Here's something interesting: a tally of campaign ad spending over the past seven weeks, as tallied by TNS Media Intelligence and reported by the New York Times.
There's lots of interesting stuff to look at there, but what about those Florida numbers? The Obama campaign has bought more advertising time there than anywhere else, whereas McCain has spent absolutely nothing.
Two months ago, Florida looked like a strong McCain state -- not necessarily one that Obama couldn't win, but not the one that would put him over the top to 270 electoral votes. Obama trailed in every individual poll of Florida from the start of the campaign through the middle of June.
Since then, however -- and perhaps because of Obama's investment in the air war -- Florida has tightened, and has now snuck up to fifth place on our Tipping Point Index.
I'm still not sure that the Obama campaign has played its hand optimally. They seem to have a certain stubbornness in insisting they can compete in non-Virginia Southern states, in the same way that the McCain campaign insists in can compete in places like Minnesota.
But having closed the gap in Florida, I think the Obama campaign needs to keep the effort up, and see how the polls behave between now and Labor Day.
7.30.2008
Obama on Offense in Florida
@ 10:09 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
211 comments
And McCain is STILL up on the 538 website... This is a Red state this time around. McCain can spend little and win it.
MVRed--
McCain's advantage in Florida is smaller than Obama's in Pennsylvania or Michigan, and not far off Obama's advantage in Ohio. Should McCain write off the rust belt?
Although, I suppose there is a difference: Obama can win easily without Florida, but McCain is more or less doomed without at least Ohio.
"And McCain is STILL up on the 538 website... This is a Red state this time around. McCain can spend little and win it."
Look at the Rasmussen numbers for FL in the righthand column. That's the pollster we have the most numbers for on the system... Look at them over time:
5/19 McCain +10
6/18 McCain +8
6/26 McCain +7
7/22 Obama +2
There's your trend.
Makes me wonder if the Obama campaign has lots of internal polling results that we have no access to. I mean spending this massively this early when their overall strategy seems to be establishing a ground game is really odd. Does anybody know how big of a staff Obama has in Florida?
Old voters and Cubans aren't exactly Obama's base, to say nothing of northern Florida.
Nate,
Although Obama's chances in the South are slim, but I don't think it's stubbornness that is driving his investment of resources there. Remember, 50 state strategy and all. There are a lot of tight Senate and House races down there and they can use all the help they can get.
Add "Obama loses FL/Wins election" to your scenario analysis. It's probably like, what, a 10% probability at best in your model that assigns (I think you'll agree) an unrealistically high probability to most scenarios (most obviously being the 10% of probability density or so where someone fails to get 100 electors.
I read somewhere yesterday that Obama is opening up a bunch of Florida offices this month and is ahead of McCain in that dept.
Abramowitz really rocks it here
---
There's also no correlation between the day-to-day, week-to-week, or month-to-month changes in the two tracking polls. Whether Obama's lead goes up or down in one is unrelated to whether it goes up or down in the other. Today (Monday, June 21st), for example, Obama's lead decreased from two points to one point in the Rasmussen tracking poll but increased from three points to six points in the Gallup tracking poll. Between June and the first three weeks of July, Obama's average lead increased from 2.4 points to 3.5 points in the Gallup tracking poll but decreased from 4.8 points to 2.6 points in the Rasmussen tracking polls. The lack of any correlation between the two polls suggests that these changes are a result of random statistical noise rather than any real shift in the underlying preferences of the electorate. In fact, the results of other national polls indicate that there has been little or no change in voter preferences over the past three months: the average Obama lead was 5.1 points in May, 5.3 points in June, and 5.2 points in July.
---
I think you should address the lack of change in overall voter preferences over the past three months. Have there really been no bounces but just statistical noise? Is your model too easily moved?
McCain´s campaign is obviously going for the Rust Belt. Yet, their efforts appear counter-productive in Pennsylvania. They didn´t spend anything in Georgia and Florida, they don´t even seem to think that they have to spend anything there. It would be a bit ironic if they can keep Ohio for the price of Florida.
And it seems Minnesota is now off the table for them. No more Pawlenty?
I have the impression that the Obama campaign is happy to broaden the playing field by getting as many states as possible to a draw in the polls and then win them with superior organization and higher turnout. They seem to spend their money in proportion to the leeway they need to make up. They don´t spend anything in Minnesota, almost nothing in Iowa and Wisconsin, far less than McCain in the supposedly blue states PA and MI and rather much in states where they are behind and which are, by conventional knowledge, out of reach: GA, NC, and IN.
The biggest puzzle to me: Obama seems not to have studied Nate's Tipping Point and Return on Investment maps with respect to Colorado!
As Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd said, Pennsylvania is still in play.
This article in WaPo ought to be a warning sign to any Obama supporters. It's all about Obama's hubris, from a reporter who is normally sympathetic to Obama (it seems to me) but who is intolerant of people who are too full of themselves.
Wow McCain spent a ton of money in PA to get nowhere in the state.
If you look at the Colorado and Minnesota ad spends, remember that the spending will increase there exponentially when the conventions hit. And I would imagine some investment in counter-programming the other as well.
But I would really like to see more spending in Ohio/Michigan to seal the win.
Obama CAN win FL. There is a lot of enthusiasm for him here and the Democratic party is registering a ton of voters.
tarik:
I'm also surprised that Obama hasn't invested more into Colorado. In my opinion, he has two paths to winning the election -- one through Ohio and the other through Colorado.
On this date in history, July 30, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry led President George Bush 51% to 47%.
For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration January 2005.
There could be a season effect we aren't considering. Snowbirds and college students who aren't in state may be voting in Florida in November. I don't know how much the demographic will shift, but it will be greater than your average state. It might be the case that current polling in Florida has a slight McCain bias.
No wonder those recent NC numbers looked so good for Obama!
Obama had better watch his money more closely. He had a good month in July, but the election is a long way off. McCain can layout a budget today and know exactly what he is dealing with financially; Obama not so much. Worse, Barack must spend a lot of time and energy on raising the money -- something McCain will not have to do.
Juris points out Dana Milbank's interesting article in the WaPo. Dowd has done a similar hatchet job (both reported on as the lead campaign stories on AP radio news, while McCain was portrayed as continuing to meet with working class voters).
The narrative on this election is shifting. The Rainbow Tour appears to have been less than an incredible success. Now we have the Rally at Denver to look forward to.
The whole thing is approaching self-parody. Not good -- for Obama!
Let's see, a pro-NAFTA candidate who tells people "those jobs aren't coming back" and who's economic adviser calls everyone "whiners"...Gee, I wonder why McCain is struggling in the Rust Belt?
NC isn't much of a reach, given that Obama has consistently polled within the margin there even when FL looked like a lock for McCain. He's got 7 field offices and a lot of grassroots support from a strong activist and university base in the state. I imagine O's internal polling looks better than what we're seeing, too. So it's not stubbornness to play for NC, it's strategy: 15 electoral votes (or just over half of FL).
GA still seems like a stretch, but coming close helps with the "mandate." And the campaign may still be hoping for a boost from Barr. Again, it's important to keep in mind that GA and NC are the two fastest growing, fastest bluing states in the region; modelling LVs will be tough.
juris,
You'll be relieved to know that the WaPo columnist completely misquoted Obama by leaving out the first part of his comment. It's a case of misleading or lazy (take your pick) journalism:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/messiah_well_actually.php
Jack Black, I'll take the 100s of data points Nate has collected over your one data point. Yes things change, but the model accounts for those changes. Currently the model states McCain has a 1 in 3 chance of winning while trailing 2 points in the popular vote. While a third isn't small, McCain has some structural disadvantages which Bush didn't.
Now Obama has proclaimed himself a "symbol of America returning to its best traditions". Wow what an arrogant man.
"The whole thing is approaching self-parody."
Pete, I feel that way about almost all of your comments. Actually, I think you've gone beyond approaching self-parody; you are already there.
Obama +3 in PPP poll of Michigan. This is down from +9 a month ago..
Great info, Nate. The pattern seems pretty obvious. McCain is spending heavily in the northern tier because he HAS TO. Unless he can pick off PA and OH, he's toast.
Obama is approaching the problem as Reagan approached "winning" the Cold War. If he can make states like Virginia and Florida competitive, he can force McCain to defend those states after 9/1.
I'm sure that Obama would be happy to see McCain desperately trying to win Florida in October.
From what I read, the GOP stranglehold on the Cuban vote is no more. The Democrats are making a very successful run at the congressional seats of the three old ant-Castro crowd. If that is the case, the re-energized black vote can deliver the state.
Obama is approaching self-parody by appointing himself a "symbol".
Good news about Michigan. Romney could tip it red.
Ironically, Rob, I'm pretty happy about that Michigan poll. Anything that pushes McCain into selecting Romney will be, well, awesome.
And yeah, Virginia Conservative, I'm sure you didn't bother to read, oh, the rest of the quote? Where he specifically said it wasn't about him at all? Are you being willfully ignorant or are you just dumb?
Virgy, if McCain wastes his cash in Pennsylvania he'll lose the southern states. That's a promise.
Unexpectedly strong jobs report along with further drop in crude oil suggest economy could be on a rebound.
War in Iraq appears to have been won.
Who benfits from these trends?
Discuss.
@Virginia Conservative
"Now Obama has proclaimed himself a "symbol of America returning to its best traditions". Wow what an arrogant man.
Right, only right-wing nutjobs can themselves American symbols. Your arrogance and downright dishonesty is appalling.
Not sure why people always comment on what the racking polls had the race in 2004 on each day.
Yes its interesting and does help prove that you can't take polls for granted- but 2004 and 2008 are very different.
2004 had no clear leader in the polls, 2008 has been all Obama for several months in the polls. Because Obama has lead in almost every poll it makes that argument less valid. Kerry up at this point last year is not like Obama up at this point because of the trends.
Russell G: thanks for point out Ambinder's piece, but that only slightly mitigates what Milbank had to say. I think there's plenty of reason to be concerned that Obama's getting ahead of himself.
He's got to be a roll up your sleaves hard working person who is afraid of losing this election -- not someone who has a $50 million bankroll who is gradually rolling out his big plans.
Stifle his inner "turn the other cheek" tendencies with respect to McCain's direct attacks on his character. (I agree that while he was still abroad he gave an appropriate and muted response, but now that he's back on the mainland he's got a campaign to win.)
