definition for winning an occupation will be vague, I guess). And Iraq is nowhere near that.
I don't want us to just pull up stakes and leave immediately. Neither does Obama. Is his plan too hasty? Maybe it is. But I still trust him more than I trust McCain on the issue. For those scoring at home, McCain was wrong about the war in the first place, but right about the surge. Obama was right about the war, wrong about the surge. Which is more important?
You can argue that one, I'll admit. We can't go back in time and not invade, so the surge is more relevant to our current situation. On the other hand, the next President is going to face decisions that could lead to conflicts elsewhere. So, even if one gives the edge to McCain on the surge, I'd still rather have Obama in office b/c I'm quite worried McCain will haul off and attack Iran.
Check out Ras site several positive polls for Obama including a nice ounce in the daily tracker released at 9:30 eastern Fri.
While your at Ras, check out the "myth of a toss up" commentary...all very reassuring.
Psh, McCain is a lightweight compared to me.
Anyone who denies the importance of flying cars should be drawn and quartered.
There. I said it.
This is not a winner for McCain. The majority of voters don't care about the surge. They care about getting out of Iraq. McCain just keeps reminding voters that he wants to stay in Iraq. Every word from him about Iraq triggers the memory of his "100 years" remark and often reminds people of his bomb Iran tune. Voters want to end the Iraq war and they don't want another war started. The more McCain harps on this, the more he hurts himself. Keep it up, J Sid.
And his character slurs towards Obama make him sound desperate and small. He comes across as far less than presidential.
When the side with the blood of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens on their hands admits that the Iraq war was a mistake, then they can make demands about who should and should not admit that a military strategy *shockingly* worked as it was designed to.
Frankly, no one could know what would've happened in a non-"surge" world, so to say the war would be lost and we'd be surrendering is moronic. Certainly, the situation in Afghanistan at least brings into question whether or not our troops were properly deployed.
The minute we discuss actual policy, 70% of America is on Obama's side. I don't think over 20% will switch based on his skin color nor these dumbass hand-waving techniques designed to make you look at anything but the source of the problem. People are just paying too much attention this year. You can't get away with it. (As a two time Bush voter who was basically Pete Kent w/ no desire to talk about politics at all... I'm ashamed of who I was... I can say that at least some people out here are waking up and starting to figure out that our government requires our attention in order to best serve us).
If you want to stand for this kind of crap, all because you're using to rooting for the same "team" in this game of politics... trust me when I tell you it's far more satisfying to just draw your own conclusions. It's enlightening to be free to admit when your opposition has a good point (in my case, I have no problem admitting that the surge has reduced violence... the point of the surge was for political progress and little happened, so "success" is a stretch) and think everyone from both sides could use a lot more levity in how we approach this whole process.
We should be standing together having a conversation about determining which of these men is best suited to lead us for the next four years. Would you please just let me try to convince you that Obama might be the better man? I'm totally willing to listen to lucid points regarding McCain's viability as President. It's going to take convincing, because I'm pretty firmly convinced that a 72-year old man who doesn't use the internet cannot possibly grasp the problems facing a modern world, but I will listen to the qualities that you think will make him a better leader than Obama. I will listen to the specifics of his policies and why they're better for America than Obama's. I will listen to every point you have regarding the validity of your candidate. I will then tell you why I disagree (if I do) and what I think of the gentlemen. If you happen to agree with me enough to change your mind and vote Obama (I think I'm compelling when given the chance), then that's sweet. If not... God bless and thanks for taking the time to have the talk.
Why is a full half of our country not interested in having this conversation?
So is that the bounce in today's Rasmussen? Back up to 5 for the first time in a while (both with and without leaners)?
Or are we looking just a little too hard for an immediate and noticeable bounce for every occasion?
Anyone still backing Obama has some screws loose:
Barack Obama’s campaign said Thursday that the Illinois senator opted not to visit U.S. troops at military facilities in Germany because it would be “inappropriate” to make such a stop on the campaign-funded leg of his trip.
The German magazine Der Spiegel reported earlier that Obama canceled a visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a military hospital in Germany, and the Ramstein Air Base.
Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., also took a shot at Obama.
“I noticed that Obama had plenty of time to shoot hoops … but he didn’t have the time to stop by (the Ramstein base),” he told FOX News.
Hey you dope:
If he had gone, he'd be accused of politicizing injured military. Tough spot. Either way... this is really what you want to base your decision on who our ambassador to the world is for the next 4 years? I'm the one w/ screws loose?
CNN has put Minnisota under "toss-up" because of that ONE Quinnipiac poll. Total BS. CNN has no idea what they're doing.
If the surge worked so well, why are troops levels still above pre-surge levels?
There were very specific goals set for measuring the success of the surge. The increase in troops was not just to decrease violence. It was to decrease violence so benchmarks could be met. The major goals weren't met. If the goals weren't met then how can it be called a success. Obama is right.
But as I said previously, arguing the surge is a no-win situation for McCain. The surge is not the winning issue for the election. Ending the war is.
CNN knows exactly what they are doing: creating a more compelling narrative. If one candidate is up, tear them down and visa verse. That way you can guarantee more interest and television viewership. The national television media think that the election is just TV programming -- and they fail to understand how this election impacts us all on a personal level.
Funny the near ubiquitous agreement that the "surge" worked. First they remove 30k troops after the Iraqi elections in Jan 05. Things go to hell quickly afterward, casualties on all sides seem to increase every month.
Then a couple years later they bring up this idea of a surge and bring 30k troops back to Iraq and violence numbers return to the pre-election level.
This "surge" is now widely regarded as a success. Its success has become a "fact". How are those Iraqi political benchmarks coming? It is really hard to keep up with the shifting definition of success in Iraq.
I supported McCain in '00, I cannot believe that this is the same man.
Jim S.
You can bet I will base my vote on the fact Obama is willing to bend over to every communist, socialist and fascist government in the world. With this idiot as "our ambassador to the world is for the next 4 years?" we will lose the war against France after France sides with Iran during their war with Israel.
eve
15 of 18 of the "very specific goals set for measring the success of the surge" have been met. 3 remain, as McCain keeps saying, once these 3 are met our troops will come home.
I don't know whether Nate should be honored, but the trolls seem to be getting dumber by the day.
Hey Anonymi Just Pick A Name! said...
So is that the bounce in today's Rasmussen? Back up to 5 for the first time in a while (both with and without leaners)?
Or are we looking just a little too hard for an immediate and noticeable bounce for every occasion?
Honestly? Yes, we are looking too hard, but is difficult for many us, Nate included, to resist. Hey, I said yesterday I was ready to be committed to 538 rehab!
What is this in every Rasmussen analysis: "Obama has not served in the military. McCain, a Navy combat pilot in the Vietnam War, was shot, imprisoned and tortured in the infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' for six years."
Sure it's true. But while I would expect an objective pollster to point out one candidate served and one didn't. Constantly detailing McCain's service in this subjective way seems inappropriate.
Why not just say that sending more troops to Iraq, putting our kids in harm's way and straining our economy to fight a war with a country that didn't come after us is what makes someone just short of a traitor?
I know there's some opposing logic--the faction that pulled the rug out from under the west point grad on his way to training camp with the Lions so he could serve his country by coaching football--but c'mon already.
Why doesn't anyone, an Obama surrogate?, get really loud over the very premise that the war/the surge/etc is the least patriotic thing an American could support?
Jim S said
---------------
We should be standing together having a conversation about determining which of these men is best suited to lead us for the next four years. Would you please just let me try to convince you that Obama might be the better man? I'm totally willing to listen to lucid points regarding McCain's viability as President. It's going to take convincing, because I'm pretty firmly convinced that a 72-year old man who doesn't use the internet cannot possibly grasp the problems facing a modern world, but I will listen to the qualities that you think will make him a better leader than Obama. I will listen to the specifics of his policies and why they're better for America than Obama's. I will listen to every point you have regarding the validity of your candidate. I will then tell you why I disagree (if I do) and what I think of the gentlemen. If you happen to agree with me enough to change your mind and vote Obama (I think I'm compelling when given the chance), then that's sweet. If not... God bless and thanks for taking the time to have the talk.
------------------
Obama is a charismatic speaker with orothodox liberal positions. If you remember back to when Omama and Clinton were still contending for the nomination I think you'll agree that there was little to no difference in their policy positions.
Given that - why does it surprise you that there is a significant portion of the electorate that doesn't want to elect Obama? It's not about racism. He has different belief structures, priorities, and solutions than what a conservative would put out.
Obama will significantly increase the tax burden on the most productive in the society (liberals think that is good, conservatives think it is bad).
Obama will break the link between the amount you pay in and the amount you get back in social security - effectively moving it from a slightly warped pension plan to a wealth distribution plan. Good? Depends on your world view.
There are lots of other issues that we can discuss that seperate Obama and McCain. But the bottom line is Obama is a prettier, better speaking, John Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, (put your generic liberal in here).
Notice I didn't say Bill Clinton - at least Clinton tried to be more of a centrist to get the country moving foward together (and yes to give him more power :-). McCain has some of the same qualities with being able to compromise to make things happen. I've seen none of that from Obama.
