I've been moving at about half-speed for a number of reasons, but there are a couple of polls that have trickled in this weekend. In Rhode Island, Obama leads by 24 according to Rasmussen's first poll of the state. No surprise there. But in Georgia, InsiderAdvantage has John McCain ahead by only 2 points, 46-44, with 4 percent of the vote going to Bob Barr. This is consistent with an InsiderAdvantage poll released two weeks ago that had McCain ahead by 1. But it's inconsistent with other polling of the state, all of which has shown the state within a fairly narrow, 8-10 point range.
I can't scrutinize the internals on the InsiderAdvantage poll because they haven't provided them. Nor for that matter did Rasmussen (which showed McCain with a 10-point lead) break its results down by race. But here is a little bit of a hint -- Rasmussen had Obama trailing 65-32 among Georgians who attend church weekly, and since African-Americans are quite churchgoing in the South, that must mean that he's getting absolutely clobbered with the white persons in this category. There are probably fewer true swing voters in Georgia than in almost any other state, and while Obama has a floor on his numbers that is better than the Democrats have done recently, he probably also has a ceiling.
The Obama campaign's argument, of course, is that it doesn't need swing voters: it just needs to turn out the black vote. But it's not clear that there's a ton of room for improvement. In 2004, African-Americans made up 27.2 percent of Georgia's voting-age citizen population, versus 27.4 percent of its registered voters, and 27.6 percent of people who actually voted (all this data is taken from the US Census Bureau -- exit polling showed a slightly lower share of African-Americans voting in Georgia, about 25 percent).
Georgia is unusual for having not only a substantial black population, but also an especially well-educated and upwardly-mobile black population, and it is entirely plausible that African-Americans voters will turn out in greater proportion than their white counterparts. But I don't see Obama improving his standing with white evangelicals enough to win. Both foreign policy conservatives and fiscal conservatives can probably find enough to like about Obama to consider voting for him. But for religious conservatives, who are voting on a series of issues on which less nuance is possible, I'm not sure that's the case. Sure, you can be for publicly-financed faith-based initiatives and also for gay marriage remaining legal in California, but I don't think the two things cancel out in the same way that you can moderate your position on NAFTA or be hawkish on some elements of national security.
The 50-state Strategy, as well as the nation's changing demographics and the problems in Iraq and with the economy, are slowly beginning to neutralize these issues even in the Deep South, which is why Obama might lose Georgia by 6 or 8 or 10 points rather than John Kerry's 16. Even so, Southern religious conservatives remain the voters that Republicans are most used to reaching out to -- including McCain's chief strategist, who used to do work with the Jesse Helms campaign. Change is inevitable, but it's going to hit Virginia before it hits the Carolinas, and the Carolinas before it hits Georgia.
7.06.2008
Today's Polls, 7/5
by Nate Silver @ 12:26 AM...see also evangelicals, georgia, rhode island, today's polls, values
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

101 comments
Ok, so Obama does well in two polls...
Why did his electoral votes and win percentage go down?
-Mark
I saw an article on the obama website in the blog section that discussed how voter registration has been going through the roof (not in part by the 600,000 unregistered blacks). While the Obama campaign has registered over 30,000 young people in the past month. Is it possible that like the Iowa polls, that Georgia could present the same sort of surprise?
Mark @11:41:
I actually had the Georgia poll in the numbers yesterday (though I hadn't written it up). Also, I fiddled around a tiny bit more with the adjustment I implemented yesterday. But this is probably just random noise.
Sorry Nate but you are wrong on Dems winning in VA before NC and in NC before GA. I believe that Obama will win in VA and NC this year. Look at the cross tabs in the PPP polls for NC these past few months. Readjusting their obvious off-base African American numbers (not in terms of turnout, just margins between the candidates) and you see that Obama has been consistently ahead in the state.
I think Obama could win GA because of the help of Lib. Bob Barr. Bob Barr will siphon votes away from Obama and all Barr has to do is to get 5% of the vote+record african americans+ young voters. If he does, he wins the state.
It's amazing how dramatically the projection map has been shifting the last few months. The upper-midwest has gotten bluer- with IN going from dark red to a 50-50 white and at times light blue. VA has seen almost identical shifts to IN, with MO and NV going from light red to toss-up and back again seemingly in random fashion- with FL following suit except with a more Republican pull. But perhaps most intriguingly of all is how NC, MT, AL, and the Dakotas have slowly shifted towards being white (especially the latest MT shift).
Perhaps most disappointingly as an Obama supporter is the shift in the deep south. It has appeared that MT, ND, CO, NM, and NV have been the true area where Obama's crossover appeal has been (along with IN, VA, and NC) whereas the deep south and likely MO were just early hype that seemed plausible, and still may be- but that has up to now been disappointing.
However, when the state of the race is GA still being under 10% win with close polling at this stage that's a very good sign for Obama's chances this election.
AK not AL (that'll never happen-too many racist whites)
Sorry guys,
The Obama campaign has jumped the shark. Daily Kos is steaming on his dainly position changes. They thought he was a true believer. He is just power hungry, eager for the White House. I give him about two weeks before the polls sour on him. His liberal supporters will leave like rats on the Titanic.