Stifle any appearance of planning for the post-election or seeming to be measuring curtains for his White House arrival.
He can easily lose this election (but not so easily Pennsylvania) by losing MI and OH and IN and NC, and a few more that are truly on the cusp.
His arrogance is going to be the new narrative. I'm glad to see McCain finally getting the balls to take the hatchet to him. It might have failed when Hillary did it, but her negatives were too high for it to be effective. McCain is well liked by moderates, he can do it and do it well.
The War in Iraq was won 5 years ago. What is being won at the moment is a front in the War against Terror that came into existence because of that War in Iraq. It´s like being proud of cleaning up the mess you made by yourself. And it only works if people believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
I realize as just a lurker, my two cents is probably quite devalued. However, for me, the only thing better than requiring registration would be posters restraining themselves from engaging contrarians. The quality of posting here is generally so good, there just is no need to resppond to non substantive, off topic posts. You can get that sort of discussion anywhere.
Thanks in advance -
If Obama has to spend time explaining the comments while it continues to drive the narrative of him being arrogant, hes lost that round.
If you have to explain at length, you've lost.
Again, battles waged in NC, VA and FL show the 'front' is moving in Obama's favor.
McCain is waging a Sisyphus-like war in Pennsyl. 538 says Obama is as strong in Penn as McCain is in Ariz. Get out of Penn now and go somewhere it'll make a difference!
He's leaving fertile Red Soil in Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada un-tilled.
The last time McCain was in Iowa, half the state was either homeless or w/out electricity due to the flooding. Nobody knew or cared he was here! Of course, Obama is here tomorrow.
Remember when Iowa and Wisconsin were battleground states?
If this comment was already published - mea culpa. Having a couple problems here.
Perhaps Obama is investing heavily in FL at this time in order to "force" McCain into a veep choice (Crist?) he would not normally want to make?
I agree that Obama's pushing on some Southern states that look pretty unlikely from all the numbers.
In the last week, though, I've concluded there's a wild card out there: it's possible that the McCain campaign will actually be much worse than expected. Possible that they'll run dozens of dimwitted ads and try day after day of sound-bites that make no sense. Possible that we'll have weeks that are nothing but gaffe/gaffe/tantrum/gaffe/gaffe/tantrum. Possible he'll choose a running mate that endangers part of his base, and then the running mate will rub salt in the wounds.
The Obama campaign can't make that happen, but they can campaign right now to be ready if it does.
Remember the feeling that Clinton's case for staying was pretty much "Obama could be hit by lightning?" I think McCain could hit HIMSELF with lightning, and that's a reason for Obama to stay in states that currently don't think possible.
The new narrative on McCain:
The lack of any meaningful messege.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic adviser, told Slate, “[McCain] has certainly I’m sure said things in town halls” that don’t jibe perfectly with his written plan. But that doesn’t mean it’s official.”
In other words, McCain does not speak for McCain
When your candidate does not speak for his own official campaign, you are in trouble
Obama's arrogance becoming the narrative is the reason why individual state polls do not matter as much to a McCain strategy. He is looking to drive Obama's negatives up to the point where many people will simply shun him and won't vote for him under any circumstances.
The high number of uncommitted voters out there spells grave danger to Obama and opportunity for McCain (gladly cancer free; I am sure Campbell Brown is greatly relieved!)
Y'all thought you did not have another Dukakis or a Kerry on your hands.
No, now you have THE ONE, THE ONLY: OBAMA!
A freight train is coming and you won't see it till it smacks you in the head.
NEXT: The Resurgence of the Republican Brand!
The resurgence of the Republican brand led by Ted Stevens.
This focus on OH / MI / PA doesn't seem to jive with current polling numbers. Certain states could flip while others don't based entirely on how effective Obama is in turning out all of the new voters he is trying to register. Obama is using all of his free labor registering voters in NC, GA, and FL this summer; there are fewer of these voters to go after on MI and OH. By chance if he gets more voters to turn out for him in FL, he could win FL and VA while losing OH and MI (PA seems safe). McCain seems bent on winning MI and OH; this seems like folly to me if he ignores VA and FL, where Obama isn't polling materially worse than he is in MI right now.
McCain really should just write off Iowa. He lost it when he voted against the ethanol subsidy.
Continue instead on trying to turn MI and OH and solidify downstate IN against what's likely to be a stronger than expected Obama draw upstate.
One of Obama's strengths in this campaign is the incompetence of the McCain campaign, and the growing image of the candidate himself as addled and bumbling.
But Obama hasn't yet responded effectively to some of the negative attacks on his character, and that's a mistake. And if he thinks he's going to be able to give a big speech about energy as his response to the gas price and drill-drill-drill policy of McCain, he's mistaken. He needs to be very concrete and also here and now, and not try only to solve the energy problem by 2030 or some other distant time horizon.
"The high number of uncommitted voters out there spells grave danger to Obama."
Actually you've got that backwards. Every piece of historical data shows voters come home to their party by election day. The fact that a majority of uncomitted voters are democrats means McCain has to convince them to cross party lines - a much more difficult task than Obama has.
Pete
Oh, I'll tell my friend who just got laid off that the economy is turning around! I'll tell my other friends who continue to lose value on their homes (nationally) that everything's alright. Stop whining right? Just like Phil Gramm said?
And the Iraq War "won"? As in "mission accomplished"! By what metric? I'm happy violence is down, but read the latest GAO report if you want a good update on the progress AND remaining challenges. Yet if the war's won, then are you supporting bringing our troops home? Or stabilizing Afghanistan?
What is irksome is that you try to pass off your posts as honest discussion, when they are not.
The tone of your posts are "insert information" followed by "oh, oh, this could be bad for Obama!". Is this therapy for you? At least the posts by MVRed are intellectually honest.
And if you're wrong on Election Night, will you be man enough to admit that many of your posts were misguided? I'd offer to do the same, but I'm not doom and glooming McCain with every post.
Better yet, how about a friendly wager, put some $$$ where your mouth is? Or are you (insert sounds of chickens clucking)?
The bet would be the Presidential Election and agreed upon Senate races at $50 a piece. For every one we get right/wrong, you lose/win $50. Here is where you can prove you're more than just hot air and actually believe half of the things you post. Of course, if you do not take the bet (insert more sounds of chickens clucking).
What does this say about your "return on investment" index where Florida is not even in the top 15?
Seeing that its paying off for him and given the large number of electoral votes, should Florida be showing up on the index soon? If not, I think you need to reevaluate the model behind it.
Obama's arrogance becoming the narrative is the reason why individual state polls do not matter as much to a McCain strategy.
Right... because the states don't actually matter when determining a winner. Right? Oh, wait a sec...
It's becoming obvious that at this point, McCain's "strategy" such as it is has devolved to just hurling abuse at Obama and hope that the media copies him. He's got nothing left. On the three issues that Americans consistently say matter most to them (economy, Iraq, energy) McCain is widely viewed as having little credibility and Obama lots.
We'll see Obama's strategy refine more and more into tactical battles within individual states over the next 14 weeks. Probably almost on a week-by-week basis, we'll see him narrow his targets to the 8-10 states that are narrowly R and which Obama will contest with a massive ground attack. He's likely to win them all and with it a massive EC victory on par with Clinton's two wins.
With all the caging operations, diebold machine shenanigans, republican secretary of state disqualifying so many of the new registrants, etc, the only way obama could "win" in florida is if he were 25 points ahead in the polls. then they'd be too shamed to steal it again in that state. so at least for now, things are looking rather red over there, and that has nothing to do with the voting population of florida.
Chris asked:
"What does this say about your "return on investment" index where Florida is not even in the top 15? "
I presume it is beacause the ROI index takes cost into account.
Conservatives (esp. rich ones) tend to judge the economy by the stock market and not by real life on the ground. They focus on overall and marginal tax rates and not on the price of gasoline, medical care, food, and college tuition.
So a conservative will say "the economy is turning around" when the stock market seem to be hitting bottom. The market does tend to be a "leading indicator" by about 6 months. But get what? Six months from now the new president will be inaugurated, but the election is just 3 months off.
And on the ground, general inflation and housing deflation are hurting a lot of people, especially those who live closer to the edge of solvency, which includes a lot of people who are living on fixed income and social security.
Spike, as long as there are two dogs in the neighborhood they will keep barking at each other. They are generally wasting their time here given the fact that this forum has primarily high information voters, and they add no information to the mix.
The funding numbers are interesting. In particular it would be interesting to see the same chart on a per vote basis (electoral or popular). I don’t understand Obama’s push in Florida either. Is he trying to open a fourth possible route to winning (CO + NM, OH, VA, FL?). Was someone mentioning that advertising needs to be sustained in order to keep the boost in the polls?
I beleive what MCain's Florida spending tells us is that he has an ace in the hole down there.
My guess is that depsite all his talk Crist is his VP.
Keep in mind, there are two reasons to spend money campaigning....
One is to get move votes.
The other is to get more donations.
Lots of rich Democrats in Florida, especially Hillary supporters. All that spending in Florida probably pays for itself, in convincing people not just to vote for Obama but to send in a $2000 check!
In contrast, I suspect Pennsylvania is a sinkhole*. The rich people already donated, and the undecided are mostly the poorer people in the "T" who aren't going to donate no matter who they end up voting for.
It might be interesting to crosstab where Obama and McCain got their donations from in the last two months vs. where they spent their money.
*And I say that as a completely unbiased Cleveland Browns fan.
FL and alot of states are in play, or Obama is up, if the young and African American turnout is actually up significantly.
As to anedoctal evidence - my mom who live in FL has gone from hating Obama to contemplating him, and she is a dead on old republican - McCain's strongest group.
I was on holiday in florida two weeks
ago, the only ads I saw were Obama ads.
I would recon that the demographic changes
in the last eight yesrs, since Gore won,
would weigh in Obamas favour.
Obama looks confident.
McCain looks desperate.
In July.
'Nuf said.
I figure a state is 'in play' if it scores between 30% and 70% on Nate's Win% entry. If it's above 70% it's a blue state; below 30% it's a red state.
From that, I figure that blue states account for 264 Electoral Votes and red states account for 175 EV's. The 'in play' states account for 99 EV's and they are IN, FL, MO, NV, MT, VA, OH & CO. That's where the money should be spent.