Does that make Obama bad or evil - no. He is just someone who's policies I believe are wrong for long term growth in America. Unfortunately, I suspect this election that over 50% of the US voters will disagree with my beliefs :-).
rstrange, I more than understand where you're coming from; when I said "we," I purposely was including myself. I need rehab too.
Can evry democrat every time they tal to media bash McCain for saying this ? Because thats what republicans would have done to drive the message ...
Iraq war (including surge) was a huge failure. You don't win wars by building rival militia ... guys like McCain and Bush who don't realize this are traitors.
Obama's liberal in this political climate, but if you go back just a few decades you'll see what a liberal actually is.
And the Republican party seems to have never heard of fiscal conservatism--they put the hate mongering right next to low taxes and and massive spending...
Stop throwing the terms liberal and conservative at these people.
I would LOVE a fiscal conservative. and I'm a Democrat.
This looks to me like an act of panic by the McCain team. Look at the swings in the national tracking polls the past few days. They're trying anything to (a) get attention, (b) cut Obama's gains from his overseas trips and bloody him up if they can, (c) move on from McCain's previous gaffes and divert the focus that Obama has placed on Afghanistan.
As Nate's post yesterday suggests, Obama needs to come back with concrete (and sound-bite ready) domestic policy proposals -- left out of Nate's list was health insurance.
It's gotta be housing, taxes, health insurance, fuel prices, social security. i.e., more immediate, urgent issues (in most people's minds), and not just long-term strategy (energy, environment, inequality, etc.)
I don't think McCain has winning cards -- but it's not just what cards you have, it's how you play them that matters. So he can win.
On this date in history July 25, 2004, the Rasmussen Tracking Poll showed John Kerry Leading President George Bush 49% to 48%.
For final results of this election, please see inauguration January 2005.
The difference between this comment of McCain's and what the Bush/Cheney did said about Kerry in 04 is that the latter invoked fear as a reason to vote for them. McCain is trying to make this a pissing contest without such nuance. Its a loser of a comment at best because it sounds nibbling and bitter.
I believe Nate is right he needs to get ahead of this story. For some reason Obama dosen't seem to want to attack McCain.
But when someone cause you a "traitor" and repeats it you have to take them on.
Obama isn't just our next president. He's our current president.
SORRY JACK BUSH won with 51% or 3 % more than he was polling in late july.Say McCain picks up 3 or even 4% it still won`t bring him near 50%.
Short of a major meltdown by Obama McCain can`t wiN. By the way Rasmussen had Obama up 12 in MN and it was a more recent poll. No way do I believe MN will go for McCain. The media needs to sell the story that this election is a dead heat to keep people tuning in.
Anon said:
-----------------------------
Obama's liberal in this political climate, but if you go back just a few decades you'll see what a liberal actually is.
And the Republican party seems to have never heard of fiscal conservatism--they put the hate mongering right next to low taxes and and massive spending...
Stop throwing the terms liberal and conservative at these people.
I would LOVE a fiscal conservative. and I'm a Democrat.
----------------------
Hmmm....I wasn't trying to use liberal or conservative as a insult. And yes - there is always sliding scales on these things. Obama may well be a conservative in some European countries while Bush a liberal in places like Russia or some counries in Asia.
As for Obama not being a liberal like from the 60's. I don't agree - he is talking about radically revamping the social security contract, changing the way medical care is accessed and paid for in America, making the tax system way more progressive (my opinion to far when you already have 50% of the population paying 2.9% of taxes and the other 50% paying 97.1%), etc. I think that's liberal even by the 60's perspective.
Bottom line though - Obama is left of the center in America. McCain on most issues is right of center in America. You can talk degrees. One of the reasons Obama excites the left is that he is closer to them on the issues. While McCain doesn't excite the right and is further from them on issues.
As for fiscal conservatism. I suspect that if you support Obama you aren't what I would call a fiscal conservative. ie: less taxes AND less spending. I suspect you are more of the balanced budget type who wants more government but is willing pay for it with higher taxes (most likely on someone other that yourself :-).
If McCain wants to call everyone opposing the surge a traitor thats fine,Obama should insert McCarthy for McCain from now on. John McCarthy, this and John McCarthy that. Its appropriate and everyone will get the point.
Anon 9:38 - Yes, the Obama campaign must respond forcefully to McCain's slurs. His surrogates should be constantly asking, "What has happened to John McCain?" and buttressing the rhetorical question with specifics on gratuitous warmongering, factual confusion, flip-flops and other evidence of ill will and detachment from reality.
But Obama should not get into tit-for-tat casting of aspersions. On a personal level, the more McCain diagrees disagreeably, the more Obama should disagree respectfully. He's all about getting us past the partisan name-calling, remember?
When the two finally confront each other in debates, that's when Obama, more in sorrow than anger, gets in McCain's face, and pivots to the public with, "You see the difference: We can keep fighting old wars with old tactics, or we can face the future."
Any comment on the abramowitz- sabato-mann piece on the rasmussen site today, nate?
Pollster just linked to a new Colorado poll from Keith Frederick polls (I guess they are a Colorado polling outfit):
7/16-22/08; 700 LV, 3.7%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Colorado
Obama 45, McCain 41
Sen: Udall (D) 48, Schaffer (R) 39
I just don't think that liberal and conservative should be defined as sliding scales, but rather definitions of political ideologies that I don't believe either party's view fit neatly into.
Like I said, I'd LOVE a fiscal conservative, but as I'm not going to get one I'm all for the balanced budget who will tax me more and a modern world view.
And let's be honest, I just pray that any president will fill his administration with people smarter than himself.
That he'll be calm, reasoned, rational and strive to do what's best for both Americans on both sides of the aisle.
Call me crazy, but McCain seems to have a bit of a temper and that's not the personality I want as commander in chief. Deliberate, please...
Since I'm not sure how this part of the Super Tracker works... would the "trend" from the new CO poll be based off the current CO average, or would it not be assigned a trend?
I can't believe anyone is surprised that McCain would step into the gutter like this. He's a Republican. This is what they do. Ever since Obama went on his trip, McCain has resorted to attacking him non stop and has given up on advocating his own policies. His constant commentary on Obama is almost pathological in its obsessiveness.
We have been here before of course. McCain is using the Bush/Kerry playbook to attack Obama's patriotism and blow the dog whistle to remind voters that he isn't one of us. No surprises there except it won't work this time because the American people are sick and tired of being lied to and treated like fools by an arrogant political party with a baseless sense of entitlement.
When McCain's negative tactics fail, only an assassination will save them.
McBama needs to forget about troop surges and start some surging of his own...if he wants to be president- I feel his heart's not in it, though.
win1withme:
"While agreeing with the administration that violence has decreased sharply, a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office concluded that many other goals Bush outlined a year and a half ago in the "New Way Forward" strategy remain unmet."
WaPo, June 24, 2008
Dear Senator McCain,
I would like to sign-up for my briefing with General Petraeus.
Please advise, when he will be on a town hall tour of the US. For that matter, please advise when you will take questions from common Americans at your town halls.
Warmest farts,
Anon
McCain is out of touch with todays world, He is living a 60's version of the US. His idea's are old and even if you don't believe he's running for George Bushes 3rd term he has decided to run George Bushes 3rd campaign. Accusing a fellow Senator of what amounts to treason is so ridiculous that McCain should be denounced for speaking such divisive and hateful language. This is Karl Rove 101, how can McCain possibly claim he is not an extension of Bush.
After using this language where else can the McCain campaign go? All thats left is calling Obama a terrorist and accusing him of helping Osama and the 911 attacks.
I ask any McCain supporter how can a man of so called character accuse another American of this? This shows the lack of character and integrity. It is McCain who would stoop to any level to win a campaign. Even though i wouldn't vote for Mccain I always thought he was a man of character, apparently any he had he would throw away to win a presidential election. How far our country has slid backward, the founding fathers would be disgusted with where our politics have gone.
Anon says:
----------------------------
Call me crazy, but McCain seems to have a bit of a temper and that's not the personality I want as commander in chief. Deliberate, please...
----------------------------
I'm not a big McCain fan and haven't been for years because of his temper. So right now I'm going through a thought process on McCain with a temper vs Obama and his arrogance / self absorbtion. Quotes like: We're the change that we've been waiting for. Claims like the senate banking committe is his when he not only isn't the chair but doesn't even sit on the committe. Temper vs world revolves around me. Ugh....really bad choices.
After spending 60+ years on this dirt ball hurtling through the universe a person gets to the point where they learn to quickly separate the wheat from the chaff.
It's becoming more obvious day-by-day, that is, more obvious to any cognizant upright walking biped that John McCain has nothing of positive substance to offer for the future of We the People. It's the same old divisive bullshit as usual.
Nate wrote:
"This is smart politics I suppose, considering that Obama's staff isn't in a good position to respond."
Believe or not, "smart politics" is an oxymoron.
I "suppose" that a bald face lie is just fine and dandy as long as it's justified under the guise of "smart politics."
Yup, "smart politics" supported by lazy people with absolutely no backbone to call a person on it will eventually get you four more years of George W. Bush.