Daily Kos has a main objective of having Democrats win- and yes not everyone has liked everything about Obama- but the so called issue you bring up of liberals leaving Obama is insanely stupid. McCain is the one with the base problem. Liberals understand McCain winning would be terrible and would vote for Obama despite a turn to the center. Some conservatives won't vote for McCain because he has become to centrist in their minds. This is also moronic since he has become Bush's biggest backer in his voting record- which in turn has hurt him among swing voters who hate bush. so swing and hardcore conservatives have an issue with McCain and may not vote or will go Barr- while almost all non PUMA liberals will go Obama because they know what a mistake it would be to let McCain win
Let's say for the sake of argument that there was going to be a massive increase in African American turnout.
Is this the kind of thing that the pollsters would be picking up now (or at all)? Or do we have to make our own guesses and factor them in?
Pollsters have to factor it in since they weight the polls by many factors, one of which is race.
All the faith-based stuff in the world isn't going to help with Deep South white evangelicals. I know them, I am surrounded by them, I have been around them all my life, and they only care about four things:
1.) Abortion
2.) Abortion
3.) Abortion
4.) Gays
Now, we may can pull out some of the South because of the black and Millenial vote, but as far as winning over the evangelicals...not down here. It ain't gonna happen. Basically, we're just gonna have to wait for these people to die. We are NEVER going to win them over with ANY other issue. Period.
Nate,
Does your model factor in the propensity for third-party support to collapse? My sense is that candidates like Nader in 2000 or Barr this year poll much better than they end up doing. Especially if it's a close race, a lot of potential Barr voters will go into the voting booth and end up holding their noses and voting for what they perceive to be the lesser evil, which, especially in Georgia, will probably be McCain.
Is it possible that the ad buys in Georgia by the Obama campaign are primarily intended to keep Mitt Romney off the Republican ticket?
The reason I say that is, if Georgia is seriously in play, Romney is a dangerous VP choice. Evangelicals would rather vote for just about anybody before they vote for a Mormon. Not only do most consider Mormonism a cult, but evangelical Christians and Mormons are in competition throughout the world for new members. A Mormon becoming Vice President would be an important boost to Mormon proselytization efforts, and evangelicals are not eager to see that happen.
I think Romney is McCain's best VP choice (particularly in regard to Michigan and Ohio), but that only works if his selection doesn't harm McCain with his Southern base. Moreover, it's hard to believe Obama really thinks that Georgia matters in terms of getting him elected. If Obama wins Georgia, he will almost certainly have won in VA, Ohio, Colorado, etc., and be well over 300 electoral votes. Georgia will never be part of a narrow EV victory coalition.
However, competitive races in Georgia and Florida could be enough to keep Romney off the GOP ticket. Whether that is behind Obama's current play for Georgia is hard to say, but it is as good as explanation as any for this focus on Georgia by the Obama campaign.
I forgot to mention that Romney probably helps McCain in two more important states--Colorado and Nevada. Further reason for Obama to get creative in trying to keep Romney off the ballot.
It is more than likely that John McCain will have the resources to fend off Obama by narrow-to-moderate margins in VA, NC and GA. I think it is very unlikely Obama will win in any of those states. I think they're trying to build infrastructure in those areas, while trying to run McCain out of cash to compete in other states, but I doubt it will flip any states blue this time around.
What the Obama campaign is banking on (speculatively) is a solid base foundation on winning PA, OH, and MI that will bring him most of the way up to the top. All of those states are necessary and he has the resources and demographics to take them by large margins. He will play hard in the west, where states like CO, NM and NV may flip democratic (CO especially is looking pretty solid for Obama). But once the negative campaigning is in full swing in the South, it is going to erase Obama's narrow margin.
I am curious if McCain will ever call Obama's bluff and buy ad time in GA. If he does then Obama's strategy of bleeding his opponent's funds will be proven very effective.
Don't know anything about Georgia in particular, but I wonder if people here aren't underestimating the possibility of massive African American turnout. Combine a once-in-a-lifetime chance to elect a black president with Obama's legendary ground operations, and couldn't it go vastly higher than last time? I don't see why we should think it's going to be capped at just over 1 in 4; 1 in 3? 1 in 2? 2 in 3? Nobody knows - the situation is unprecedented.
As far as Obama's strategy goes, I think it's been mentioned here before: A diversified portfolio. He could win the traditional way with the Rust Belt, the moderate Mountain West way or the Massive Black Awakening way. None of them is a sure thing, but the things that would blow them off course are fairly independent of each other. It makes sense to keep those options open as long as possible - and if he can afford it, right up to the election.
Naomi,
By your reasoning about the disputes between Mormons and evangelicals (which has merit), Romney would then be a terrible choice for McCain in Colorado.
The Colorado Springs area is the home of many evangelical mega-churches, as well as James Dobson and his organization, Focus on the Family. Outside of the southern states, Colorado probably has the highest percentage of evangelicals. However, Colorado has been trending bluer as the Denver metro area has continued its explosive growth, the reason that the state has been trending bluer over the past decade.
In any event, I would be surprised if McCain picked Romney as VP (given their personal animus), but then again, McCain's choices are rather limited.
I'm inclined to agree with Nate that VA and NC are considerably more likely to shift to the Democratic column than GA. And while I suspect that VA will turn blue this year, I continue to be skeptical about NC.
If that is true, however, and it's accompanied by shifts in states out west, the GOP faces the bleak prospect of being a regional rump party rather than a viable national opposition.
Ironically, Karl Rove took his inspiration for creating a "permanent GOP majority" from the 1896 McKinley election, a period of Republican dominance that lasted until 1932 broken only by Wilson and the Progressive split in the GOP in 1912-16.