McCain has outspent Obama in MO, NV, OH & CO which seems strange to me (esp. in light of how much he's spent on red NC & GA). It looks like Obama hasn't spent anything in MT and those are 3 EV's he's capable of picking up!
McCain has spent some significant money in blue states PA, MI, WI, IA, MN because his road to victory with states 'in play' is very narrow. He'd need to pick up 95 out of 99 available. I don't blame him for looking for help there -- but unless Obama is shooting for a landslide his efforts in red states seem curious.
Jeremy: No, the co-chair of the leadership Committee will be Chris Dodd. Also, Rasmussen reports today that uncommitted voters are breaking towards McCain when pressed. This is the pattern that lead HRC to her big wins in OH and PA.
WA Indie: You are hanging around with the wrong crowd, bud! Tell me with whom you associate and I will tell you who you are. You know what the definition of a gaffe is: Telling the truth at the wrong moment. Now quit your whining! And of course I am not going to wager with you: credit concerns.
The bottom line: anecdotal evidence of the kind that you and Obama spew is not going to change economic reality or the statistics. Now people may feel bad, have less confidence, but that is a media creation. 95% of the people remain employed and in their homes and in many cases don't want to pay for the troubles of those who got themselves over their heads by not doing their homework. McCain, btw has a plan to re-train workers who have been displaced.
Yes or No: has the War been won? It looks like more and more people are seeing it that way or at least perceiving as they have not in years that we have turned things around.
Tybalt: I agree with you. Obama will narrowly focus his campaign on those states where he hopes to win so he can eke out a small electoral victory.
On those three issues you mention, I respectfully disagree. Obama has little credibility; he has no experience, but gives a helluva speech! McCain is for victory in Iraq and supported the policy (the Surge) that bought it about, is for Drilling (the people are overwhelmingly for it) and is for a pro-growth economic plan that will protect the rebounding economy )and not raise taxes).
Oh and Juris: if you haven’t noticed, gas and oil prices are FALLING and the economy surprisingly added jobs in July. Don't talk to me about the stock market and marginal tax rates. I am talking about large macro trends that are benefiting all Americans right now.
You lose!
re: comments by coolblue, f.k.a. ds 0816, I don't think McCain needs to name a Florida VP to win Florida. There's a tightening in the polls, but McCain still has a leg up in organization. Obama's Fla/Mich delegate seating debate will come out of the woodwork again at the convention.
I think Pawlenty does more for McCain than Crist on a national level, regardless of how it affects the polling in the VP's home state. Minnesota is unwinnable for McCain, but Pawlenty might be impressive enough to help the ticket elsewhere.
I think the Obama campaign's interest in Florida may be predicated in part on McCain's amazing gift to them--the "Social Security is a Disgrace" comment and the plan to resurrect Bush's failed SS privatization scheme. That will play really well in Florida--heh.
Why would the McCain camp trot out that lead balloon in a year where they are aready fighting just to stay in the race? They don't appear to be a very smart bunch.
Interesting thought on the money Matthew. Check this article:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/breaking-news/story/612929.html
In June
Obama raises $1.4 million
McCain raises $0.9 million
But the graph shows Obama at about $5 million in Florida. It would seem that he is still currently losing money in Florida.
Naomi - that story has been around for a while now, yet the GOP and Dems are pretty close in the polls.
Crist is not McCain's ace in the hole in FL.
The Secretary of State is his ace in the hole. FL is one of those states with a history of vote suppression. They're really good at it.
OH used to be good at it, but the GOP doesn't control everything there any more.
Another factor is that whereas in 2004 (and even, to some extent in 2000) the GOP cut some slack for Latino voters, because this was a group that they were trying to expand their base to, in the last year or two they've turned around. And the more those Pew Hispanic and similar polls show the Latino vote heading to 65 to 70%, the more the GOP (where it can) is going to try to suppress the Latino vote as it has with the Black vote.
I'm inclined to think that Obama's outsized ad spending in Florida is intended to make up lost ground from there not being a primary campaign there, unlike every other state except Michigan (and Michigan is much more Democratic than Florida.) Combined with the fact that it's an expensive state for widespread advertising, I'm not sure any other explanation is necessary.
One more VP point (albeit on the non-VP thread):
Regardless of who McCain chooses for VP, he needs to do it now. Insiders say he's planning to announce after Obama does, but that's going to be touted as another 'McCain reacts to Obama' event by the press.
McCain needs to name someone now. Set the tone of the race. Be proactive. Take control.
McCain won the primary as a battle of attrition. That kind of mindest in this race will give Obama a 375-163 EV win.
I see that I can make it easier to show what I had in mind in this post.
For your added pleasure here's a visual aid.
Liberals always scream "Voter fraud" whenever an election doesn't go their way. I expect I'll be hearing a lot of that for the next four years.
I hope McCain continues to spend (waste) ad dollars in Iowa - a state he has very little chance of carrying this year. Obama has a ground organization 1 1/2 years in the making in Iowa and has 18 offices vs. McCain's 5. Obama won and McCain barely campaigned here in Iowa and came in 4th in the Republican caucus. Iowa Republicans are solidly evangelical and don't like McCain. They like Huckabee. McCain could make it even worse for himself in Iowa if he chooses Mitt Romney for his running mate - Republicans in Iowa despised Romney last fall. And Pawlenty - even from next door Minnesota - is an unknown in Iowa.
jonker -- "But the graph shows Obama at about $5 million in Florida. It would seem that he is still currently losing money in Florida."
The purpose of a political campaign is not to turn a profit. Spending more more money in an important state than you raise there is investing campaign resources, not "losing money."
I'm not sure if this has been said already, but it seems that Obama is not seriously investing right now in producing an ad campaign that leads up to November. It's a silly thing to do right now and even McCain knows this: he basically burns money for no good purpose because he has to by campaign finances law.
What Obama does now with TV money are two things:
- Neutralizing McCain's campaign,
- supporting his registration drive, targeted at minorities (which drive does take place NOW, not in November).
From the following formula, one can derive Obama's spending:
slightly underspend McCain ads + invest heavily where the minorities are
The Obama arrogance narrative is a fiction directly from Rove/Luntz. It is without merit and not being accepted by the MSM. Look at the front page of WaPo today and the NYT op-ed for blistering condemnations of McCains campaign and tactics. They not so politely call him a liar.
That and the amusing Davis backing off the "no lobbyist" pledge, why I can see the similarity between bush and McCain already. Could be twins.
I know it's already desperation time for the GOP, but I think this is a loser for the losers.
Yeah they front page of the NYT and WaPo said nobody would believe those crazy swiftboaters, either, and what horrible tactics they were etc.
But it worked. The elite MSM doesn't get campaigning.
Unexpectedly strong jobs report along with further drop in crude oil suggest economy could be on a rebound.
War in Iraq appears to have been won.
Who benfits from these trends?
Discuss.
What are you talking about Pete Kent???
War in Iraq won?
First- it's not a war that's really "winnable" and any outcome will be somewhat ambiguous- certainly not a clear win.
Second- umm, we have thousands of soldiers still fighting in Iraq- usually when troops are in a country fighting it means there's still a war.
Why do you post such ridiculous things??
Violence in Iraq down to '05 levels = victory. Hmm, then I guess we won years ago, and just forgot to leave. Honestly, what is metric of victory?
Amusing that the Kents and VCs are down to essentially presenting http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/ as their evidence. Does that mean I can base arguments on http://www.mccainisreallyold.com/ ?
"No child on my lawn!" "Naps for America!"
It is kind of fun; maybe that's why they do it.
Redshift: I agree with you about the Obama spending in Florida -- it's just a makeup for the lack of a previous effort. Sort of an artillery barrage from a distance prior to a troop "landing." Also, if you run a lot of ads and do a lot of polling you can get some idea of the payoff from further efforts.
Obama's also heading there himself soon. And I think we're going to see some activity by his surrogates there -- including above all Hillary Clinton.
Not that it matters, but just a reminder that July 30, 2004, was the day after the Democratic convention finished, and thus the beginning of Kerry's post-convention "bounce."
It would be nice if Jack Black did a little more with his "today in history" posts than just give numbers.
There's also a profound logical fallacy to his presentation. If Obama's leading in the polls now, Jack seems to say, then he must lose in November, because that happened to Kerry. So, one assumes, Obama needs to be losing now, in order to win later?
Obama could, if he wanted, carpet bomb the airwaves with negative ads depicting McCain as old, angry, out of touch, and too close to Bush. But he hasn't which is a big mistake. Especially given his advantage in money.
He should be using the 1996 anti-Dole strategy, but he doesn't seem to want to go negative. We all know Hillary would have the negative campaign knife in McCain's back by now with those kind of ads. Whats taking Obama so long?
VA Conservative: Obama's "advantage in money" is more myth than reality. True, the Obama in 2008 fund is much larger than the parallel funding coming to McCain. But when you put everything together including money held by the national party committees (and even overlooking the 527 money), plus McCain's federal funding for the general election, Obama and McCain will have roughly equal funds available. Between them they're going to be spending close to $1 billion.
Only a foolish or desperate candidate would "carpet bomb" with negative ads in July. The only effect of that will be to turn off people from politics and suppress turnout.
" Only a foolish or desperate candidate would "carpet bomb" with negative ads in July"
Bill Clinton was foolish in 1996? Thats exactly what he did to Bob Dole in the summer of '96. He made him part of the two headed monster of Gingrich-Dole and made him look like an old fart. The election was never close after that.
Obama could do the same if he wanted. Hes too weak to do it it sems.
"Naomi - that story has been around for a while now, yet the GOP and Dems are pretty close in the polls."
Rob,
The Obama campaign is laying off the SS story for now. I'm not quite sure why. Maybe they want McCain to elaborate on his privatization plan more and put more of his prestige behind it before they launch the heavy artillery. But Obama willl definitely go after it. There is no more radioactive an issue to seniors than monkeying with Social Security. And once Obama focuses on McCain's plan, the MSM will as well.
It is electoral gold for Obama, particularly in Florida.
Before poeple jump on the today's PPP July MI poll as showing McCain's strength, be aware that the party IDs are significantly different from PPP's June MI poll.
In June, PPP's sample was D +7, and their July sample was D +3. For contrast, the data here shows that MI was D +7 in 2006 exit polls, and Quinnipiac's samples were D +8 in both June and July.