Vote for a stagnant past or vote for a vibrant future, It's your call.
~JQP~ @ Silly as it Seems ... 1966
.
To "Incoming Light..." regarding new CO poll. It's my understanding that Nate would include that poll in his database -- and assign it to the median date of the field period, weighted by the sample size and pollster reliability.
Then when he reruns his model, any net impact of this new poll would affect that little snake of an estimate that he's been building. It's not likely to have much impact in any case.
But suppose Nate were to discover a treasure trove of previously unreleased polls from a reliable pollster, polls that allowed him to reconstruct the past history (say from May or June).
I believe the new data would modify the "history" and also have a residual impact on his projections into the future to the extent that it created new baseline numbers from which more recent data are modifications.
anon 10.29: can i fart in that envelope too? that fool McBama deserves the farts of the entire world.
"McCain would rather fight an unnecessary battle than win a necessary war." I'm sure there's a catchier way to say it.
anon 10.38- better to say McCain would rather talk out of his, um, hat than try to win an election.
First off, Obama is closer to a fiscal conservative than McBush. Fiscal conservatives don't cut taxes in a time of war, or when we are $10,000,000,000 in debt.
Second, even though I didn't like the McCain policies, I always thought he was an honorable man. No man of honor would accuse a fellow Senator of what amounts to treason unless he was willing to sell out his character to try and win a campaign. Karl Rove has arrived and henceforth McCain shall be called McBush, or McRove.
Thirdly, Of course the media is covering Obama more. he gets more of the good, and more of the bad. The entire election is about Obama. McCain is the stand in if the public decides Obama is not acceptable. The vast majority of people are either voting for Obama or against Obama. The polling backs this up.
Fourth, We are in a global age. Industrialized countries are now interdependent. There is no more standing on your own. Beijing and Bangladesh have as much impact on the US as Kansas City or Pittsburgh. We need leaders willing to take the reigns and lead the World, not just the US. Economies are global, and so are the threats. Obama is a world leader, McCain is an American leader. If we choose McBush we are destined to stay in our small thinking box and not take our rightful place as the leader of the world instead of the enforcer of the world. This really is an election about the past and the future.
McCain's got no class. Fear and smear, debasing our discourse. Don't fall for it again, America.
new rasmussen NM poll, obama up 5 insted of 8 last month.
you people think rep's are the only people who attack other's in politics? look at dem's
every election they try to make republican's out as racists which unlike you dem's we see everyone as american's NM gov when asked a question about obama speaking there before said i saw mexican's white's AA, and every other race. yet he forget to say he saw american's dem's never see just american's it's only color's they see. and all the lie's dem's put out.
like about thoses false document's about pres bush that nbc came out with and dan rather had to opologize. just sicken's me how you guy's try to make us out to be the one's who only do this.
republican's dont stick up for themselfs even finally someone's gotten sick of it and isnt letting it go dem's need more of this insted of just trying to push republican's around it's sickening.
keep it up mccain!.
lol, guesss mccain thought he would be competing against hillary. He also thought he would beat hillary
http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/a16.htm
Actually, the new Rasmussen NM poll is 49-43 -- 6 point difference in the "with leaners" numbers that Nate uses. Pretty strong for Obama.
McBush loves to grasp at straws...First, if we listened to Obama, we never would have had the Iraq mess to begin with...Wanting so much credit for the LIMITED success of the surge, would be similiar if a prisoner said "Hey, I obey all the institution rules, I'm a good guy"...Well, if he was such a good guy, he wouldn't have been sent to prison in the first place....
There is still daily violence in Iraq & there has been very limited political progress...
And on domestic issues, John McBush is even worse...He is an absolute disaster of a candiate....
Good for McCain! Glad he told it like it is instead of doing the Obama dancearound.
This really gave me some hope that McCain is ready to take down the empty suit Barry.
Tim said:
--------------------------
First off, Obama is closer to a fiscal conservative than McBush. Fiscal conservatives don't cut taxes in a time of war, or when we are $10,000,000,000 in debt.
--------------------------
You lost me right here. McBush? I don't have time to argue with people that call names or try to insult. Repond directly, with facts when possible, and clearly labeled 'opinions' if you'd like - and you can have a discussion that may change someones mind. Throw insults and the other side will ignore you.
Tim:
"Fiscal conservatives don't cut taxes in a time of war, or when we are $10,000,000,000 in debt."
It's actually $10,000,000,000,000.
You know why McCain keeps saying it? Because it's TRUE, and it will ring true with many Americans.
Just like American liberals, Obama didn't care who won in Iraq. He just used it as a political platform. Now, I'm sure he has a more nuanced view of things, since he decided to run for president.
But most American liberals seemingly would prefer to lose the war, so they can say "I told you so," even though their usually mindless dissent would have helped to bring about such a result.
McCain is saying it BECAUSE IT'S TRUE.
The answer to getting out of debt is health insurance for alll!!!! More foodstamps!!! Woo!! Tax the rich!! Yeah, lets get those successful people on their knees!!! Yeahh!!
I have NEVER been hired by a poor person. Good luck keeping your jobs with Obamastudder's tax structure.
Well said Mr. Peterson!! Even a MORON would be able to say the surge worked. So why can't Obamastudder? Answer: it makes him look wrong. Regardless of whether you think we should be in the war, we are in it. Obama's vote against the surge was WRONG.
I also don't understand why this is a "smear." Everything is a smear to you people. Obama's middle name is a smear. Anything critical is a smear.
Hey, guess what? Not everyone shares your irrational love for The Messiah! He has to actually win an election before he becomes president. The American people have something to say about it (thank God).
"He'd rather lose a war and win an election." It's a pithy, pointed characterization of a political opponent. It's called politics. This is nothing. Quit crying about "smears."
Interesting analysis, but it assumes a static level of support for Obama on domestic issues which could very well be a false assumption. If Obama's is able to move the thermometer 5 points by focusing on foreign policy, should McCain's domestic focus have a similar impact particularly given the growing importance of fuel prices and McCains support for highly popular drilling initiatives?
So people making $225 000 a year aren't successful? Their taxes, and the taxes of people making less than that, will go down under Obama, and down further than they would under McCain. Meanwhile, those in the 95-99 percentiles, making roughly 225k-600k a year, will see their taxes go up by an average of $800 a year.
I'm sure that will bring them to their knees.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf
As to the "surge worked" and "near victory" talkers: over 540 people were killed by combat violence in June. Baghdad is quieter, but it is a rat maze of twenty foot blast walls and entire neighborhoods stripped of citizens or perhaps citizens of the wrong stripe. Infrastructure is primitive even by primitive standards.
I doubt many people in the world could stand this kind of success and "victory".
John Peterson said...
You know why McCain keeps saying it? Because it's TRUE, and it will ring true with many Americans.
Just like American liberals, Obama didn't care who won in Iraq. He just used it as a political platform. Now, I'm sure he has a more nuanced view of things, since he decided to run for president.
But most American liberals seemingly would prefer to lose the war, so they can say "I told you so," even though their usually mindless dissent would have helped to bring about such a result.
McCain is saying it BECAUSE IT'S TRUE.
please, tell me what the definition of 'winning' and 'losing' in Iraq is, so I know if I'm one of those people who you seem to think would prefer to 'lose' the war.
July 25, 2008 11:33 AM
obamastudder said...
The answer to getting out of debt is health insurance for alll!!!! More foodstamps!!! Woo!! Tax the rich!! Yeah, lets get those successful people on their knees!!! Yeahh!!
I have NEVER been hired by a poor person. Good luck keeping your jobs with Obamastudder's tax structure.
You may not have ever been hired by a poor person, but I bet most everything you buy is made by a poor person. 'Insurance for all' would save businesses a lot of money and would make the USA more competitive in the world job market. Food Stamps only help people in extreme poverty buy *food*. The 'rich' have always gotten more out of the system than they put in, and when compared to the last 50 years they're paying less in taxes than they have been - so it must be SHOCKING to you that with these low taxes on the rich ... the economy is tanking!
Dr Light,
singleton polls - unique state-pollster combinations - have no impact on the supertracker. (It does feed of course into the State average). The moment there is a new poll from the same firm, the old poll becomes part of the trend estimate.
Juris, One feature of the supertracker is that it keeps being reestimated for its entire history, all the time. Any new result today changes slightly our understanding of where the race stood back in February.
I am sad only that I will not be able to vote for John Peterson for President. After all, he has the rare and powerful ability to read minds, and not just Obama's mind, but that of millions of American liberals!
Imagine how useful it would be to have a president who can read minds like John Peterson can.
Brandon, you're an idiot. Aside from the fact that there are plenty of liberals and centrists in the military (I've a number of friends who are serving there now, or have been--one of them suffering PTSD which looks like it will end his marriage, at least), there's not an American in the military (nor the non-Americans who've been enlisted, for that matter) whom I want hurt or killed.
But clue: You don't "win" an occupation. You finish it. The war was declared finished at least a couple times.
Clue: To achieve "victory" you have to have some idea what that means. And the Bush regime has studiously avoided any sort of definition. So has McCain. Hard to define a victory when the basis of the invasion and the reasons for staying are almost all fundamentally lies.