In reality, it's beginning to look like the Rovian strategy puts the GOP in the position of the Democrats in that period; a party that relies on a solid south to even remain in existence and with little chance to win nationally.
The bottom line is that a political party that relies on the solid south to survive is an almost sure loser in American politics. The more the GOP follows that strategy, the less likely it is to compete on a national scale.
Hi Nate and others,
I'd love to see a written justification for lumping North and South Carolina together besides the fact that they share a name.
North Carolina is a state dominated by Dems at the state level, with the Gov, majority of the Congressional delegation are Dems (7 of 13), and in 2006 Dems expanded their majority in both houses of the General Assembly.
In 2004, Bush won NC by 12 and SC by 17. Since 2004, NC was one of the first states tartgetted in the 50 state strategy by Howard Dean's DNC. There have been 3 regional coordinators put in place in WNC, the Piedmont (which is where all the people are) and Tidewater, to organize around those specific people's needs.
I lived in the western part of the state, where we beat Virginia Foxx in her home county by 1000 votes, kicked a bunch of Republicans out of the NC General Assembly, and sent Heath Shuler to Congress over an incumbent Republican. The on-the-ground organizing there is unbelievable and is changing how things happen on election day. Dems in Watauga County have by far the most sophisticated GOTV machine I have ever seen. And they are progressive.
Secondly, most of the population of NC is base in the "industrial crescent" from Charlotte up to Winston-Salem and ought to Raleigh/Chapel Hill/Durham. These areas have tremendous college populations, "upwardly-mobile African Americans" as Nate calls them (I think of Charlotte as a smaller Atlanta), and a lot of Urban/Suburban voters.
The Tidewater area is heavily African American and Dems generally tend to perform well there. Particularly if Obama improves on Kerry's numbers among military personel, the tidewater region could be a rout for Obama.
This is all incredibly promising because North Carolina has 15 freakin Electoral votes the same amount as New Jersey, and just two less than Michigan. Its a BIG piece of low-hanging fruit.
I've been pleased that SC looks potentially competitive this year. but I don't think it has the same swing potential as North Carolina, and I think lumping them together is inaccurate, and maybe a little sloppy.
Back to Sunday coffee... :)
peace,
faithfull
Among the handful of Evangelicals I know, opinion seems to be shifting (yes, the plural of "anecdote"). Or rather, the weightings given to existing opinions seem to be shifting. Abortion is still a top issue, but stopping gays from doing their thing maybe isn't so important. And what's been on the rise:
-- Diplomacy rather than militarism abroad.
-- Effective government rather than cronyism. Katrina especially.
-- Poverty. "As you do to the least among you, so you do unto me."
I don't know how many Evangelicals would be willing to hold their noses and vote for a pro-choice candidate on the strength of "peace abroad, social justice at home". But I'm guessing it's more than zero, and more than 4 or 8 years ago. W was going to be the "compassionate conservative" with a "humble" foreign policy, remember? Yeah, they do too.
Incidentally, think of Huckabee. He did very well among Evangelicals by combining his moral compass and biography with a populist economic program. Evangelicals and corporate/wealthy interests are not a natural marriage, and the strain has started to show in the Republican party.
Speaking of Jesse Helm.
I would like to start a campaign for Jesse Helms to be buried under the steps of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.
Virginia and North Carolina are somewhat similar politically and demographically, with one major exception: Northern Virginia is much larger than the Research Triangle. If Obama wins the nationwide popular vote by 3%, I believe the Virginia result would be just about tied whereas McCain would win NC by a solid 3-4%. If Obama wins the nationwide popular vote by more like 5-6%, he'll win Virginia solidly and North Carolina will come into play.
But if Romney joins the McCain ticket, I think Obama wins Virginia going away (and probably wins North Carolina too). Virginia is the home of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Despite Northern Virginia, it is still home to a huge number of evangelicals and Romney doesn't play at all in places like Lynchburg and Chesapeake.
Even if Romney can help in Michigan, Ohio, and Nevada, he'll hurt much more in Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado.
With all this additional voter registration, increased enthusiasm & the exceptionally high turnout in the primaries, does anyone know if the individual states are preparing for this?
Is there something we can do to make sure everyone actually gets to vote? I am starting to get quite concerned about what is going to happen on election day. The last thing we need is to have people lined up for 8 or 10 hours to try to vote. We've worked so hard to get people registered & to turn them out that it would be a real shame if all these new voters become disallusioned because they couldn't vote.
i don't think it's too early to start thinking about this. I know I called my state's office 3 weeks before the primary to express my concern & they still only had 1/4 of the ballots we needed even though they had tripled the number they normally print.
Word of mouth, e-mail and other under-the-radar racial/religious slur campaign tactics will be centered on the Deep South - we've already gotten hints of this, e.g., from operatives in Tennessee - and won't be reflected reliably in poll data.
Countering that, Obama's strength among younger and black voters could be under-represented in polling samples. (Yes, I know pollsters try to compensate, but the MOE on those subgroups is way higher.)
Still, if I were betting (I'm not), I wouldn't give Obama more than an outside chance in NC or MO and none at all in the Deep South.
His true red-to-blue prospects (in descending order) are IA, OH, NM, VA, CO, IN, FLA, NV, MT and ND.
Obama's jump to the middle may upset the left, but they will continue to support him because they no there is no alternative. Obama's move to the left will be the most shrewd move he has made come November. What everyone is missing is that Obama is forcing McCain to compete and spend time/money in states he shouldn't have to. Montana, Indiana, North Dakota, Virginia, North Carolina...