If we adjust party IDs in PPP's July poll to PPP's party IDs in its June poll, we end up with Obama 47 McCain 41, a difference within the MoE from PPP's June poll results of Obama 48 McCain 39.
I live in Fort Lauderdale so I've been watching the Obama campaign's developments down here pretty closely. Also, my husband just completed a six-week Obama fellowship in Broward County, one of 350 team-leaders the campaign imbedded in the state.
Here's what I have seen going on of late:
1.Obama outraised McCain by nearly $500,000 in Florida in June, raising about $1.4 million in the state, while McCain collected about $900,000. About $118,000 of Obama's donations came from former Hillary Clinton supporters. (source: Miami Herald)
2. There are already 3 fully-paid-staffed offices in Florida (Tampa, Gainesville and Fort Lauderdale) and the campaign is gearing up to open more than a dozen more in the next two weeks alone, a commitment of resources that puts him far ahead of the pace set by Gore and Kerry. New locations include Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Jacksonville, Sarasota, Tallahassee, Orlando and Miami-Dade.
3. The state is not as red-leaning as conventional wisdom might say. A recent Quinnipiac poll had Obama with a 47-43 edge over McCain. In the past two years, Florida Dems picked up nine state house seats, a cabinet seat, two congressional seats, and reelected a U.S. senator by 20 points.
4. Voter registration: Through MAY 2008, Democratic voter registration in Broward County was up 6.7 percent. Republican registrations grew just 3 percent while independents rose 2.8 percent. Democrats have posted even greater gains statewide, up 106,508 voters from January through May, compared with 16,686 for the Republicans. This was BEFORE the Obama campaign began its registration drives in June.
4. Latino vote: as someone here already pointed out, the demographic of the Latino voter in Florida has changed since 2004 -- less concentrated in the older Cuban-Miami axis and dispersed among Mexican, Central and Latin American emigres all over the state. And polls show Obama leading McCain overwhelmingly now in Latino vote nationwide.
The only July polls in Florida show Obama ahead in Latino vote and competitive even among voters over 60. The last Rasmussem has him up by 2 pts over McCain.
naomi said "The Obama campaign is laying off the SS story for now. I'm not quite sure why."
naomi,
I expect that FL, OH and PA (all states with significant senior populations) will see "Social Security is a disgrace" ads come mid-September. There is no reason for Obama to go negative so early, and there will be plenty of time to establish this meme within the final six weeks of the election.
McCain's camp knows that with FL's demographics, Obama will never carry it no mater how much he spends on ads there (unless Obama is winning a landslide in which case any one state does not matter anyways).
FL is filled with older white women, Jews, Cubans, rednecks, and military veterans -- not Obama territory by any means.
Point taken Redshift, campaigns are supposed to run to zero profit. Still I was responding to Matthew, who had suggested that Obama's campaign might be trying to get more rich donors.
I think the spending shows Obama trying to make Florida competative. Perhaps Naomi is right and Obama is making up for the primary and hoping for some traction with McCain's stance on Social Security, and perhaps a bit on drilling.
The Obama arrogance narrative is a fiction directly from Rove/Luntz
Of course it is, John Sidney McCain the third has surrounded himself with some of the most arrogant minions in America and is himself just as arrogant as any politician out there.
Virginia Conservative and Pete Kent are just using this blog as a testing ground for various red herring narratives. Recognize Pete's convenient strawmen he erects to 'back up' every rationalization and Virginia Conservative's simple breaks from reality for what they are - red herrings to see how easily they can derail discussion of the blog's entries. Really, they really can't risk a campaign that focuses on the issues - they'd have to go home right now.
If we adjust party IDs in PPP's July poll to PPP's party IDs in its June poll, we end up with Obama 47 McCain 41.
Michigan is a big blue trap for McCain this year. He and the Republican Party are spending way too much money there that could have gone to playing defense in Bush states.
Likewise, Obama is spending way too much money in GA and FL. However, I'm going to disagree that NC is a similarly lost cause for Obama. It has the potential to be as close as Virginia if Obama keeps spending money there and McCain refuses to defend Carolina.
How could you possibly argue that Obama is spending too much in Florida when he moves from a 10 point defecit to a 2 point lead?
No matter who wins in November, one thing is for sure. This website will continue to get interestinger and interestinger the closer we get to November. So much good stuff! So much better than all the other polling-related sites I've come across.
The Swiftboaters didn't start until August.
Dukakis took a ride in the tank in September.
The Kerry windsurfing ad was in September.
Carter's "lust in my heart" was in August.
Long way to go.
How could you possibly argue that Obama is spending too much in Florida when he moves from a 10 point defecit to a 2 point lead?
If other polls back that up, then I'll begin to believe Obama can win FL. But my gut just tells me that Florida isn't in play when this is the first Presidential election I can recall in which the Medicare crowd actually prefers the Republican.
If it were a normal year in which the GOP candidate was getting hammered with the older vote, I'd say Florida would be the first place to spend money for the Dem.
On that note, I can't figure out why the older folks are out of the Democratic column this year. Are Democrats not the great advocates of Social Security and Medicare they once were? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that when the 65+ crowd was growing up, the world was very different racially than it is today?
At any rate, I'll be happy to say I'm wrong about Obama's chances in FL if ongoing polling shows a dead heat like Rasmussen and ARG.
Mr Insight,
It's a mistake to think that Obama has a "Jewish problem," as the media have sometimes put it: a recent poll gives him 62-32 support over McCain.
He also has a 60-34 approval rating with Jewish voters, which looks pretty good when compared to McCain's 34-57 and Joe Lieberman's 37-48.
Obama will do fine with Jewish voters.
http://www.jstreet.org/page/media-advisory-new-survey-american-jewish-community
Mr Insight,
It's a mistake to think that Obama has a "Jewish problem," as the media have sometimes put it: a recent poll gives him 62-32 support over McCain.
He also has a 60-34 approval rating with Jewish voters, which looks pretty good when compared to McCain's 34-57 and Joe Lieberman's 37-48.
Obama will do fine with Jewish voters.
http://www.jstreet.org/page/media-advisory-new-survey-american-jewish-community
http://www.jstreet.org/page/media-advisory-new-survey-american-jewish-community
Hes not running as strong as Kerry or Gore did with Jewish voters.
How much lead time does it take to arrange for advertising? I'm skeptical that campaign television spending turns on a dime in response to yesterday's news, especially this far away from the election. It seems to me that the chart shows each campaign's initial priorities, rather than any quick responses to changing polls and current affairs.
McCain's strategy looks to be based on the 2004 map. With the exception of Virginia, his money has gone into those states that were closest in 2004. Obama's strategy seems to be an aggresive push to expand the map--thus the heavy spending in FL, VA, NC, GA, and IN. He is clearly putting much more resources into southern states than warranted by the 2004 results. I suspect they believe they can register and get to the polls huge new numbers of pro-Obama voters there, mainly African-Americans. It will be very interesting to see hwo the spending changes over the next month.
"Carter's "lust in my heart" was in August."
boy and it really propelled Ford to victory, didn't it?
Sorry for the double post above...
on the question of older voters, here are the stats from the last week of the Gallup tracker:
18-29: O 61 McC 31
30-49: O 45 McC 45
50-64: O 48 McC 42
65+: O 40 McC 42
McCain's advantage with older voters isn't very large, or very consistent, especially when compared with Obama's advantage with younger voters.
"boy and it really propelled Ford to victory, didn't it?"
Actually, it damn near did. If Ford hadn't said Poland was "free of Soviet domination" as close as that election was he would have won.
Uhhh...right VaCon. Go back and look at the actual numbers from 1976. They're pretty interesting. Carter actually won the Deep South and quite handily. Won Alabama by 11 points, SC by 11, Georgia by a huge margin...meanwhile CT went Republican...Obviously not a very good analogue for this election.
Rob-
My point was that a lot of things happen between now and November. Not that the 1976 election is a good parallel because (for blatantly obvious reasons) its not.
A) The Swiftboaters didn't start until August.
B) Dukakis took a ride in the tank in September.
C) The Kerry windsurfing ad was in September.
D) Carter's "lust in my heart" was in August.
Long way to go.
Well, that may be wishful thinking on your part. For one thing, in each of those races (Carter and Reagan, Bush and Kerry, and Bush and Dukakis) all traded polling leads back and forth through the spring and summer. This race is more like 1996 in that an "old fart" Republican never gets a lead that he can hold onto.
If you want an historical analogy, look at 1988.
BUT BUT TEH PARTY ID! Democrats had advantages in party ID in 1980, 1984, and 1988. Helped tons didn't it?
According to the exit polls, Bush got 24% of the Jewish vote. Not a big difference, and it's comparing apples and oranges to look at election results last time vs. polling results now.
on the question of older voters, here are the stats from the last week of the Gallup tracker:
18-29: O 61 McC 31
30-49: O 45 McC 45
50-64: O 48 McC 42
65+: O 40 McC 42
McCain's advantage with older voters isn't very large, or very consistent, especially when compared with Obama's advantage with younger voters.
The beauty of those figures for Obama is that while younger voters don't turn out in non-competitive states, in swing states they tend to vote in similar numbers to everyone else.
In other words, 18-29 might be 10% of the vote in California or Alabama, but probably more like 20% of the vote in Colorado and Virginia.
In the '80s, there were still a lot more southern conservative whites who identified as Democrats but would only vote Democrat for president when the candidate was one of their own.
The record-high party ID numbers now for the Democrats (a 10-point lead) come not as a result of a historical legacy, but after 8 years of the least popular president in the history of opinion polling.
"Unexpectedly strong jobs report along with further drop in crude oil ...
Who benfits from these trends?
Discuss."
First, the "jobs report" to which I assume you're referring wasn't a government release, but an ADP estimate that showed a gain of 9,000 private jobs in July. The government's first jobs numbers for July will be released on Friday.
The very fact that an increase of 9,000 jobs in a country with 115 million private sector jobs (that's an increase of 0.008%) could be considered "unexpectedly strong" is fairly strong evidence of just how weak the economy really is.
As for energy prices, I believe that falling gas prices help Obama. High gas prices was the one economic issue where McCain could and did make a reasonable policy argument that his position - drilling - would help more than Obama's position. Now that everybody has experienced $4.00 gas, $3.50 gas doesn't seem so bad, and the urgent cries for drilling, environment be damned, will likely lessen.