Just listen to McCain--the Iraqi-Pakistani border (like the US-Brazilian border, eh?), and the (fervently Shiite) Iranians training (radically Sunni) Al Qaeda.
Want victory? How about embracing facts first?
ajb said:
---------------------------
So people making $225 000 a year aren't successful? Their taxes, and the taxes of people making less than that, will go down under Obama, and down further than they would under McCain. Meanwhile, those in the 95-99 percentiles, making roughly 225k-600k a year, will see their taxes go up by an average of $800 a year.
I'm sure that will bring them to their knees.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411741_updated_candidates.pdf
-----------------------------
Here's where you see a big difference between a conservative and a liberal. The same report that ajb used to say that $225-600k earners would see only see a $800 tax increase, also says the top 1% of tax earners (the people above $600k) would see a 26% tax increase ($144k on average) and the top 0.1% would see a 31% tax increase ($859k on average).
I don't make anywhere close to $600k+ but believe think it unfair to give anyone a massive tax increase of 25-30%. And beyond the fairness issue I believe that it is just stupid economics.
Lastly, I believe it to be truly dangerous to the long term health of democracy and the US to have the bulk of the tax burden on the shoulders of a very low percentage of the population. When 60% or 70% or 80% of the people pay effectively no taxes, where is the self limiting nature of tax increases and spending? I'm concerned long term that we'll get so progressive that the system will crumble because there are no checks and balances.
There is a great deal of conversation about whether we should or even can do what it takes to win in Iraq, but there isn't sufficient conversation about what it actually means to win in Iraq.
Even if we define 'winning' as leaving Iraq with no worse problems with economy and domestic safety than they had before we arrived we're very far from the goal of winning. Even if liberals like me aren't sufficiently impressed with the way the surge is 'working' we've still got a legitimate point when we question how much more of a surge, and for how long, would allow us to 'win'.
And, of course, liberals like me continue to be right in asserting that we never should have attacked Iraq in the first place!
So feisty. McCain is right.
John Peterson, I'm sorry but when John McCain portrays opposition to the GOP's handling of the Iraq war as being akin to treason, I call bullcrap. How DARE John McCain call any American a traitor for invoking their rights to dissent. How dare he. If I were Obama, I throw this little nugget into his next foreign policy speech, "When I am President, if you disagree with us, we will disagree agreeably. President Obama will NEVER call an American a traitor."
One point that needs to be hammered home is that IF McCain is right and 'the Surge' is what he defines it as now, then Sen Obama wasn't ever against it - he was only against the deploying more troops aspects of it and McCain's newly defined surge could most definitely have worked without that aspect.
Its always disheartening to see people being deceived by McCain's obvious and flimsy straw man and also disappointing that any ethical person would construct it in the first place.
Just few weeks ago you could see that McCain was uncomfortable with the lies his party was having him say but now he seems to have totally embraced the Dark Side.
Nate,
I enjoyed your website better when it was just about the numbers. Now all you see are the idiots from the right and left arguing on every freaking post. They arguments are stupid if for no other reason that is doesn't change anyones view. Nothing said on the comments have an effect in the general scheme of things and trying to sort through the noise to get to actual discussion on the numbers can be very frustrating.
Gallup Tracking: Obama lead by 6 (47-41)
Today's Gallup tracking, Obama up "again" by six.
Economy is tanking for two major reasons. One makes the other worse...
1. People don't know how to say "no" to themselves and charge their credit cards with reckless abandon. Not saving a penny and getting into debt.
2. Gas/energy prices. This makes #1 worse and gets even the few "savers" into trouble.
And who is causing reason #2? The anti-energy congress headed by Nancy Pelosi, Democrat-San Fransisco.
Taxing success makes people not want to try and be successful.
anon@11:59,
Look, I get the argument about not taxing the rich too heavily because that would act as a disincentive to investment... but the burden of taxation is always going to fall (and should fall) on those people in a country with unusually large disparities in income.
Besides, don't you think the voters should have the facts? If the McCain line is that Obama will tax the "successful," don't you think that voters should know that that principally means people whose incomes are in the high six figures and above? And that, if they themselves don't fall into that category, they'll pay lower taxes under Obama than under McCain?
If Republicans believe that the tax burden should be shifted towards the middle class, then fine, I can understand the argument. But let them make that argument honestly, rather than disguising it with language about "taxing the successful."
Let them make the case that people earning over $600 000 deserve a tax break more than the middle class.
The reason the economy is bad is because the lending institutions decided to give loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them. That caused the crisis.
The energy problem has been growing for 30 years and the republicans didn't do anything about it for 6 years when they had control of the house, senate and Presidency. Blaming the democrats for high gas prices relays an ignorance thats belies your words. Both parties are equally responsible for the problem and most of whats going on this year is political on both sides.
Nate,
Know that Rasmussen and Gallup tracking have Obama at +5 and +6, Ras has Obama at +6 in NM will you concede that your model is extremely sensitive and almost kneejerk?
I think Obama is doing fine and that you are oversensitive to polls in Kansas and one poll in Ohio.
The model is fine, it's just Nate that got nervous.
To obamastudder,
What do you have to say to the deregulation of the oil market (done by phil gramm the former advisor to Senator McCain) and the deregulation of the housing market (again done b phil gramm the former advisor to Senator McCain).
What roles do those have in the current gas price and housing market mess.
I know what the answer is, just trying to see how well informed you are.
Obamastudder, I notice you left a few things out of your analysis of the economy. How about the fact that the US dollar is literally worth half of what it was 8 years ago. Compound that with record budget deficits and rising trade deficits, and credit/financial scandals that were allowed to fester, it's no surprise the economy tanked. As for oil prices, did you stop to take into consideration that when the US Army went piling into an OPEC Member state to wage a war of choice, that the destabilizing effect on the world oil market would be catostrophic. Gas was just under $2.00 a barrel before the war, it's doubled since then. Threatening a preemptive war with Iran and Venezuela does little to stabilize oil prices either. It's funny that you GOP dead enders always omit that part of the energy equation.
Obama oversees bounce is comming thrugh. It remains to be seen if it will grow, be short lived or be a lasting change in voters opinions. Only time will tell. Certainly his foreign policy inexperience is a less effective attack now that his trip has gone off without a hitch.
I just watched Obama's press conference with Sarcosie of France, wow, they really like each other. I don't know if it will help him or hurt him but the guy certainly doesen't look out of place.
All of you guys seem to argue for more taxation and more regulation (government control). What ever happened to one's own personal freedoms, one's own free will? Loaners didn't cause this. People who don't pay attention to what they do in life caused this on their own. When I got my mortgage, I wouldn't sign unless I saw two words: fixed rate. It doesn't take a Harvard grad to keep yourself afloat.
So what you guys are saying is that the hardworking and successful have to sacrifice what they have poured their sweat into, to bail out idiots making hasty and poor decisions about the most important investment they'll ever make (their home). That's NOT AMERICAN.
Oh, you're right, everyone in the world should just let these nutbags from Iran and Venezuela get all the nukes they want. Nobody should try and stop that. Good call genious!
To Obamastudder,
Trust me I beleive in personal responsibility and accountability. But take for example the oil deregulation, that affects ALL of us. Also, companies are in it to make profit, they made some risky decision s after the housing market was deregulated now not just the irresponsible but everyone has to deal with the effect of bad lending practices, incluing the companies whic are having to write-off billions of money. If you honestly don't think that has an effect on everyone, I don't know what else to tell you
If the loans never happened (it takes two willing sides for a loan), the crises would've been averted. One side is responsible and expertly trained in lending. The other side is poor and can't figure out how much they can afford for housing. How do you come to the conclusion the lendee was responsible here? Surely, some responsibility is borne, but the brunt?
Anons @ 12:19 and 12:22: Yeah, the model saw that Obama's numbers were dipping with most pollsters in most states, over a period of several weeks. If the model shifts back up to where it was in June just because of today's two trackers, THEN we can talk about it being knee-jerk. In the meantime, it'll take a couple of weeks of sustained improvements before we actually see that. The projection will likely get worse for Obama before it gets better.
(of course as soon as I hit "post" Nate's going to update and make me look like an idiot)
When I went to get my mortgage, I had to fight tooth and nail just to get them to offer my wife and I a two-hundred thousand loan (fixed rate). It was ME that tried to err on the side of irresponsibility. The bank resisted. That's not to say there arent anecdotes to the contrary, but most people, self-sufficient people, KNOW their limits. The monthly payment figure, if it does not appear daunting to you when you see it, regulation isn't going to help that type of person. A babysitter only can/
Obamastudder,
Part of the problem is that, by implication, you're saying that people who make less than $225 000 a year aren't successful and don't work hard.
On taxes, the economic argument that McCain is making is effectively the following:
Obama wants my taxes to go down by about $1000/year. McCain argues that it would be better for the government to keep $700 of that money, to finance big tax cuts for people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
If the Maverick had the courage to put it that way, and made the economic case for what he's doing, then fine. Certainly not all economists would agree with him, but some would, and we could have an intelligent discussion about tax policy from there.