Can anyone say LANDSLIDE!!!
Councellororben:
Yes, I stand corrected about Colorado. I knew about the evangelicals, but thought they would be more than compensated for by a strong Colorado Mormon population. I was suprised to find that Mormons are actually only about 2% of Colorado's population, much smaller than the other mountain states. And Utah is right next door! Strange. It's almost as though Mormons deliberately avoid Colorado.
www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html
Still, McCain may have no choice but to pick Romney. He needs money badly, and Romney is nothing if not a proven fundraiser within the business and Mormon communities. Also, if Romney is on the ticket, he may be able to donate umpteen millions of his personal wealth to the McCain campaign, although the law is apparently unclear on this issue.
www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0607/Mike_for_Veep.html
From many peoples posts I feel pretty certain that many of you don't understand the 50 state strategy. Obama is competing hard in the following swing states: NV, MT, ND, SD, CO, NM, MO, IA, IN, MI, OH, PA, NH, VA, AK, NC, GA, and FL. Now obviously he does not have to win all of these states to get elected. If he wins OH and keeps KErry states he has won, and he looks very solid in almost all the Kerry states.
But what he cannot do is what Kerry did and focus almost exclusively on one or two key swing states- OH and FL for Kerry. That strategy left IA, MO, and NM as Bush states that could have gone Kerry with more initiative (he could have won that way without OH), and left WI dangerously close to flipping with too little protection in campaigning.
The problem with that strategy is that it is easy to defend- particularly in 2004 when the Republicans had a good chance at winning and there were less swing states. Bush already had a huge OH core, and campaigned very hard there to fend off Kerry and it worked beautifully for him. This year Obama has learned (and Dean had already picked up on immediately after 2004- and essentially during the election when he was still a candidate running almost the same way Obama is now).
The 50 state strategy- focusing on the states I listed above is so that McCain has follow suit. Yes many of those states seem like safe GOP states,but can he take that risk? GA has polled within 2 twice and rumors of voter registration make it dangerous to ignore especially with Obama staffing the state. McCain will have to pay to compete there- and he has less money and people so that limits his abilities to focus on MI, OH, and PA the targets he is really focused on to win.
Run down of the other swing states and why he's competing there-
NV- has been close for more than a decade. LV is the fastest growing city and shows promise- it can definitely swing very realistically- putting money into the state helps his chances means McCain will HAVE to follow suit. Plus- the best part of the 50 state strategy (which is true for all the states) it helps collect data on voters- helps create a voting base for Dems- and helps down ticket candidates like the Senate- which in turn helps the future Dem presidents govern successfully.
MT- Obama up 5 last poll- McCain was to arrogant to put VA as a swing state before- good chance he doesn't campaign hard here when Obama does and he loses 3 EV's he could have sured up had McCain worked hard here.
ND- Mini MT with polling etc so far- can make it 6 EV from the region if McCain doesn't work hard here- which makes some sense- he has less money can't compete all out for 3 EV states - he needs to focus on the midwestern states to win- but Obama can focus here and will.
SD- Same as two above with less of a chance. Some overlapping markets for ads, and same problem for McCain will make it close- it to has 3 EV's- but these will be harder to come by for Obama. Although senate races will be sured up by Obama campaigning as will other state elections for some time to come.
CO-Perhaps one of the best pick up chances. The convention will help pick up 9 EV's and help with a senate spot that looks very likely Dem as well. If CO turns Dem and can stay that way (it has potential to turn Dem for the election onwards which isn't true for all swing states)- Obama and the Dems can offset the EVs that will be lost from EV numbers shifting in a way thats favorable to REpublicans- plus, wihtout 9 EV's that Republicans have counted on close elections get more desperate for them for some time to come.
NM-Same as CO except 5 EV's. Has been one of the closest states in every recent election- has gone Dem 3/4 last elections- not 04- and can be turned into a more solid Democratic state with CO if Obama does very well here for a while to come.
MO- Perhaps Kerry's worst performance is here- could have been much closer and gone his way. Always close- and a tremendous history of going the same way as the winner make this perhaps the best bell-weather state. KC, and St. L go Dem- Sen McCaskil won in a state where Republicans have dominated local posts with a strategy Obama can duplicate- plus shes been a big and early supporter and is popular. Going big in cities wasn't enough for Kerry and won't be for Obama. McCaskil credits winning with going into rural Republican dominated areas for winning (and not doing this means losing in her opinion). Obama like her has the ability to go into tough terrain and be effective. MO is close and will likely stay a swing state for a long time-but he can certainly pick it up, and if he does it makes it very very hard for McCain to win this election.
IA-Like MO Kerry blew it here. McCain will throw money into the state (like he stupidly will do in MN) and Obama has a big lead here- he can play defense and focus onother states and allow McCain to blow money on a state he shouldn't.
IN- As 50-50 as can be right now. IN has been very far from swing state for ever- winning here could be a huge turning point. Just making IN a swing state is avictory. It has been solid Republican forever but has similar demographics to neighboring states that are safe Dem or have a history of being swing- about time IN joins the swing state list and doesn't get handed over time after time to the Republican.