In fact, wasn't this your very argument 2-3 weeks ago, Pete Kent, that high gas prices were going to be the ruination of the Obama campaign?
1988 is not really a good analogy. Reagan was a popular president with his VP running to replace him. Plus, the economy was doing well, the external threat (Soviet Union) was collapsing...not really comparable to 2008.
Rasmussen Reports nailed the 2004 election when everyone else got it wrong. They called the correct results on all states with the small exception of New Hampshire that meant absolutly nothing to the electoral count.
Here is my question to all who post here.
Why would you take polling information from one source that has been proven to be correct and mix it with polling information that has been proven to be wrong?
How can that possibly help you get closer to reality?
If you want an historical analogy, look at 1988.
1988 was a year where Reagan was an immensely popular outgoing President that Bush promised to continue the policies of.
2008 is a year where Bush is an immensely UNpopular outgoing President that McCain promises to continue the policies of.
In other words, of the past hundred years of elections, 1988 is the most opposite of 2008.
Something tells me you weren't of voting age in 1988, Benjamin. Same goes for Rob, too.
Well, something is telling you wrong, then Va Conservative. But since you base so few of your posts on actual facts, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
So, do you have an actual argument to support your analogy to 1988? Or just ad hominem attacks based on inaccurate info?
Something tells me you weren't of voting age in 1988, Benjamin. Same goes for Rob, too.
Something tells me you have a lower IQ than most people on this site. Oh, and also, I voted for Bush in 1988 and will vote for Obama in 2008.
In Virginia, too. Just to erase your own vote.
Obama had damn well better outspend McCain in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico. I can't believe he's spending so much money on GA and NC. If I were McCain I would ignore that too.
Let's, for the sake of argument, discuss electoral map possibilities working under the assumption that McCain/Romney flips Michigan red.
This would give Republicans a +33 EV margin if the map does not change other than Michigan.
Now, let's assume Obama does choose Kaine in hopes he turns VA's 13 EV's blue. This means the Republicans are now up by 20. Now, Obama would need 21 to get to 270. The following are the true toss-ups :
Florida 27
Ohio 20
Colorado 9
Iowa 7
New Mexico 5
Nevada 5
New Hampshire 4
I happen to believe New Mexico and Iowa will go blue, meaning this net's Obama another 12. Now, he needs 9 more EV's.
To get 9, he would need:
Florida solo
Ohio solo
Colorado solo
Nevada + New Hampshire
I think FL will go McCain, so that leaves the true "battlegrounds" OH, CO, NV, and NH. Now, does it make sense why Romney is your best chance? He is strong in CO, NV, AND NH. Romney, while maybe not the best candidate, does the MOST to help the map (Michigan being red obviously #1).
Of course, this is all working under the assumption MI goes Red and VA goes blue....which is not guaranteed due to VA's high veteran population. If Kaine does NOT flip VA, Republicans are up 33 EV's and Obama pretty much would has to win 6 of the following 7 :
Florida 27
Ohio 20
Colorado 9
Iowa 7
New Mexico 5
Nevada 5
New Hampshire 4
This is why, I think, Obama is doubling down on Kaine....VA is vital for his EV map quest. And I think this is why McCain is going to counter with Romney, as he is strong in the areas McCain most needs to flip and/or protect.
Obama had damn well better outspend McCain in Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico. I can't believe he's spending so much money on GA and NC. If I were McCain I would ignore that too.
Iowa? Did you miss the part where McCain skipped that state entirely during the caucus season?
Bush Sr. didn't run as Reagan's third term. Remember the "kinder, gentler nation" stuff and the "thousand points of light"? He had to run away from him because of Iran-Contra and the Democrat victory in the 1986 mid-terms.
Thankfully, Dukakis was nominated. Hes similar to Obama in a lot of ways, except more arrogant.
BTW, ask Hillary about how well running as the "inevitable" candidate works.
Darien said:
"Why would you take polling information from one source that has been proven to be correct and mix it with polling information that has been proven to be wrong?
"
That's what the weighting factor is for. Plus, you're making a hasty generalization that beacuse Ras was more accurate in one case, their results should be the gold standard.
Romney, while maybe not the best candidate, does the MOST to help the map (Michigan being red obviously #1).
Romney would be more likely to turn Virginia blue than Michigan red. Mormons don't play at all in the evangelical conservative areas of Virginia, to say nothing of Northern Virginia.
DarienCrow,
Yours is a genuine question and it deserves reply. I'll do my best.
The most important thing we need to bring to reading this site is PROBABILISTIC THINKING. We do not know exactly how things are and how they will be: what we have is a sense of the probabilities.
What does a poll by Rasmussen tell us? Say it says that Obama has 48%. This means that Rasmussen believes that:
- There's a certain probability (not very high) that Obama's support is precisely 48%.
- There a somewhat lower probability that Obama's support is 49%.
- analogously for 47%.
- Less for 50%, 46% ...
And so on.
Now, there is yet another set of probabilities.
It may be that, because Rasmussen was very precise last time around, he will be very precise again, to exactly the same extent. The probability for this is not very high.
But there is also a probability (somewhat lower) that Rasmussen will in fact this time around be a little less precise, or a little more precise, and so on...
The same goes for all other pollsters: they may have been off the mark in the past, so it is likely they will be again, but this is just a distribution of probabilities, not a precise prediction.
Nate effectively combines all such probabilities to derive his numbers.
Bush Sr. didn't run as Reagan's third term. Remember the "kinder, gentler nation" stuff and the "thousand points of light"? He had to run away from him because of Iran-Contra and the Democrat victory in the 1986 mid-terms.
Sure, he tried to put his own stamp on things like McCain is doing today. Everyone needs to distinguish themselves somehow. But the main Bush platform was "No New Taxes", much like McCain today. The difference being that most people liked the tax structure in 1988 whereas today they are swamped by the deficit numbers that just came out.
It will be interesting to see how the polling numbers shift once everyone has woken up to a half-trillion Republican deficit.
Va Con, that's a stretch at best. Bush Sr. ran very close to Reagan, because Reagan was popular. There is no comparison between Bush Sr's relationship with Reagan in 1988 and McCain's relationship with W now.
"Next, the rehabilitation of the Republican party!"
You know, I've sometimes called for banning some Trolls, but Pete Kent is not one of them!
He's hilarious!
"Arrogant" is the new Swift-boat attack.
They tried "Librul! Librul! Librul!" That didn't work because it turned out people thought Obama was a liberal already, but they liked him anyway.
They tried "Flip-flopper!" And that didn't work any better, because McCain has flopped more times than a Tampa Hooker on Saturday night.
Now it's "arrogant" which is nothing more than right-wing for "uppity-nigger."
He assumes he's won already! HA! Ha!
All Obama has to do is issue a statement saying "McCain is the one who thinks he's entitled to the Presidency because he was a war-hero 35 years ago."
Reality! Bush won with negative ads because he had a bigger base.
Attacking Obama in this fashion is a suicide mission for McCain because there are 10% more Democrats than Republicans.
As you can see on these boards, all the Democrats just get furious when they see these lying swindles calling Obama "arrogant."
Everything that VirginiaConservative thinks is "about time McCain starting attacking!" just pisses off Democrats and disgusts Independents.
Bush wasn't targeting Independents when he ran those Ads, he was targeting Republicans. They loved it. Dems hated it, but there were more Republicans on election day and Bush won by 2.8%.
McCain has no choice clearly. He has no compelling reason to be President. He's just President of the Surge.
But, he's not in the same position as Bush. Unlike in 2004, when it was 37% to 37%, Dems have a dominating 9.5% partisan ID advantage. Following Bush's strategy is a dead-sure loser for McCain.
Clearly, Obama's strategy benefits from lots of money. When you have tons, you actually can afford to take risks. I imagine the ads are priming the FL electorate for the convention, then ad in the convention bounce and FL becomes an "in play" state. Even if Obama just makes FL competitive, forcing McCain to have to defend the state is trouble for the GOP. Also, let's not forget the down-ballot Dems that benefit from Obama's largesse.
But, he's not in the same position as Bush. Unlike in 2004, when it was 37% to 37%, Dems have a dominating 9.5% partisan ID advantage. Following Bush's strategy is a dead-sure loser for McCain.
Today's fast-growing party difference is one reason why I think Obama has another 5% headroom to raise his numbers, whereas McCain has pretty much hit the ceiling.
Negative campaigning works period. Especially when it raises doubts among conservative and moderate Democrats.
Fixed typo:
Last week Pete Kent insisted that he understood the unemployment rate. Now he has posted that "95% of people are employed," implying that he believes the employment rate is simply 100% minus the unemployment rate, currently 5.5% if you trust it.
Pete, please either educate yourself or pipe down about economics.
A couple of things (other than Florida) were really interesting to me.
a) How much McCain is spending in Pennsylvania.
b) How it appears McCain is spending more (or at least the same) overall
c) How little Obama is spending in Mont. and ND
d) How much Obama is spending in GA compared to NV, NM and Colorado
There is a lot to work with on this study. A whole lot of things to analyze.
Negative campaigning works period. Especially when it raises doubts among conservative and moderate Democrats.
That was conventional wisdom in Virginia until Kilgore's negative ads about how Kaine "wouldn't use the death penalty on Adolf Hitler" that raised Kaine's numbers by 5%. Followed the next year by last-minute negative ads by Allen about Webb's novels ("the boy's penis was in the mouth of its father!") that handed Webb the election.
Either negative campaigning and the Republican bag of dirty tricks doesn't work in Virginia anymore, or the GOP has just gotten a lot worse at it over time.
I do not remember who on here was discussing the Gallup Tracker with yesterday and the day before, but its down to +4 Obama as I speculated to correct the spike, which I thought was just a day or two of outlying numbers. It would take 3 full days to correct. Tommorow we should be at normal +2-3 for Obama
Virginia Conservative,
Honest campaigning works period. Especially when it raises doubts among conservative and moderate Republicans.
Those Florida number cannot be correct. I've seen more McCain ads here than Obama ads.
Last week Pete Kent insisted that he understood the unemployment rate. Now he has posted that "95% of people are employed," implying that he believes the employment rate is simply 100% minus the unemployment rate, currently 5.5% if you trust it.
Pete, please either educate yourself or pipe down about economics.
You mean it's possible to not be in the labor force yet not be unemployed? Gosh!