Instead, the rhetoric is all about freedom, and being AMERICAN, and punishing the successful.
Saying that 99% of the American population are losers isn't very smart strategy -- I don't think it's very AMERICAN, either.
And yes, I have a fixed-rate mortgage myself, probably for the same reasons you do. But I have more sympathy for the people who speculated stupidly in real estate than for the banks that stupidly speculated on lending them money.
I think that people making over 225,000 a year being taxed at TWICE the rate of those making less than that is PLENTY of taxation. Why dont you put it that way. You fail to consider the amount those people put back into the economy through their spending.
And no, I have very little sympathy for stupidity.
And no again, I am not calling 99% of america losers. I consider them aspiring winners. I just don't feel that we should cut off their legs toward that prosperity by overtaxing their first million dollars to get there.
---"All of you guys seem to argue for more taxation and more regulation (government control). What ever happened to one's own personal freedoms, one's own free will? Loaners didn't cause this. People who don't pay attention to what they do in life caused this on their own. When I got my mortgage, I wouldn't sign unless I saw two words: fixed rate. It doesn't take a Harvard grad to keep yourself afloat.
So what you guys are saying is that the hardworking and successful have to sacrifice what they have poured their sweat into, to bail out idiots making hasty and poor decisions about the most important investment they'll ever make (their home). That's NOT AMERICAN."
You have no clue what you're talking about. Governemnt regulation is necessary b/c if you leave the foc guarding the hen house you get the subprime crisis. The business practices of these companies were ludicrous looking for the fast buck. They were leveraged at up to 60:1. They new a large % of the people weren't qualified and they played a game of last man holding the bad get;s screwed by r4epackaging and selling the loans as morgage based securities. Did you actually read the new rules proposed 1) verify income is one 2) make sure people have assets to cover insurance and taxes for the home. These are freaking common sense that any lender would do ofcourse when you're not actaully holding the loan as your reselling it you have less concern whether they will actually pay. They were also giving loans out for more than the value of the home(over appraising) and then the buyer gets cash back which they were using to pay the morgage on the home they should have never been qualfied for.
Btw, we are not bailing out homeowners as much as lenders. The concern is about the lenders failing, the home owners are the after thought. I love how your type see no problem with massive deregulation that leads to shady business practice subprime, enron, and savings and loans sacandals. When it is good times for business based on shady practices it's okay b/c regulation is bad. If people in business had ethics and showed commen sense less regualtion would be okay but the fact they are driven by pure greed means ethics and common sense are lost.
----"Oh, you're right, everyone in the world should just let these nutbags from Iran and Venezuela get all the nukes they want. Nobody should try and stop that. Good call genious!"
It's funny how the same people who are anti-gun control b/c people have a right to gins, are so sure they know which countries should have the right to what weapons. They want no or little police control or regualation of weapons at home, but want to be the world's policemen. The hypocrisy is glaring!
How can you respect someone who basically calls those who disagree with him on foreign policy traitors? We'll look back on this week and say Obama didn't win the election with his overseas trip, but McCain may have lost it with his over-the-top whining, pettiness, hypocrisy, and slandering. If I were a Republican, I'd be embarassed at the campaign he's run. You guys would have done much better with Romney. He's overslick, but at least he's competent.
The lenders should lie in the bed they made as much as the people who made stupid decisions should. I'm an equal-opportunity responsibility person. If they made idiotic loan proposals, they should pay the price.
I do indeed have a clue as to what I am talking about. When accepting a loan you have two simple numbers to consider...1. monthly payment. 2. FIXED APR. If you don't have the noggin-strength to figure that out, then you aren't ready to own a home. As for the lenders...if they are making risky loans, they should either be allowed to reap the benefits of said risk or go down with the ship they so shoddily built.
My argument against gun control is very simple.
If you infringe upon one's right to bear arms, it leaves the guns in the hands of two groups, 1. The criminals (who don't stop being criminals and hand in their guns). 2. The government. Neither group I trust with all the guns.
To compare gun control with NUCLEAR WAR is an insipid arguement to even consider.
McCain is losing it over the surge. His campaign had better reign him in a little, he's on the verge of having a breakdown. His temper is starting to boil over. Its alright to attack but he's getting way to personal. He may turn a lot of independents and soft democratic support away if he keeps this up.
People don't like voting for angry people. McCain hasn't said anything positive in 10 days. Calling people traitors doesen't inspire intelligent discourse of inspire anyone to vote for you.
anon@12:51
Venezuela looking for nukes...is that like the Chicom's drilling for oil in Tampa Bay?
Nate and Co, I beg you, please fix the comment system! In order to read the reasonable and insightful comments left by some of your more serious readers, I first have to sort through various racial slurs, ALL CAPS nonsense, and political garbage like "Democrats want American soldiers to die LOL ROFL!!1"
This site is just too damn good for that kind of BS.
new critical insights maine poll, obama up 51, 31.
collins up 51,31.
New Maine poll is from June.
oh lol thanks,
i didnt even notice.
New Mexico: (Rass) Obama up by 6 with leaners (5 without)
Speech rates very highly, moderate "noise", potential bounce.
Dr. Light,
The characterization of knee-jerk was specifically directed to your model's extreme sensitivity to tactical noise.
While it's true that prior to his trips Obama had a reactive 2-3 weeks in which he did not dictate events or coverage, his strategic advantages over John McCain remained overwhelming.
1) The 3rd Bush term label has stuck
2) Obama's advantage with the latino constituency has solidified making NM a "likely democratic" state. According to the recent Pew poll Obama leads the 4-term senator from Arizona by 43%. McCain will not rise about 25% in the non-Florida Hispanic vote.
3) His campaign has strategic advantages in organization, fundraising, enthusiasm, registration and engagement.
4) The anti-Bush vote will go to Obama entirely, but the anti-Obama vote may be distributed to Nader and Barr.
Your mathematical modeling may be precise, responsive and the best there exists, but it is soulless. Or rather as Nate recently argued, it may be precise, but in the long haul inaccurate.
Though I'm probably wasting my breath on this particular thread ... I thought I'd bring things back to the numbers ... you know ... the reason why you came to fivethirtyeight in the first place?!?
Over the past two weeks, there have been rumblings that Obama's polling performance has stagnated and that perhaps McCain has been the beneficiary of a slight bounce in the polling. Indeed, if we looked only at the tracking polls on a given day or set of days that might have seemed accurate. Yet, despite despite the tight national tracking polls, Obama still was performing well in a myriad of state polls. The strong state results counterbalanced the tight national numbers.
Then suddenly, earlier this week, Rasmussen released the McCain +10 Ohio poll and the 538 inmates took over the asylum. This one poll somehow confirmed that Obama was lagging, McCain was gaining, Obama's trip wasn't working, McCain's attacks were gaining traction, etc. etc. etc. This despite the fact that there was another recent Ohio poll showing exactly the opposite result (Obama +8).
All I can say is "nonsense" ... the point of this site is to get away from the MSM idea that one poll has all the answers. And though this poll showed a favorable result for McCain, I would suggest that we hold off on similar results for Obama. For instance, if tomorrow, Rasmussen reveals that Obama is +10 in Montana, I'm going to be suspicious. I'm going to wait for other polls over time to show similar results.
Now, I promised numbers and I need to deliver on that promise. Contrary to popular belief I would argue that the polling results (both national and state) of the past 10 days show strength in Obama's position - not weakness as has been suggested elsewhere.
I decided to analyze the results of the polls released in the past 10 days. Currently, realclearpolitics shows 35 state polls released over the past 10 days. Of those ...
Total with McCain lead: 12
Total with Obama lead: 23
Percent with McCain lead: 34%
Percent with Obama lead: 66%
Average +McCain Margin 7.5%
Average +Obama Margin 8.0%
Additionally, of the 35 total polls conducted, 16 were polls of states, which Nate lists as "Tipping Points"
Of those ...
Total Polls w/McCain lead in Tipping Point 3
Total Polls w/Obama lead in Tipping Point 13
Lastly, as far as national polling results go ... Gallup and Ramussen both released tracking polls today with +5 and +6 Obama leads. This is in line with the average of the other national polls over the past 10 days with an average of +5.1 for Obama.
Needless to say, if this is what a good period looks like for McCain, I would hate to see what a bad period looks like ....
I find it laughable when comments such as ...
Taxing success makes people not want to try and be successful.
I think that people making over 225,000 a year being taxed at TWICE the rate of those making less than that is PLENTY of taxation. Why dont you put it that way. You fail to consider the amount those people put back into the economy through their spending.
yes, ask any Joe on the street making 50K a year if they would rather keep making 50K a year, or make 500K a year, BUT if they make 500K a year, the government will take 200K of it. Ask... please.... I'm curious on what the responses will be.
And 'I think that people making over 225,000 a year being taxed at TWICE the rate of those making less than that is PLENTY of taxation' ... tax rates are progressive, in that using your example of 225K if you make 226K a year, you are not suddenly taxed more on ALL your income, only the amount over 225K. You do realize this, right? And because of all the loopholes and what not and taxing dividend income at a lower rate, the tax rate on the average is lower for wealthy people than middle income.
mbabigd,
The yes/no property "Obama wins or not" is very important on election day.