MI-Like FL Obama started late and McCain has ammo to use against the democrats. MI has been fairly solid DEm- especially at the state level where Dems rule and face poor competition- see Levin's polling for proof. McCain needs this state and will run for OH, MI, and PA like Kerry did OH- all Obama has to do is what Bush did in OH in '04- play defense and hold onto a state he has a solid base in- and then sure up all these other states in the list.
OH-The ultimate swing state. Look at Nate's numbers on losing OH and winning the election. Both sides believe they need OH. Looking at EV McCain does. Obama can win without it- but if he lost OH than he probably took a huge hit and will lose almost all the sates on this list making the race seem like a repeat of 04 in McCains favor.
PA-Same as MI- has to hold on to it.
NH- Huge swing state. NAte tlaks about it swinging much faster and stronger depending on polling trends than any other state. Right now that menas looking good for Obama- but if McCain gets momentum it will be tos-up quicker than any other state. Cheap to run in- the Democratic senator Shaheen can upend the Republican Sununu- and help the senate balance as well. NH is surrounded by the bluest of blue states (VT 100% chance Obama) MA and ME, about time the Democrats run strong in NH at all levels (it has gone very blue for state election since 04) and de-swing state NH.
VA- 13 EV's and a swing state that has gone REp forever.... that's a great sign for Obama. He wins here how does McCain get 270???? It'd be tough- especially since McCain has been unwilling to admit its swing state status. Obama has bundles of cash and can compete here harder than McCain- it'd be a huge pickup. Plus Warner and other DEms have made the state look blue for state politics- why not national as well? Polling backs this up.
AK-While not tantalizingly close yet it could be. AK has been incredibly red and the notion of a Dem competing her would be laughable only months ago. 3 EVs is no big deal- but like the Dakotas and MT, why not go for it? Non expensive ads, appearances count much more in a state that has been ignored and is so far away- and the state seems to have been very dissatisfied with Bush and is ready to turn that into Democratic momentum. Run with that to make this election close here- and to start the path for it becoming a swing state instead of a state to give up on.
NC-15 EV's. Like VA's 13 EV's this could be the icing on the cake. Unlike VA it has less favorable demographics- but has been a DEan and Obama target for some time. Turning it blue would mean certain victory. Expensive for sure- but McCain can't compete too hard here without hampering his chances in MI OH and PA- since his only chance is Obama loses his polling and momentum and those states become close and turn red to sure up his election. Like Nate said- VA and NC willturn blue before GA- well-if they turn blue prematurely for the 50 state plan-that means relaistic democratic chances in GA and the South would be coming soon...that'd be fantastic for Obama and the Dems- people thought NC may be next year's VA.... well if VA and NC both go are other southern states next elections VA and NC???
GA-Like above, GA may some time coming- but registration has increased dramatically, and the unique dynamics of the state make it interesting. Obama may have a floor and a ceiling in GA- but it could be very close. +1 and +2 polls for McCain could be dangerous with increased turnout. Lot of speculation about if the race tightens- but if McCain loses the somewhat close polling and drops down nationally by 8+ that could hasten the change spoken of in the NC column.
FL- Like OH the next biggest swing state. For whatever reason (probably high PUMA's due to FL rulings in DCCC and lots of Hillary supporters... btw the Jewish concern is unrealistic for Obama he wins that vote big) Obama hasn't been able to show steady growth in FL like in almost every other state- perhaps similar to NV and MO where he also get s close and falls in a random way. 27 EV's for a swing state- all that needs to be said. Popular Gov Crist has it seemed turned the state redder than in 04 even with Bush destroying America for 4 years. Obama unlike Clinton and many democratic strategists thinking does not at all need FL, but he has money to fight for it. If McCain spends big here winning other swing states become hard. If Obama wins here its over.
Overall- VA, NC, and FL are knock out blows for Obama. Suring up OH cna be as well. MI, and PA look safe but need protection from McCain attacks. All the otehr states are gravy- but some- like CO and NM- will likelygo Obama. Pickingup many smaller states is the same as picking up one bigstate and can help lessen the loss of a big state-sya Obama loses OH-picking up VA, CO, and NM cna negate the loss. Picking up ND,MT, MO, and/or NV can act as a collective knockout as well.
The strategy is to help Democrats in all 50 states, and make McCain spread his resources thin while Obama can use his staff, energy advantage, and money advantage to steamroll McCain in states that would be clsoe Obama otherwise, and turn swing states blue.
Campaigning in GA is not dumb unless somehow Obama drops hard and OH, MI, and PA tighten up to the point the money he spent elsewhere would have made the difference in those now crucial states.
He needs to spread the map for two reasons. Make it harder for McCain to compete now and to win big this election, and 2- to help senate and state elections now and into the future while at the same time getting info and resources and personnel into swing or lean republican states so that in many elections to come the democratic candidate can compete with more strength and more of an ability to pick up states- a process Obama has amazingly put into hyper-drive
From many peoples posts I feel pretty certain that many of you don't understand the 50 state strategy. Obama is competing hard in the following swing states: NV, MT, ND, SD, CO, NM, MO, IA, IN, MI, OH, PA, NH, VA, AK, NC, GA, and FL. Now obviously he does not have to win all of these states to get elected. If he wins OH and keeps KErry states he has won, and he looks very solid in almost all the Kerry states.
But what he cannot do is what Kerry did and focus almost exclusively on one or two key swing states- OH and FL for Kerry. That strategy left IA, MO, and NM as Bush states that could have gone Kerry with more initiative (he could have won that way without OH), and left WI dangerously close to flipping with too little protection in campaigning.