Kilgore was ab idiot to mention Hitler. You just don't talk about Nazis, period.
Webb won because the Democrats rab a very good negative campaign against Allen, painting him as an anti Semitic racist bully.
I understand the FL spending on Obama's part. It's the largest prize on the board. That's it. It opens another path to victory.
The GA spending is what puzzles me. GA is a landslide state. If he wins it, he already won in VA and probably NC. I don't understand why he doesn't switch a bit of the GA money to MT and ND. It wouldn't cost that much to blanket those states with ads and their 6 EVs seem much more valuable in a close election than the outside shot at Ga's 15.
Higglytown, You were right yesterday (you may recall I predicted 45-41 for today) but I think you are wrong now. My quick impression is that the 4-points Gallup margin was constant for the last three days so that a 2-3 points tomorrow would require a bad night tonight for Obama. - Possible, but not predictable. Might as well go up.
Tom,
You live in Florida and you see McCain advertising. I was curious about the big 0 next to McCain in Florida. I guess the numbers are wrong since it said he wasn't spending anything.
If it said Obama was spending more than McCain, you could have seen more McCain ads. Remember its a sort of a matter of dumb luck which ads you see. Plus, McCain could be targetting one city while Obama is targetting another. Perhaps its the kind of show you like to watch. Perhaps McCain is targetting ESPN and Obama Lifetime and vice versa.
I'd warn everybody against assuming that your own personal experiences are "typical".
Kilgore was ab idiot to mention Hitler. You just don't talk about Nazis, period.
Webb won because the Democrats rab a very good negative campaign against Allen, painting him as an anti Semitic racist bully.
He did all that to himself with his "Maccaca Moment" on August 11 and the denial of his family's Jewish heritage. There weren't any ads from Democrats about it, but the media did a good job of discussing those Allen issues.
Interesting from the graph, yet there are no comments on, the amounts of money the RNC is spending on ads for McCain, compared to the Obama side. While I understand how McCain has to spend his primary money before the convention, why is the RNC blowing its load?
That reminds me, it should be only a matter of time until the media starts discussing McCain's similar issues, such as abandoning his wife when she was hit by a car and gained weight. For maximum impact, I'm thinking next week or early September.
But you won't see any Obama ads about McCain's lack of character.
Let me get into the "negative campaigning works" debate.
Negative campaigning works if its effective. If the average swing voter looks at the ad and says "yeah that scares me", it works. If he looks at it and says "that's all you got??", you have just sabotaged your own campaign. You've wasted key resources and you've created sympathy for your opponent. Its a double whammy.
I've seen just as many ineffective negative campaigns as effective ones. Its a real exaggeration to say negative campaigning always works.
My own impression is that so far the negative ads are backfiring on McCain and ruining his image. If he does dig up some real dirt, he should use it, but going with the stuff he's been going with is a mistake. Just my opinion.
Michigan being Romney's home state makes him a huge asset here. I think the evangelicals are bluffing on not voting if Romney is chosen. If the threat is real though Romney may win Michigan but put Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia into the light blue column. You lose the Bible Belt Vote and you can not win as a Repub.
"There weren't any ads from Democrats about it, but the media did a good job of discussing those Allen issues."
This is an important point in understanding negative advertising, I think.
Negative advertising works in that, if done right, it is likely going to lower the favorability/votes of your opponent. But negative advertising also tends to hurt the person who goes negative. The key is to maximize the former while minimizing the latter.
So far, I think McCain's done a reasonably good job of not getting personally tarred by the negatives that the Repubs are heaping on Obama. On the other hand, so far Obama's also still leading. McCain has to be careful - if he ratchets up the attacks, he risks taking as much of a hit as Obama.
As for Obama, as long as he's leading, I think he's smart to stay above the fray, especially today, 3 months out from the actual election.
I am a McCain supporter, and the ad that says Obama caused higher gas prices made me chuckle. The negative ads can work, but get serious. That one in particular can cost McCain a point or two. I think the other ones are better on point, but too busy and sloppy, not well done enough. Do ads not go past editing and focus groups anymore? What happened to the Bill Clinton and George Bush (Karl Rove) precision for detail in every ad and spot.
Let me get this straight.
You honestly believe that because there is a higher percentage of people that identify themselves as democrat than people that identify themselves as republican that Obama will win?
You are saying that these republicans that no longer identify themselves as republicans suddenly lurched to the left and now embrace San Francisco values?
Maybe... just maybe... they are agnostic or pro-choice and can't completly commit to a republican agenda any longer.
They are against raising taxes, in favor of all forms of energy, believe that terrorism needs to be crushed. They do not believe that the government is there to "take care of them". The government is there to insure they can take care of themselves. They will never support a socialist agenda.
The democrats are the party of hate and the proof is everywhere from these posts to the streets of our neighborhoods. Republicans see Obama stickers and they just think about how misguided these people are.... but if they show there support for a republican they are threatened with violence and vandalized.
I am fipped-off by people with peace signs on their license plates. Never by anyone with a vote red sticker.
The United States is the number one country on this planet and I am proud of it... and we got there with our sense of right and wrong, supporting our friends, and keeping our freedom from those that wish to take it from us.
So don't believe that just because we want to adjust our message that we are all becoming sheep.
A good positive (negative) ad is from the new group vetsforfreedom, It does not attack Obama directly, but quotes a passage from Obama in congress, then says whoever is president, we cannot tuck our tails and run from Iraq, we need a president who will stay the course and finish the job. So whoever you vote for, make sure they believe we need to finish the job in Iraq.
Its not McCain attacking, and its very subtle do not vote for Obama without personally attacking him. The question is, Is it too subtle? Will people not get that the ad opposes Obama.
Being the party of hate might not be fully compatible with being a party of sheep. Not especially angry animals, sheep.
Anyhow, one of the big questions about Romney as VP is whether he wants it or not. There is a line of thinking that says he'd rather not be on a losing ticket this year, and would rather wait for next time, when he can be the automatic front-runner for the Republican nomination.
And, I have to say, if Pawlenty is the VP nominee this time, and McCain loses, it's not as though Pawlenty would pose a big threat to Romney in the primaries.
Benjamin, I love the attacks on McCain for "abandoning his wife." They both agreed to separate after the war, they both had huge issues they were personally dealing with. He filed for divorce many years later, but it was a consent divorce. The two remain close friends to this day, and his ex-wife is friends with his current wife and they attend functions together. I love how people attack him on this, its been happening for over 20 years and will keep happening, but he is above all of that, hasnt worked yet since its not true, and it wont work this time.
Pete Kent lied (as usual) and said:
"Tybalt: I agree with you. Obama will narrowly focus his campaign on those states where he hopes to win so he can eke out a small electoral victory."
Pete, that's a bald lie and a misrepresentation of my comment. Typical of you. I said Obama would gradually narrow his fight down to the vulnerable states where McCain leads narrowly, and use his big ground game to win those too. He'll win comfortably, around the same EC numbers that Clinton won. A big victory.
Higglytown said "A good positive (negative) ad is from the new group vetsforfreedom, It does not attack Obama directly, but quotes a passage from Obama in congress, then says whoever is president, we cannot tuck our tails and run from Iraq, we need a president who will stay the course and finish the job."
Higgly, it's not such a good ad when the majority agree with Obama's position. "Stay the course" is not a big draw when the majority polled by Rasmussen still support a withdrawal, even when asked a biased, leading question.
Higglytown also said "They both agreed to separate after the war, they both had huge issues they were personally dealing with. He filed for divorce many years later, but it was a consent divorce."
Yes, but ... McCain's book Worth the Fighting For lies about the timetable. He claims that they filed for divorce BEFORE he started dating Cindy, but that is blatantly false. In fact, he sued his wife for divorce on February 19, 1980, alleging that they had separated on January 7, 1980, and obtained a marriage license to wed Cindy just 16 days after suing for divorce. You can find the facts here.
It is true that his first wife has refused to badmouth him, other than saying about the divorce that "John was turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again."
However you spin it, it will be another thing that hurts McCain with evangelicals.
John M said:
I can't believe [Obama]'s spending so much money on GA and NC. If I were McCain I would ignore that too.
John, you might be surprised by the enthusiasm among NC Democrats right now. We've gotten used to the idea that this state will always go red and our presidential vote doesn't matter. The fact that Obama is spending money here -- not just ads but 11 field offices in the state -- makes people believe things could be different this year. Which could be a self-fulfilling prophecy by firing people up enough to increase volunteerism and voter turnout.
Do I believe Obama is going to win NC? Honestly, no. (barring a landslide, which I wouldn't predict based on current information.) My hope is that the advertising and ground effort here will keep the polls close and scare McCain into spending money he needs for Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, etc.
For those who say evangelicals will be angry if Romney is the VP pick given that he is a Mormon, are you suggesting that evangelicals would be mad enough to give their presidential votes to the son of a Muslim father and atheist mother whose spiritual mentor begged God to damn America? I don't think so.
If Romney can lead to a MI pickup he needs to be the running mate. PPP(D) today says Obama is only up 3 points in MI now (down from 9 in June).
mrinsight22,
You miss the point. A Romney VP pick would tip NC and VA blue (and perhaps Georgia) as Southern evangelicals would simply stay home on election day. Personally, I am pulling for a Romney VP pick for McCain.
For those who say evangelicals will be angry if Romney is the VP pick given that he is a Mormon, are you suggesting that evangelicals would be mad enough to give their presidential votes to the son of a Muslim father...
No. What will happen (I'm surrounded by evangelical Virginians and have been for all my life) is that they will stay home on Election Day. So it won't be -2 votes for McCain for each Evangelical he offends by picking a Mormon to be next-in-line, but it will be -1 when they don't show up on Election Day.
Evangelicals are very concerned about Mormon missionaries around the world competing for converts. My sister, and her family of 6, will never vote for McCain with Romney on the ticket and they are died-in-the-wool Republicans who enthusiastically supported Bush not once but twice.
To all that analogy issue:
I don´t think analogies help. We have a way too small datapool of polled elections to be able to analyze how elections work.
I´d say an election is a random walk. Anything can happen from this point on, your brain will try to find reasons and analogies, but it could be that McCains numbers go up, or that they go down. Same for Obama. This race has NOTHING to do with 1988,or 1996, or 1888 or whatever. Obama is more likely to win, because his winning scenarios from now on include "Obamas numbers go downward by less than 3%".