The only property that matters now is the absolute numerical margin (and not the yes/no property).
No one here has yet done the detailed calculation of how much of the current trend is due to National (i.e. National Rasmussen; Gallup is stagnant) alone and how much to the States results.
However, it can be said with great certainty that since the National trend at Rasmussen is about -2 from June to July, and the overall trend estimated by Nate is about the same, the States trend must be of the same order. Indeed, from Nate's bare numbers it looks as if States are *worse* than national trend.
I think that Nate exaggerates, however, when he sees 3-4 down from June to July - because he works from an hypothetical "peak" in June which is I think an illusion: rather, we should average all June results to get the sense of where the plateau really was. From that plateau, we really went down by about 2-2.5, even when factoring in the Rasmussen methodological shift.
This trend is real.
Nevertheless, as you say, Obama is ahead and, believe me, he will win. Why can't people just relax and concentrate on the intellectual exercise of prediction?
Warren buffet pays less in Taxes as a percentage of income than does his secretary who makes $50000. Theres something wrong with this picture, and The Oracle of Omaha agrees. I think he knows a little more about economics than you conservative hacks.
If he felt that way, then he would write a check to uncle sam.
He's a lib anyways..so his analysis is biased.
I would like to know what you guys think about the Minnesota polling. It has been very erratic this past week and we haven't seen the corresponding move down in the Wisconsin polling. It appears one of them is not behaving as it should. Any ideas?
you guys make me sick with the way you talk about taxation. You act as though the government owns your money and you get to keep what they decide. Taxation at 40 percent is disgusting. No matter what you make.
Having not read all responses, I do have to mention something that keeps making me laugh.
McCain has been on TV lately stating that he "knows how to win wars." Ok, unless I have been on the moon the last 35 years, other than the first Iraqi war, which was a glorified military exercise, what "war" has this country won? Certainly not Vietnam, definitely not Korea, and there still isn't "peace" in the Middle East.
So, Mr. McWar, with all of your war winning experience, please agian tell me how [i]you[/i] are going to win the Iraqi War? What will be the moment of victory? I mean, we have already eliminated Sadam, Iraqi's have a police force, constitution, and their own military. What else is needed to signify this "victory" you are so sure to gain?
humanist-
Thanks for the comments. I agree with your proposition, that the property that matters now is the absolute numerical margin. I'd also agree that the national tracking polls (as well as a few states) showed declines of 2-2.5 points for Obama over the past two weeks.
I would however suggest that perhaps Nate's model (which is amazing, no disputing that!) - may now be acting more as a lagging indicator, rather than a predictive tool. Your thoughts?
Buffet pays less as a percentage compared to is 50k secretary probably because of punitive property taxes. I pay over 4500 a year in those and I only make 35k a year.
Nate seems to be implying that the polls are not showing an Obama bounce from the Europe trip. I just don't think that there has been enough time. Also remember that the news coverage lagged about a day for the early part of the trip. I have a hard time believing that Obama's Berlin speech and McCain's repeated mistakes won't result in a bounce.
There are several predictive components in Nate's model. His Pollsters' weighting is a way of saying "wait and see: you'll find out that pollster X is closer to the truth". His 538 regression is an attempt to predict how a poll dated for today might look like; so is his trend-adjustment estimate. Most obviously, the regression to the mean is a prediction.
However, he relies entirely on polling which is essentially a lagging indicator. His model as a whole is thus always lagging.
You may say that Nate's art consists in making polls somewhat less lagging as indicators - while avoiding making them, in the process, more volatile.
Did Obama Stay Too Long at the Fair?
As this seems to be the thread where folks are discussing current trends, I will post this here.
Obama's bump up in the Gallup tracker notwitstanding, I tend to agree with Nate's earlier thread that even his making headway on foreign affairs issues may prove a negative if he shines more light on what is traditionally a Republican/Mccain strength.
But what is he to do?
At this moment in time Obama’s support and that of the Democratic hopefuls chances in the Senate seem to be melting like an ice cream cone served up at one of the many ubiquitous state and county fairs that are held over the course of the Summer.
Let’s look at four Senate races where formerly the Democrat seemed to be running away and now each has turned into a horserace: NH, NJ, CO, and MN. Only up in Alaska does the cone not seem to be dripping yet.
Looking at the recent state polling at the top of the ticket you see a similar trend of eroding Obama leads and in the case of CO and outright vaulting into first place by McCain. This is significant as Obama’s path to victory without Ohio is dependent on a Western strategy. Worse for him, MI now looks to be the key swing state. If McCain can win OH, FL and MI it’s pretty much over for Obama.
Then there is PA. In the Rasmussen poll Obama’s lead is 6%. This is actually better than Kerry did on Election Day. But the worry for him is that McCain’s favorability ratings are higher than Obama’s suggesting something may be afoot. Calling Governor Bradley! PA is not the only state where McCain’s favorability ratings exceed his electoral margin and surpass Obama’s: NH is another example of that.
What accounts for this shift? As my dedicated readers know I have been harping on two issues (while reminding them of the 800 LB gorilla in the room -- race): Energy and Iraq.
While it is only a snapshot of four states (CO, MI, MN and WI), the recent Quinnipiac poll is instructive regarding issues analysis. In each of those four states McCain has improved his position over the past month, and in all but WI has fought Obama to a dead heat.
Gas prices in that survey trump Iraq as the most important issue on voters’ minds. But even on Iraq McCain retains the advantage with voters supporting no fixed deadline to get the troops out by as much as 20% margins in CO to even a low of only 12% net support for McCain’s position in MI.
On drilling McCain’s position wins 20 plus margins of approval – rising to as much as 30% in MI, the home of the internal combustion engine. McCain could win MI on the drilling issue alone. This should clearly worry Obama supporters as the Senator will never reverse course on drilling and will spend the balance of the campaign being “green”, quite possibly taking himself and his party down with him.
Similarly, nuclear power enjoys 20 plus margins of support.
Emptying the strategic petroleum reserve - -the one Democratic solution -- enjoys much more tepid support.
The ray of hope for Obama is that generally he gets higher marks as to who has the better plan for breaking our dependence on foreign oil. This may reflect his closer association with alternative energy production – a notion that receives very high popular support. But it may also reflect a partial lack of understanding that Senator Obama opposes offshore drilling and the exploration of additional federal land (like the massive shale oil deposits out West), suggesting that it is McCain who has more upside on the energy issue.
That’s it. Now please - -does anyone have a napkin? My hands are all sticky and dripping.
LOL, Good try Peter, Obama is just getting a bounce now. How can you predict when we don't know when the bounce will end or where it will end. I know you love the spin, but you have to make sense. Look forward to your next post.
The counter to that is that it seems the Republicans would rather START a war than lose an election.
Didn't they claim that we'd have LOWER gas prices thanks to Bush? Or that the war in Iraq would pay for itself?
And where's that clip of McCain saying that we'd be "welcomed in the streets as liberators"?
This is a man who doesn't know if we're dealing with Iraq or Iran, Sunni or Shiite, or even what the troop levels are. He's the LAST person I'd trust on the war.
Trolls come from lands far and near
Through legends and myth they appear
They deal in memes
That make most bloggers scream
Just wait til they kick it in high gear
Peter,
Wow! Mohammed Ali on his worst day makes more sense than you.
Please explain to me Peter how the McCain argument that Obama is a traitor is not a panic move. You believe the American people want to elect a McCarty-ite. I know you like sticking to the talking points but some original thought is necessary.
Obama's floor is even and McCain's ceiling is even. This doesen't take into account increased youth and African American turnout and the entire cell phone issue. Poor McCain, even if he manages to stay somewhat close in the polls, he has no chance. His only shot is if Obama collapses. Doesn't look likley.
One thing I forgot to mention in my post.
Obama is a Muslim and Americans are waking up to this fact. They are uncomfortable electing a radical Madrassa-taught Muslim to the Presidency of the United States.
Obama hates everything we stand for and would allow Middle Eastern countries to invade us and take us over.
Still developing . . .
Hey Peter, if McCain is doing so well, why is he still losing? All this going for him and he's still losing. All the spin in the world can't trump reality. And the reality is McCain is a bad candidate. He's a war hero, but thats it. He will lose.
I didn't read anyone's mind. It's just obvious that Obama was staking his political future and presidential run on the failure of the surge and the consequent need for "a new strategy in Iraq" (ie. getting the hell out of there in appeasement of the delicate sensibilities of Americans and in total disregard of the future welfare of the Iraqi peoplpe and free goverments in the Middle East).
When the surge started proving successful, Obama denied that it was working. He denied it as long as he could. Now that he can't deny it anymore he says "we don't know what would happen if we used my plan." He tries to separate positive developments in Iraq that were made possible by and in some cases directly supported by our counter-insurgency from the surge, and acts like it was just some lucky confluence of events that no one could have foreseen and which would have happened anyway had his "plan" been enacted. He continues to say these things even as it becomes clear that most of the conditions for those events were present and made known to him before he supported the withdrawal "strategy" and maligned the surge plan.