The problem with that strategy is that it is easy to defend- particularly in 2004 when the Republicans had a good chance at winning and there were less swing states. Bush already had a huge OH core, and campaigned very hard there to fend off Kerry and it worked beautifully for him. This year Obama has learned (and Dean had already picked up on immediately after 2004- and essentially during the election when he was still a candidate running almost the same way Obama is now).
The 50 state strategy- focusing on the states I listed above is so that McCain has follow suit. Yes many of those states seem like safe GOP states,but can he take that risk? GA has polled within 2 twice and rumors of voter registration make it dangerous to ignore especially with Obama staffing the state. McCain will have to pay to compete there- and he has less money and people so that limits his abilities to focus on MI, OH, and PA the targets he is really focused on to win.
Run down of the other swing states and why he's competing there-
NV- has been close for more than a decade. LV is the fastest growing city and shows promise- it can definitely swing very realistically- putting money into the state helps his chances means McCain will HAVE to follow suit. Plus- the best part of the 50 state strategy (which is true for all the states) it helps collect data on voters- helps create a voting base for Dems- and helps down ticket candidates like the Senate- which in turn helps the future Dem presidents govern successfully.
MT- Obama up 5 last poll- McCain was to arrogant to put VA as a swing state before- good chance he doesn't campaign hard here when Obama does and he loses 3 EV's he could have sured up had McCain worked hard here.
ND- Mini MT with polling etc so far- can make it 6 EV from the region if McCain doesn't work hard here- which makes some sense- he has less money can't compete all out for 3 EV states - he needs to focus on the midwestern states to win- but Obama can focus here and will.
SD- Same as two above with less of a chance. Some overlapping markets for ads, and same problem for McCain will make it close- it to has 3 EV's- but these will be harder to come by for Obama. Although senate races will be sured up by Obama campaigning as will other state elections for some time to come.
CO-Perhaps one of the best pick up chances. The convention will help pick up 9 EV's and help with a senate spot that looks very likely Dem as well. If CO turns Dem and can stay that way (it has potential to turn Dem for the election onwards which isn't true for all swing states)- Obama and the Dems can offset the EVs that will be lost from EV numbers shifting in a way thats favorable to REpublicans- plus, wihtout 9 EV's that Republicans have counted on close elections get more desperate for them for some time to come.
NM-Same as CO except 5 EV's. Has been one of the closest states in every recent election- has gone Dem 3/4 last elections- not 04- and can be turned into a more solid Democratic state with CO if Obama does very well here for a while to come.
MO- Perhaps Kerry's worst performance is here- could have been much closer and gone his way. Always close- and a tremendous history of going the same way as the winner make this perhaps the best bell-weather state. KC, and St. L go Dem- Sen McCaskil won in a state where Republicans have dominated local posts with a strategy Obama can duplicate- plus shes been a big and early supporter and is popular. Going big in cities wasn't enough for Kerry and won't be for Obama. McCaskil credits winning with going into rural Republican dominated areas for winning (and not doing this means losing in her opinion). Obama like her has the ability to go into tough terrain and be effective. MO is close and will likely stay a swing state for a long time-but he can certainly pick it up, and if he does it makes it very very hard for McCain to win this election.
IA-Like MO Kerry blew it here. McCain will throw money into the state (like he stupidly will do in MN) and Obama has a big lead here- he can play defense and focus onother states and allow McCain to blow money on a state he shouldn't.
IN- As 50-50 as can be right now. IN has been very far from swing state for ever- winning here could be a huge turning point. Just making IN a swing state is avictory. It has been solid Republican forever but has similar demographics to neighboring states that are safe Dem or have a history of being swing- about time IN joins the swing state list and doesn't get handed over time after time to the Republican.
MI-Like FL Obama started late and McCain has ammo to use against the democrats. MI has been fairly solid DEm- especially at the state level where Dems rule and face poor competition- see Levin's polling for proof. McCain needs this state and will run for OH, MI, and PA like Kerry did OH- all Obama has to do is what Bush did in OH in '04- play defense and hold onto a state he has a solid base in- and then sure up all these other states in the list.
OH-The ultimate swing state. Look at Nate's numbers on losing OH and winning the election. Both sides believe they need OH. Looking at EV McCain does. Obama can win without it- but if he lost OH than he probably took a huge hit and will lose almost all the sates on this list making the race seem like a repeat of 04 in McCains favor.
PA-Same as MI- has to hold on to it.
NH- Huge swing state. NAte tlaks about it swinging much faster and stronger depending on polling trends than any other state. Right now that menas looking good for Obama- but if McCain gets momentum it will be tos-up quicker than any other state. Cheap to run in- the Democratic senator Shaheen can upend the Republican Sununu- and help the senate balance as well. NH is surrounded by the bluest of blue states (VT 100% chance Obama) MA and ME, about time the Democrats run strong in NH at all levels (it has gone very blue for state election since 04) and de-swing state NH.
VA- 13 EV's and a swing state that has gone REp forever.... that's a great sign for Obama. He wins here how does McCain get 270???? It'd be tough- especially since McCain has been unwilling to admit its swing state status. Obama has bundles of cash and can compete here harder than McCain- it'd be a huge pickup. Plus Warner and other DEms have made the state look blue for state politics- why not national as well? Polling backs this up.