Then he would win a nailbiter. If we assume that there is a 50% chance for Obama to improve on his numbers, and a 50% chance for McCain to do so, Obama is a favorite to win the election [because his numbers could go slightly down and he´d still win]. This is it.
It seems like the great myth of this veepstakes that somehow Romney is a Michigan guy. How many people in Michigan can even remember his dad as Governor and would vote based on that? That's just silly.
The issue in Michigan is jobs. Romney is an 'economic' guy in the wall street wealth accumulation sense, not in the creating jobs sense.
That just keeps being repeated as if it's true.
Michigan's unemployment rate is 8.5%, highest in the nation. It doesn't seem like nominating a wall-street guy who's dad was governor a long time ago is going to negate that.
Yes the evangelicals will be angry.
They will be angry all the way to November... they will be angry all the way to the polls... they'll be angry as they vote for McCain.
They will feel better when they see their state firmly in McCain's column and out of the hands of Obama.
It is extremely simple: Florida has 27 electoral votes.
Consider the states that are toss-ups, in the sense that Obama's win percentage (as shown on the left) is between 20-80%: NH, FL, NC, VA, MO, WV, OH, MI, IN, ND, SD, CO, NM, NV, MT.
Of these, if Obama wins New Hampshire and Florida but loses ALL the rest of them, he gets 269 electoral votes and wins the election.
TO: Tybalt, Bob, Cugel, Thomthress, and Others of the Great Unwashed Out There--
EAT MY SHORTS!
Only kidding, just feeling playful today (back on my meds). The polls help of course. Gallup tracker continues to show erasure of Obama bump. It seems his campaign needs massive doses of media exposure to sustain itself and after he gets it, it all dissipates like air out of a leaky balloon. Liked the new PPP in MI too.
The issues, honestly, are now on McCain's side: The War, Gas Prices and The Economy. As for the latter the vectors seem to be improving, as they do with oil prices, suggesting a fragility that does not warrant risk, but the steady hand of experience. Obama can�t get over the Surge and he will be trapped by it. He got a great gift from al-Maliki and has squandered it by refusing to admit he is not infallible. Amazing! Reminds me how the Lib crowd was all clucking over how �stubborn� George Bush was a few years back and could not admit any mistakes. O�Bush!
Oil prices have fallen due to psychology in the market place coupled with lower demand. $4.25 gas causes people to park their cars. The psychological turnabout was brought on by the apparent US resolve lead by McBush to drill for more oil right here. (BTW Obama is a LIAR or STUPID when he says it will take 7 years to get to the stuff).
Keep shouting to world that Obama is a "Liberal". I don't think those folks in KS or MT or rural PA heard you quite yet! They are not really paying attention except for the headlines. All they know right now about Obama is that he is arrogant. They haven't heard yet that he is a liberal.
Nice throw of the race card up there, btw. Took you long enough! Did David Axelrod not have his cell phone charged?
I liked this one: "As you can see on these boards, all the Democrats just get furious when they see these lying swindles calling Obama 'arrogant.'" I have not noticed any Democrats here, just a branch office of the Daily Kos! Would the former HRC supporters please stand up! LOL They are not here. Those PUMAs are sharpening their claws for Denver!
Oh, and SelenesMom: I told you already: Ya gotta cut the cord, honey! It's time to let go!
There are a lot of Mormons in the Shenandoah Valley. It would balance it out.
Darien said:
"They will be angry all the way to November... they will be angry all the way to the polls... they'll be angry as they vote for McCain."
Just like they did when they voted for McCain and Romney in the Primary. Wait. No they didn't. They voted for Huckabee. Don't you get it? In the eyes of an evangelical, Mormons aren't Christians. When faced with the choice of a Muslim or a Mormon, what's a good evangelical to do? Vote for neither, go to church and await the Rapture.
"The psychological turnabout was brought on by the apparent US resolve lead by McBush to drill for more oil right here"
LOL. This is pretty far out even by your standards, Pete. I'm sure the world oil market is really being driven by the possibility that small US oil reserves may eventually be tapped. In much the same way that, when one farmer in Iowa decides to plant corn instead of soy, corn prices plummet.
Christopher said...
It seems like the great myth of this veepstakes that somehow Romney is a Michigan guy. How many people in Michigan can even remember his dad as Governor and would vote based on that? That's just silly.
The issue in Michigan is jobs. Romney is an 'economic' guy in the wall street wealth accumulation sense, not in the creating jobs sense.
That just keeps being repeated as if it's true.
Excellent point.
I'd like to add the following…
Geraldine Ferraro. Lloyd Bentsen. Jack Kemp. John Edwards.
What do they have in common?
They're vice president selections, and not one them brought to their losing candidate—Ferraro, to a 1984 Walter Mondale; Bentsen, to a 1988 Michael Dukakis; Kemp, to a 1996 Bob Dole; Edwards, to a 2004 John Kerry—his/her home state.
Mitt Romney would not swing Michigan to John McCain. Mitt's father, George, governed Mich. from 1963-1969. Mitt, himself, was Massachusetts' governor. If Mitt is such a winner for McCain—it is Mass., not Mich., that he must swing first. (No GOP has won Mass. since Ronald Reagan's two elections in 1980 and 1984.)
BTW, Pete, how long do you think it would take to tap unexplored oil reserves? And what are you basing this on?
DarienCrow—
By way of comparison, I'd called 46 states and a district on the Monday before the Monday before in 2004 and left it at that while noting that I thought Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin still too close to call. I can link the blog thread if you like. My New Hampshire call was, in part, based upon the resources the Bush campaign was expending there. In the end, they succeeded in making New Hampshire closer (margin of victory percentage) than Ohio. Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico (in that order) were closer.
My take at the moment is that Obama will win and it won't be close. Normally, at this point, I'd write Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but, given your last couple of comments, I'll write Read it and weep...or whine...or rage. Whatever. It'll make no difference.
Michigan's unemployment rate is 8.5%, highest in the nation.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS... FOR MCCAIN!!!
They can all get jobs in the 300,000-strong ground force that will be necessary to occupy Iran.
Both Obama and McSame have "primary" funds that must be spent before the Convention turns them into "nominees of the party."
So why not spend to expand the battlefield and probe for soft spots in the opponent's lines?
I'm glad to see Obama working in several non-Virginia Southern states. I wish he'd add South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas to his shopping cart.
As pointed out above, Obama did not wage a primary campaign in Florida, so part of any effort now is catch up. Where he campaigned and people got to know him, he always won over voters. Let's see how that works in FL.
Everywhere in the former Confederate States I see almost every Undecided vote as a potential Obama vote. Undecided? What's to decide about voting against a Black man for President? Unless you are seriously considering overturning a family and cultural tradition while voting against McBush's Third Term! So let Obama reach out to these virginal white voters and invite them to do it with him for the very first time.
Also, the non-Virginia Southern states Obama has targeted could have been picked by Chuck Schumer or the DCCC. We have a strong Senate candidate in N.C., but if white people are afraid to vote Democratic because they don't know Obama and fear him, her race will be more difficult. (Likewise for Larry Kissell's race.) In FL we have one House seat we're defending and SIX strong challenges in middle and south Florida. Even Georgia could get a longshot Senatorial challenge.
Finally, be prepared. We don't know how the debates will play out. Maybe McSame will say that Tibet is not under the domination of the Chinese, or somesuch.
Obama's campaign is getting in place to fight for Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina -- among others -- and that's a much stronger position than preparing to retreat to battle over the Gore states plus New Hampshire and Ohio.
Huckabee won't be on the ballot.
Don't you get it?
Voting is a huge part of what Christians do... just like Mormans.
That's why Romney will be McCain's VP. The "M" word and I don't mean Michigan. It's "Mormans"
Here's how I see it. Dems forget about Virginia. It's a southern state that always puts a republican in the white house. Do you really believe Virginia will go with the ultra-liberal Obama?
Forget about Florida... the Jewish vote will not support anyone with a muslim father. The cubans hate Castro... his brother too. Seniors love McCain and so does the military. Florida loves their Gov and he loves McCain. No Obama shot.
Rasmussen has McCain by 10! Nuff Said there.
Mormans vote... and they all vote red. They came out by the millions to vote for Romney. I know I was there at the Nevada caucus... and Romney will seal up Nevada and Colorado.
So do the electoral math. No Obama in Virginia, Florida, or Ohio. McCain takes Nevada and Colorado because of the Morman vote and McCain wins... and he doen't even need Michigan.
The popular vote doesn't count and the dems still don't believe it... so you can have all the California, New York, and Chicago vote you want and it still adds up to an Obama loss.
Rob,
Small oil reserves here? I don't think so . . .
I heard an expert on the radio say only yesterday that drilling on waters contingous to exisitng wells could produce oil in less than one year. Not seven!
BTW Iraq is said to have reserves equal to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps we should abandon those to Iran or Al-Qaeda while we protect the poppy crop in Afganistan.
Patently no one reads the previous thread, so I piggyback Coolblue71 to cut-and-paste my laboriously researched comment from down there. Obviously this means this thread will soon expire as well!
Seeing that Nate does not do the VP home-state calculation, here is my home-made back of the envelope:
Take Nate's electoral history, relative charts. Consider the change in the VP's home state compared with the previous elections. Compare this change to the change in the region minus the home state (this underestimates the home state impact because there could also be a regional impact. Also, one should really make a demographic regression comparison but that's for Nate, not for me!)
I only consider elections where a new VP candidate was rolled out for the first time (non-incumbents, that is). From 1980 onwards, going backwards:
Edwards: +3 Home State, +0 Region
Net Edwards +3
Lieberman: +7 Home State, -2 Region
Net Lieberman +9
Cheney: +20 Home State, +11 Region
Net Cheney +9
Kemp: -10 Home state, -4 Region
Net Kemp -6
Gore: +8 Home State, -2 Region (excl. Ar)
Net Gore +10
Quayle: +6 Home State, +2 Region
Net Quayle +4
(I ignore Bentsen as the opposing team had home state Presidential advantage then)
Ferraro: +3 Home State +3 Region
Net Ferraro +0
Bush: +5 Home State, -2 Region
Net Bush +7
Average Net: +4.5
Note however that the two non-positive results are both from NY, agreeing with the intuition that a home state advantage means less in a very big, heterogeneous state.