He staked his political career on a lost war in Iraq. Now that we're winning, he's trying to do everything it takes to act like this was his plan all along. It would be better for him if we were losing terribly in Iraq, but now that we're winning, he'll make of it what he can. So McCain's characterization is accurate: Obama would rather lose a war to win a political campaign.
Does anyone really think Obama would give up this (our moment, our time! {his moment, his time}) so that we could be victorious in Iraq, a cause he was against from the very beginning and wanted to end on unfavorably terms just last year? Think again.
Can´t believe I actually read that post until he wrote that sen race in MN was turning back to horserace from D-lead when in thruth it was R-lead.
Pete Kent,
It's your best friend. You may remember me as the guy who nailed you in a comment not too long ago. I see you're still signing off with "still developing," I hope you're getting closer to the ability to form your own opinions.
In response to your fear-mongering post about Muslim schooling, I'd like to take it one step further. Obama is a closet athiest/agnostic with his only real tie to religion being entirely political. I think you'd have an easier time making Bible Beaters shriek and pull their hair out if they thought they'd be electing a Godless heathen. How about it?
Yeah, Obama should admit the surge worked and he was wrong but its no worse than republicans who won't admit the war was a mistake from the beginning. Its really getting to McCain as well, Obama should keep it up.
Getting back to McCain's argument. It's a nice one, but problematic. Mainly because the media doesn't accept it. Is this the pivot where he stops trying to be the media darling? because that's all he has going for him right now. To lose that status- what does he have left because Obama is also a media darling? And as for the American people- as I keep saying his central problem is this- substantively- Obama is where they are. He can certainly try the latest version of slick or fibber (the subtle point being made) but he is biting the hand off that would eventually feed him in this, and thus also helping Obama because Obama remainst he darling after his trip. In other words- McCain feeds into the image of him being unpresidential. These are things surrogates say, and not the candidate himself.
Doesn't a bounce imply you've hit the floor? Obama is still enjoying most of the fruits of his so-called "unity bounce" - no further surge required. The Grand Tour will just help to sustain his advantage towards the finish line....
Pete Kent,
well at least for part of your post you pretended to analyze polling.
that is fine - but why the cherrypicking bud ? Notice you only choose to use a narrow sample [or 'pastiche' - lol] that tend to support your personal talking points as usual.
then you had to wander off into your neo-neverland drivel as usual.
Hope you found a napkin - but more likely it is your meds that you apparently forgot to take which must be affecting your mental acuity. Please take them now...
Pete Kent again -
is that last post about muslim really yours, or is some other prankster trying to 'help' you make your talking points quota ?
John Peterson makes a lot of sense in analyzing Obama's position on the Surge. I don't like to spend time here belaboring the issues, I only really like to analyze their impact. For that reason I did not post my views on Obama's speech in Berlin. I spared many of you that, eh?
I do think that one of the giant takeways from the week other than Obama's consecutive three-pointers was his refusal to acknowedge the Surge's success and that will hurt him and has provided McCain with his opening. My fear for McCain is that he may have gone too far with it . . . still devloping (ahem!).
To answer an Anon poster, while it is true that McCain is currently "losing", he and the Republicans are on an upsurge accordingly to the latest spate of polls and these may portend a trend or point to the wedge issues of the campaign -- which was the point of my post. We have seen spikes in the trackers before, so it remains to be seen if the recent one in Gallup is more boomlet or bounce. Right now I like the Repub vectors.
Finally, the "Pete Kent" of the Muslim post was not me, but he is a good parodist and his impressions always make me laugh. Really!
DCM:
Go pick your own cherries. I saw little positive fruit in that tree for your candidate.
Please take the trouble to enlighten us. Use facts and examples if you are going to criticize me.
Also, do big words scare you? Or only just foreign ones?
It pays to increase your wordpower, bud!
McCain is angry and losing it!
McCain disses WSJ reporter
Make sure to catch the look on Lindsey's face when he realizes what McSame just did.
The surge was supposed to buy time for political progress by the Iraqi government, and almost none of what they were supposed to do has happened. Here's what President Bush said the surge would accomplish:
"To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November." That didn't happen. "To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis." That didn't happen. "To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs." That didn't happen. "To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year." That didn't happen. "And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws..." That happened, kind of. "...and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution." That didn't happen either.
Details and supporting links
The surge was supposed to buy time for political progress by the Iraqi government, and almost none of what they were supposed to do has happened. Here's what President Bush said the surge would accomplish:
"To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November." That didn't happen. "To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis." That didn't happen. "To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs." That didn't happen. "To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year." That didn't happen. "And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws..." That happened, kind of. "...and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution." That didn't happen either.
Details and supporting links
Time for the "say anything" response we used against Clinton.
IMHO, McCain is making the same mistake. The candidate doesn't make the sharpest attacks, the surrogates do.
To Anon at 2:28p. You ask why McCain isnt winning if he is doing so well. With everything that everyone says is going for Obama, what has happened to him? Why is he not in a bigger lead?
And it is true, Obama would rather pull out of Iraq prematurely and cause it to abrupt into utter chaos than to lose this campaign. Its just the facts.
---"you guys make me sick with the way you talk about taxation. You act as though the government owns your money and you get to keep what they decide. Taxation at 40 percent is disgusting. No matter what you make."
You really have no clue. The top 1%pays on average 17-19% real taxrate. The average guy making 50K pays a higher % b/c they don't have the right offs. Truly rich people also make most of their money on capital gains, which is taxed at a much lower rate than actual earned income. You are blithering idiot. Btw, I know b/c I am the top 1% and the amount of taxes I pay is laughable.
Pete Kent,
Glad that you were not responsible for the pathetic 'muslim' post above. You hardly need friends like that...
But seriously man, you posted:
"Pete Kent said...
...I don't like to spend time here belaboring the issues, I only really like to analyze their impact."
come on !!! ROFLOL
THAT statement [apparently by the REAL Pete Kent] must be satire or parody - or perchance you have a mental defect that prevents you from recalling exactly what nonsensical belaboring of your personal issues which you have been spewing on this site & on other sites as well ???
earth to Pete...
Yeah, anyone who has studied tax law to any degree realizes the whole progressive tax structure has been turned on its head. Most Americans because they are aspirational ignore it because they want to imagine they are going to one day be at the top 1 percent. They maybe, but it results in a rather regressive structure that lessens the chance that they will be. We can thank the GOP for that.
So much for no bounce from the trip.
So...Yeah, I thought "Mission Accomplished"? WIN in Iraq? I thought McBush said we already WON in Iraq?
What was the ORIGINAL timeline on the surge? Was it open ended or was it only six months?
Clarification would be appreciated. Because if it was only six months...then there is no way one can claim that the surge was THE major cause for the change in circumstances, given that so many other variables occurred that lead to greater stability in Iraq.
Hey "Pete Kent"
How much does McCain/Rove pay you to spam discussion boards with your propaganda and downright lies?
Just asking!
The surge all these rightwingers tout is actually a series of bribes. Read the real story. The US is paying insurgents not to attack them $10/day. They are paying the factions with bribes and promises they can't keep of oil revenues. The political process is going nowhere/
What happens when we stop paying the bribe or they say they want $20/day or $30/day. How long fo you keep paying people to be your "suppposed allies"? What happens when the yrealize that we can't deliver on promises on oil revenue slitting between the factions? Occupation of a country that never attacled the US is not a wining strategy or a war ever that should have been fought. But we know why it was fought for oil. The goal of the war has already happened in June, the US oil comnpanies kicked out if Iraq under Sadam 20+ years ago are bidding on oil fields in Iraq. The McCain/Bush idea is to keep US troops their indefinitely to protect the oil companies interests. What else could you expect when you elect two oil men(Bush/Cheney), but to fight a war for oil and the interests of their friends..big oil.
Firstread just put up Rove's latest electoral map. According to Bush's brain even if McCain picks up every single swing state (some of witch he's currently behind in) he still can't even get to 270.
Anon, I agree about Pete. Thinking that 'Pete Kent' is actually just a robo-spammer neo-con viral program that infests the political blogospere.
Only possible conclusion that makes sense since his entries do not.
Anyone know how to block it out or remove the Pete Kent virus ?
DCM--
You are at it again. First you accuse me of cherry picking the Quinnipiac polls and provide no examples of data that I ignored.
If you do not want to take the time and trouble to analyze the polls and the trends they reveal, please remain a lurker, you add nothing to the discussion by criticizing others without substantive commentary of their posts.
And again, I ask you to provide examples where I engaged in debate on the merits of an issue at this site (interesting how you stalk me over the net -- if in fact it is me) divorced from impact on electoral trends.
What Obama supporters cannot fathom is that rational analysis of where the race is moving that suggests that he is not destined to win by an electoral landslide of Nixonian proportions is not based on ideology, it is based on principles grounded in sociological history, trend analysis and statistics.
This site does not exist to validate Obama's claim to the Presidency. It exisits to explore where the race is headed.
Right now it is headed down for Obama. Based on the polls.
Take a look at how the electoral vote distribtuion that is published here has shifted since the beginning of July.