AK-While not tantalizingly close yet it could be. AK has been incredibly red and the notion of a Dem competing her would be laughable only months ago. 3 EVs is no big deal- but like the Dakotas and MT, why not go for it? Non expensive ads, appearances count much more in a state that has been ignored and is so far away- and the state seems to have been very dissatisfied with Bush and is ready to turn that into Democratic momentum. Run with that to make this election close here- and to start the path for it becoming a swing state instead of a state to give up on.
NC-15 EV's. Like VA's 13 EV's this could be the icing on the cake. Unlike VA it has less favorable demographics- but has been a DEan and Obama target for some time. Turning it blue would mean certain victory. Expensive for sure- but McCain can't compete too hard here without hampering his chances in MI OH and PA- since his only chance is Obama loses his polling and momentum and those states become close and turn red to sure up his election. Like Nate said- VA and NC willturn blue before GA- well-if they turn blue prematurely for the 50 state plan-that means relaistic democratic chances in GA and the South would be coming soon...that'd be fantastic for Obama and the Dems- people thought NC may be next year's VA.... well if VA and NC both go are other southern states next elections VA and NC???
GA-Like above, GA may some time coming- but registration has increased dramatically, and the unique dynamics of the state make it interesting. Obama may have a floor and a ceiling in GA- but it could be very close. +1 and +2 polls for McCain could be dangerous with increased turnout. Lot of speculation about if the race tightens- but if McCain loses the somewhat close polling and drops down nationally by 8+ that could hasten the change spoken of in the NC column.
FL- Like OH the next biggest swing state. For whatever reason (probably high PUMA's due to FL rulings in DCCC and lots of Hillary supporters... btw the Jewish concern is unrealistic for Obama he wins that vote big) Obama hasn't been able to show steady growth in FL like in almost every other state- perhaps similar to NV and MO where he also get s close and falls in a random way. 27 EV's for a swing state- all that needs to be said. Popular Gov Crist has it seemed turned the state redder than in 04 even with Bush destroying America for 4 years. Obama unlike Clinton and many democratic strategists thinking does not at all need FL, but he has money to fight for it. If McCain spends big here winning other swing states become hard. If Obama wins here its over.
Overall- VA, NC, and FL are knock out blows for Obama. Suring up OH cna be as well. MI, and PA look safe but need protection from McCain attacks. All the otehr states are gravy- but some- like CO and NM- will likelygo Obama. Pickingup many smaller states is the same as picking up one bigstate and can help lessen the loss of a big state-sya Obama loses OH-picking up VA, CO, and NM cna negate the loss. Picking up ND,MT, MO, and/or NV can act as a collective knockout as well.
The strategy is to help Democrats in all 50 states, and make McCain spread his resources thin while Obama can use his staff, energy advantage, and money advantage to steamroll McCain in states that would be clsoe Obama otherwise, and turn swing states blue.
Campaigning in GA is not dumb unless somehow Obama drops hard and OH, MI, and PA tighten up to the point the money he spent elsewhere would have made the difference in those now crucial states.
He needs to spread the map for two reasons. Make it harder for McCain to compete now and to win big this election, and 2- to help senate and state elections now and into the future while at the same time getting info and resources and personnel into swing or lean republican states so that in many elections to come the democratic candidate can compete with more strength and more of an ability to pick up states- a process Obama has amazingly put into hyper-drive
Nate - living in GA I can see the makings of a win here. I am in Atlanta and we see Obama bumper stickers daily. Nothing for McCain, no talk about him, nothing. Just a sign but an early one.
My question to you is do your calcs have any adjustment for the enhtusiasm factor/or lack thereof for Obama and McCain?
Atlanta is a unique place and is large enough along with Athens ( U GA) and Savannah to carry the state with large young and Afro American turnout - IF Bob Barr can get over 4% which as a local I think he can.
Remember we had 100,000 Katrina evacuees here along with strong growth the last 4 years population wise and the voter reg. work is going gangbusters here with 150++ Obama fellows
I have housed up to 4 early staffers and went to a House Party last week and it looked like a McCain demographic - avg. age 50-60, white, fed up with the country's direction...
There will be 120 f/t staffers in GA, most here as well as these fellows....
If Obama does not win here it will not be for lack of an all hands effort....or enthusiasm...just a couple points of Repubs staying home due to McCain distaste will be the real issue along with Barr and a HUGE black turnout....GA is going blue..
Sorry for posting that twice I apologize, and I know that it is amazingly long- but I'm bored and its important.
Go Obama
Nice insight James- another point on AK you left out though. They have the closest senate race- Obama going to AK can help him there but may also provide the boost to Begich he needs to finally get a comfortable lead over Stevens- who is the worst pork fiend in the senate and was investigated over corruption.
Not that there is of course any bias- but all the recent changes seemed to have helped McCain and he's still down big. The main premise of the projection vs. the trend docks Obama around 2 points. While this is based on historical evidence and I agree makes the projections seem more realistic right now- I think Obama won't dip in future polling. The debates will be an old poor speaking Bushian Republican vs an exciting and once-in-a-lifetime politician with great speaking abilities- after each debate Obama will shoot up. As ads intensify the link to Bush will drive McCain down, and the conventions will be a plus for Obama if he goes 75k people, otherwise that and the VP picks will be a wash. Not sure why he'd drop- if anything looking at dynamics and the Republican brand McCain will drop and Obama will pickup a lot of surprise states- VA, NC, GA, MO, NV, MT, ND etc. and make many states closer than should be for McCain.