Edwards' contribution is low by historical standards: this was a very EV-focused campaign, that largely ignored NC; and it had strong headwinds going there.
I have the impression that we tend to discount the VP Home State effect simply because, in recent memory, this advantage never came in a very close state, never "flipped" the state. (Gore 1992 may be the exception).
The evidence is small, but it seems foolish NOT to believe that a local VP can help to the order of at least 2 points or so. These 2 points are no pie in the sky: they are a realistic lower bondary guess. 2 points, of course, are a very very big deal.
When I said Rasmussen has McCain by 10 up there... I meant to say by 10 in Ohio. Typing too fast :)
Oh, you heard an unnamed "expert" on the radio. Wow, good evidence. All the evidence I have heard from the US Department of Energy, the US Geological Survey, and oil producers is that it would take many years to explore, then develop these oil fields.
And there is no question that the oil reserves are small in comparison to the amount we consume. Please, go to DOE's website and look up some facts if you don't believe me.
"Forget about Florida...
Rasmussen has McCain by 10!"
Darien, do these two lines go together? Because, Rasmussen's last Florida poll had Obama +1 w/o leaners, +2 w/ leaners.
See here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_presidential_election
"The popular vote doesn't count and the dems still don't believe it... so you can have all the California, New York, and Chicago vote you want and it still adds up to an Obama loss."
True, we elect Presidents with Electoral votes, but CA, NY, and IL have 107 of them, which Obama will gladly take. With those in hand, Obama only needs to win 37.8% (163/425) of the Electoral Votes in the rest of the country to win.
Darien,
You answered my question before I asked it. Thanks.
Dude I corrected myself a couple posts ago... but cudos to you for reading and being on top of things.
There is a weird anti-union backlash thing going on here in Michigan. The One State Recession thing has hit home. My brother works at a non-union shop making a decent wage for Michigan at about $15.00 an hour. His counterpart at the union shop doing the same job makes $39.00 an hour. With overtime, vacations, bonuses and the like his friend in union makes enough to be considered higher than middle class for Michigan. Union jobs have shrunk so much and pull so much from the big companies ability to do business in Michigan there is a backlash against it. Romney's business sense may actually help. People are pro business around here, they are tired of jobs going out of state because business can no longer pay employees $100K+ to do jobs they would willingly do for half that amount.
Lowering the average wage and providing more jobs makes since to Michiganders right now. Romney helps on that, he makes sense in ways McCain never will when he talks economics, and he will not socialize Social Security and Healthcare, which are also big no nos in Michigan.
DarienCrow said...
Huckabee won't be on the ballot.
Don't you get it?
Voting is a huge part of what Christians do... just like Mormans.
That's why Romney will be McCain's VP. The "M" word and I don't mean Michigan. It's "Mormans"
Here's how I see it. Dems forget about Virginia. It's a southern state that always puts a republican in the white house. Do you really believe Virginia will go with the ultra-liberal Obama?
Forget about Florida... the Jewish vote will not support anyone with a muslim father. The cubans hate Castro... his brother too. Seniors love McCain and so does the military. Florida loves their Gov and he loves McCain. No Obama shot.
Rasmussen has McCain by 10! Nuff Said there.
Mormans vote... and they all vote red. They came out by the millions to vote for Romney. I know I was there at the Nevada caucus... and Romney will seal up Nevada and Colorado.
So do the electoral math. No Obama in Virginia, Florida, or Ohio. McCain takes Nevada and Colorado because of the Morman vote and McCain wins... and he doen't even need Michigan.
The popular vote doesn't count and the dems still don't believe it... so you can have all the California, New York, and Chicago vote you want and it still adds up to an Obama loss.
It's that simple, eh?
There are a lot of Mormons in the Shenandoah Valley. It would balance it out.
Now I know for a fact you just spew BS out without knowing what the hell you are talking about.
How much time have you spent in the Shenandoah Valley? Born and raised there myself. Lived up and down the Valley.
The Shenandoah Valley is full of evangelicals who would never vote for a Mormon. What it is most certainly NOT full of is Mormons.
The only Mormon I ever knew in 25 years of living in the Valley was my dentist. Compared to tens of thousands of evangelical Baptists and Methodists and Lutherans in every nook and corner.
Take my word for it, there are literally more Mennonites and Amish than Mormons in the Valley. (Some of my best friends growing up in Augusta County were actually Mennonites. No Mormons in our school system that I ever knew of.)
Yeah pretty much that simple.
You have to two extremes... the George Soros left apposing the Rush Limbaugh right. The rest will favor a strong country with a powerful desire for long, happy, and safe lives. People feel safe with McCain.
Darien-
Mormons are about 1.7% of the general population (~5.6MM) with about a fifth of that in Utah. You're right about one thing: they do vote, and they do vote red. They're hardly an untapped resource for the GOP. That's part of the problem. It's hard wring out a dry sponge, if you know what I mean.
I don't think McCain has to worry about Mormons voting for the other guy. What he does have to worry about is scaring away some of the 16.6 MM Southern Baptists by picking someone as VP that SBC congregants consider a heretic.
Oh... And that Ras McCain +10 in Ohio? Small sample (500). Minor Party ID issues. Major Crosstab irregularities (Young voters for McCain???). It, and the PPP that came out around the same time probably both missed the mark.
Florida- Stop asserting opinions as fact. Obama dominates in polling amongst Jews, and most of the old people in Florida are from NY-NE.
So it's not so simple.
"People feel safe with McCain."
Right. The clip of him singing "Bomb, bomb Iran" really made me feel safe.
You continue to just make stuff up.
Damian, actually the result from Rasmussen without leaners is +6... which gives us the trendline, not the +10.
"
Here's how I see it. Dems forget about Virginia. It's a southern state that always puts a republican in the white house. Do you really believe Virginia will go with the ultra-liberal Obama?"
Virginia changes. The Virginia you describe there is the Virginia we had in the 60´s. Now Megalopolis is coming down from north, Virginia gets more liberal. I don´t say there aren´t conservative anymore, but if Obama wins some counties like Loudon and Prince William, he´s good to go.
But actually- you have a bit of a point here. My regression model sees Virginia as Republican, too.
Ohio- one poll with McCain being up there doesn´t give him the state, especially if the poll has such weird crosstabs as those Rasmussen poll head (McCain ahead with young voters, tied with voters in their 40´s).
McCain MAY take Nevada because of the MOrmon vote, but it won´t have more impact than 1% in Colorado, I think. And I don´t think that CO will be a Toss-Up, come Novermber.
Florida:
"
Forget about Florida... the Jewish vote will not support anyone with a muslim father.
Polls prove you wrong with Jews, actually. He´s leading more than 2-1 with Jews, and has way better favorability ratings than McCAin or Lieberman.
The cubans hate Castro... his brother too.
May be, but there are not only Cuban Hispanics... And even if they favor McCain, the overall Latino vote will split- Kerry lost the FL Latino vote 44-56, Obama does better with Latinos than Kerry. And he will do better with Blacks, who Kerry won "only" 86-13.
Seniors love McCain and so does the military.
McCAin is only ahead by 20 with Military voters- not that much of a margin. And I don´t think that Florida seniors love him that much. Kerry lost them by just 5. But I had to see crosstabs on those.
Florida loves their Gov and he loves McCain. No Obama shot."
Crist loves McCAin? That´s a strange way to put it with all the rumors around Crist. But anyway, yes, Crist is pretty popular in Florida, but I don´t think that he´ll have much impact there.
After all, Rasmussens VP favorability poll gave him a nationwide Favorability Rating of -1, and for I think most of this answers come from Florida (where he has name recognition, most voters from outside Florida don´t know him and wouldn´t answer the question). But that does not mean much, the Rasmussen VP poll showed way lower favorability ratings for ALL candidates, compared with polls of other agencies.
Dems forget about Virginia. It's a southern state that always puts a republican in the white house. Do you really believe Virginia will go with the ultra-liberal Obama?
Actually, as a Virginia I can tell you that it is now a Mid-Atlantic state. As 538 has shown, it has more in common with Delaware than it does with the Carolinas or Georgia.
The main difference is what you would term as "ultra-liberal" (most people would say "moderate" to "progressive") Northern Virginia and a large African-American population south of that area. If you add NOVA and AAs (not living in NOVA) together, they make up 46% of the population and both of those groups will tilt to Obama by wide margins.
The other 54% of the state may be able to stem the tide unless McCain puts Romney on the ticket. Then all bets are off.
By the way, in 10 short years the combined population of Northern Virginians and African-Americans who live south of that area will make up more than 50% of the state. Then it's hard to see how Republicans will continue to win Presidential elections in VA.
Benjamin-
I went looking for any information on that statement but couldn't find any numbers at a smaller granularity than state-level.
I didn't post anything because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Every Mormon Church I've ever seen is very distinctive:
Well built.
Well lanscaped.
Well kept.
No crucifix.
Ever seen anything like that in the Shenandoah Valley?
Pete,
Your sense of overconfidence is amazing to me.
You left yesterday before explaining how Obama has alienated "all young black males"
I'm still waiting on that one!!
Oh yeah... I would feel very safe with the threat of Iran... eliminated.
One thing to keep in mind about advertising this early in the campaign: people will get in the habit of pressing the "mute" button on their remote sooner. All else being equal, they might just vote for the guy with the less obnoxious ads.
I was in Ohio a couple of weeks ago, visiting the in-laws, when a McCain commercial came on the tv. I was fascinated: it was the first McCain commercial I had seen this year. (I live in Oregon, where I have yet to see even a McCain bumper sticker or lawn sign.)
Their response, as Reagan Republicans? They changed the channel; they've seen enough of these ads.
They're not Obama supporters by any measure; my guess is that they just might hold their noses & vote for McCain. (My sister-in-law is still bitter about Hilary.) But at the same time, they could be convinced to vote for Obama; it's clear that they see that the Shrub has been a disaster.
Geoff
"Oh yeah... I would feel very safe with the threat of Iran... eliminated."
Is yet another war part of McCain's "Endless War" campaign strategy? Do you wonder why younger voters are flocking to Obama? Dying in another war is not that appealing to the people who would actually have to fight it.
BTW, what army would you use to attack Iran?
When's the next Florida poll coming out? It's been a long time since the last one on July 23rd. If it shows Obama ahead by 5% or more it could make this a Democrat state in the prediction tables.
Post a Comment