Nate discussed what Obama needs to do to win in an earlier thread. McCain too has work to do. You had better fear him if he can further develop a rationale for his candidacy other than his not being Obama.
Right now that is netting him nearly half the votes and putting him only a few points behind Obama. When he developes a greater independent rationale for his election then this will turn into Bush-Dukakis redux. Just as you all fear.
Jeremy,
Thanks for the post about the new Rove EV map on FirstRead.
I t really pains me to say this, but this map by Rove is actually quite good as a snapshot.
I would agree with his toss-up states but would also put Montana in that category.
However, that drops Obama to the dreaded 269 EV count.
Maybe time to lay money on a 269/269 result if the payoff remains high...
And all you Anons that attack me -- go back and read my 2:11 post and refute it. You may not like my writing style, but there are plenty of facts and analytics for y'all to chew on.
Pete Kent,
Yes this is a site for political polling & prediction analysis. Try to stay on point & away from your personal issues, OK ?
My objection to your lengthy post earlier using yesterday's Q polls almost exclusively was that you appear to have intentionally [?] cherrypicked data from yesterday when it is surrounded by other polls in the days & even HOURS immediately surrounding it.
But some of those polls fail to support your 'talking points'.
The actual result for the week is a mixed bag that appears to show movements but no substanitive trend. Mostly regression to the mean as expected, but even varients on that in both directions due to contradictory polls released within days of each other.
Even Karl Rove can go on record that Obama currently seems to have enough EV's to win [today]. Time will tell who ends up winning in the long run.
But talk about polling & real trends that programs like Nate's can substantiate - not your drivel...
Ciao 4 now
@ Pete "McCain troll" Kent
"go back and read my 2:11 post and refute it"
Easy:
You keep harping on drilling yet you conveniently "forget" that McCain himself was against drilling until the middle of May when Big Oil wrote Big Check to the Money Express.
Your best issue is an issue your candidate flip flopped on two months ago. Even McCain admits drilling will not help for years. But then McCain thinks "physiological" help is all we need as you and McCain envision America as a nation of "whiners."
Do you deny this?
BTW, you still have not told us how much the McCain campaign pays you to spam boards with your propaganda and lies
Alright, Pete Kent, here's where I stopped reading that post:
"Let’s look at four Senate races where formerly the Democrat seemed to be running away and now each has turned into a horserace: NH, NJ, CO, and MN."
I have zero interest in reading anything else once I read something so demonstratively false. NH and CO I will give you...*maybe*...if you want to listen to what only one poll says.
Minnesota??? Coleman has been WAY ahead the whole time (for those actually paying attention, Coleman is the REPUBLICAN) and recent polling has shown it to actually be close now...so, it's actually the EXACT OPPOSITE situation than you say.
And, NJ? Seriously??? Just doing a quick search, on July 9th Lautenberg had a 13 point lead...which was larger than he had right after he won the primary. I'd say that's a pretty safe seat for the Democrat.
In closing -- when you can't even get basic facts like that right in the very beginning of your post, you give me little reason to keep reading.
Pete Kent,
I know the desperation of RepubliCons is palpable and thus you grabbing at anything that might look like hope. Btw, Quniinpiac polls are flawed in many ways they over sampled RepubliCons by 8% in CO is just one example. They aren't taking into account the voter registration changes this year...over a million lost for Repubs and 700,000 gain for Dems.
Here's some reading for you but I;m sure you will ignore it as you do all facts contrary to your narrow and bizarre RepubliCon thinking.
Except for a few days when the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls showed a tie, Barack Obama has led John McCain in every national poll in the past two months. Obama's average margin has consistently been in the 4-6 point range during this time. By contrast, the polls in 2000 and 2004 showed much more variation over time. State polling results have also consistently given Obama the advantage. Obama is currently leading in 26 states and the District of Columbia with a total of 322 electoral votes; McCain is currently leading in 24 states with a total of 216 electoral votes. Obama is leading in every state carried by John Kerry in 2004 along with six states carried by George Bush: Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana, Nevada and Colorado. A seventh Bush state, Virginia, is tied.
Obama is leading in 11 of the 12 swing states that were decided by a margin of five points or less in 2004 including five of the six that were carried by George Bush. And while Obama has a comfortable lead in every state that John Kerry won by a margin of more than five points in 2004, McCain is in a difficult battle in a number of states that Bush carried by a margin of more than five points including such solidly red states as Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Virginia, and North Carolina.
And remember these June and July polls may well understate Obama's eventual margin. Ronald Reagan did not capitalize on the huge structural advantage Republicans enjoyed in 1980 until after the party conventions and presidential debate. It took a while and a sufficient level of comfort with the challenger for anti-Carter votes to translate into support for Reagan. If Obama's performance over the last eighteen months is any guide, a similar pattern could unfold in 2008.
Aside from the horserace results, there is evidence of a growing Democratic party advantage in the electorate. A recent analysis by Rhodes Cook of voter registration data in 29 states and the District of Columbia that permit registration by party shows that since November of 2004, Democratic registration has increased by almost 700,000 while Republican registration has declined by almost one million.
Democrats now enjoy a substantial lead over Republicans in voter identification. According to the Gallup Poll, the two parties have gone from near parity four years ago to a 12 point Democratic advantage in the first half of 2008. And polling data continue to show that Democrats are more satisfied with their party's nominee than Republicans voters and more highly motivated to vote. While Republicans normally benefit from higher turnout among their supporters, that may not be the case this year.
In order to defeat Barack Obama, John McCain will have to convince a lot of currently disgruntled Republicans to turn out and vote for him. Yet mobilizing the Republican base, a strategy employed successfully by Karl Rove in 2002 and 2004, won't be enough for McCain to win in 2008. He'll also have to convince a majority of independents and a substantial number of Democrats to vote for him. That's a task that proved too difficult even for Rove in the 2006 midterm election and it may be still more difficult in 2008. That's because since 2006 the political environment has gone from bad to worse for Republicans.
It is no exaggeration to say that the political environment this year is one of the worst for a party in the White House in the past sixty years. You have to go all the way back to 1952 to find an election involving the combination of an unpopular president, an unpopular war, and an economy teetering on the brink of recession. 1952 was also the last time the party in power wasn't represented by either the incumbent president or the incumbent vice-president. But the fact that Democrat Harry Truman wasn't on the ballot didn't stop Republican Dwight Eisenhower from inflicting a crushing defeat on Truman's would-be successor, Adlai Stevenson.
Barack Obama is not a national hero like Dwight Eisenhower, and George Bush is no Harry Truman. But if history is any guide, and absent a dramatic change in election fundamentals or an utter collapse of the Obama candidacy, John McCain is likely to suffer the same fate as Adlai Stevenson.
I used "the google" [ala McCain] to search for "Pete Kent".
Odd, but almost all reference are obituaries. Seemed poor old Pete died years ago in various different cities and countries.
But our Pete Kent is no Mark Twain
To raumfahrer & also Anon @ 3:59 PM,
Thanks to you both for helping prove my point that poor Pete Kent as usual has cherrypicked his polling to try to support his talking points.
It is sad and pathetic, but apparently he either doesn't realize it or really does not care that his posts are so transparently worthless.
I call on all Anonymous.
We are Pete Kent.
Pete Kent is all of us.
Is there a link to that Rove EV map? (the only recent post not by or about P Kent was the only interesting one. *Sigh*)
see Pete Kent post @ 4:05 PM ?
proof that 'Pete Kent' doesn't really exist. just adware or a virus on these sites that posts robo-spam nonsense.
Ohhh, I stand corrected on New Jersey. Actually there was a strategic vision poll on the 18th of July showing Lautenberg with a SIXTEEN POINT LEAD. Yeah, that's a real horse race there.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/senate/nj/new_jersey_senate-585.html
Becky Sharp
Go to MSNBC/First Read for the link to 'OBAMA IS UP ON KARL ROVE'S MAP'
or:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/25/1223199.aspx
Becky,
it's at
http://www.rove.com/maps/McCain-Obama-07-23-08.pdf
btw, here's a bit of completely random speculation on my part:
we've heard almost nothing from Survey USA from the past month. Given that they're a big polling company, and that they came out of primary season with their reputations enhanced, that seems strange. My random (and unfounded!) speculation: are they doing another of their 50-state polls, like they did at the end of February? That would be a 538.com reader's dream...
Please provide link to adware removal or spam blocking software to eliminate the Pete Kent dilemma
anon @4:14
you're getting pretty annoying now, even to me - an obama supporter!
Pete Kent is welcome on this site & all others if and when he behaves like an adult.
Partisanship is fine. Intentional skewing and spewing lies with spamming of factoids across multiple boards & threads is wrong - whether one supports the Dems or GOP.
Balance on any site is good & healthy and appreciated. One the rare occasion when Pete stays on point, he is interesting to read. I also commend him on a rare occasion when that occurs.
Our problem is that Pete seems to lose all perspective too often. Also it appears that some pranksters send in comments that they attribute to Pete [such as the 'muslim' drivel earlier].
It is always good to know what the other guy is thinking or doing - but when it becomes dirty tricks [ala Rove with the Justice Dept & Plame, etc.] then it must be called out.
Post a Comment