Why is it always assumed that black turnout can only rise as high as white turnout? That there isn't room for improvement just because they are already voting at roughly their share of the population?
Given high enthusiasm among black voters and low enthusiasm among many southern whites, why can't black turnout be significantly higher than white turnout this election?
Another example of Obama's campaign strategy being way better than McCain's: Obama spent the Fourth in Montana, a small state where such a thing is a big deal. McCain wasted the key image day of the Fourth at his home and on the July 3 he was in Mexico City (just what his amnesty critics need to hear). WTF?
I look the media and i'm shocked how they are disgusting against Obama and this story about iraq.
His statement is responsable and he has not changed his position.
Always the media give a free pass for McCain and his positions.
Why much people think the msm is in the thank for Obama?
The reality is than the media has always been for the GOP.
I totally agree that VA is probably closer than GA, but as someone here in GA, and who was here in 04 and 00, it feels like the insideradvantage is more right on. While I know we self select in friends, most of the whites I know or either supporting Obama, or don't want to support McCain. More and more I talk to people here who hate Mccain, and I think many of them can be encouraged to vote Obama, vote Barr, or just stay home. Meanwhile, outside of larger areas of GA like ATL, Macon, and Savannah, the only pro-dem signs you could find in towns around here were in black parts of towns. This time I see Obama signs everywhere I go. Does it seem like McCain is leading? Yeah, but not nearly as much as Bush did. And also the enthusiasm gap is real and palpable here, ripe for exploitation.
I also wonder why there are positive (Obama) polls, but the electoral numbers went down.
Regarding matters of substance and being someone who pretty much has a knee-jerk reaction to 'faith based', in Obama's first book, he talks about doing community organizing for and with churches. The churches are very important in many communities. His faith based program will be different from the current one.
Regarding Iraq, as has been stated here, he is for ending the war in a careful way. Of course, he will listen to the military commanders.
I'm afraid the media AND maybe even some supporters notice everything, but don't read and think about the actual words.
The Rhode Island poll is outstanding news for Barack. I have now moved RI into the Barach column in the Kerry-Obama race. Barack is very nearly at a complete sweep at this point. Barack is doing better than Kerry almost everywhere, which Georgia is just another example.
Nate Silver: I don't see Obama improving his standing with white evangelicals enough to win. Both foreign policy conservatives and fiscal conservatives can probably find enough to like about Obama to consider voting for him. But for religious conservatives, who are voting on a series of issues on which less nuance is possible, I'm not sure that's the case.
Nate,
I suspect that there's a disconnect here between Southern religious voters and Midwestern evangelicals. Specifically, some evangelicals in the midwest and other parts of the country are starting to prioritize poverty and the environment over 'values' concerns like abortion and homosexuality.
Obama probably can't win religious voters in either region of the country, but it seems possible that he could get 30-35% of the evangelical vote in the midwest, while remaining mired in the mid-teens in the SE.
I don't have the numbers to support that theory, but it may be worth looking into if you can find census (or other reliable) data that differentiates the two groups.
Anyway, it's a distinction that may be as important in the general election as the distinction between Appalachain 'American' whites and whites in the rest of the country during the Democratic primary. So far, I've only seen anecdotal reporting on the subject, and no polling, but it may be worth looking into if polling data can be found to support it.
For instance, maybe it's worth considering a demographic breakdown in the regression analysis between Southern Baptists and other evangelicals, or some similiar division, if such data supports it.
.
In 2004, GA ranked 7th in the country for turnout of registered voters--78.1%--but was 47th for participation of voter eligible population (VEP)--53.9%.
In a State where nearly half the population did not participate in the 2004 election, Obama's voter registration drives could swing the State.
GOOD GOD
Can't you left wing, tree hugging liberals take a break. It is the beginning of July. Talk to me at the end of September and we will see if the ever changing Barack Hussein Obama is still close in Va., GA., or Co. or ahead in Ohio.
I suspect that with $5.00 a gallon gasoline Mr. No Drill will begin to drop in the polls in areas where the car is king, THE WEST. The last I heard cars don't run on Wind Power and Solar Power, and I believe that is Hussein's policy for America's Energy future.
This election is still going to go down to this, "Mr. President, Iran just dropped an Atomic Bomb on Israel, what do we do?
Who do you want in the oval office answering this question, Barack "Hussein" Obama, or John "The Hero" McCain.
I have lived in the South a total of 26 years, of which, 18 years in Georgia.
My view is that a majority of voters do consider a mix of social, fiscal and foreign policy issues. The balance of their views change and trend over time.
They may be evangelical, college liberal, fiscal conservative, whatever; but they do make voting decisions based on social, fiscal and foreign policy issues.
However, there is a minority group with little interest in policy that revels in its own backwardness. We called them "proud to be stupid" (PTBS). They openly disdain any form of personal or societal progress. Redneck stereotypes might roughly characterize this group, if you remove humor as a temporizing factor. Replace this with vicious racism and personal meanness. If you tortured a cat to death in the right location, even in suburban Atlanta, a crowd would form and cheer you on. They undoubtedly loved GWB strutting around on the aircraft carrier in his flightsuit. The fact that he spent his own flying years throwing up in the toilet helps them identify with him on a more personal basis.
The broader trend from moderate to conservative since the 1980's in Georgia can be seen in the evolution of Senator Zell Miller from Democrat to de facto Republican. The election of Saxby Chambliss represented a continuation of this trend, but Chambliss also made a deliberate appeal to the nasty minority referred to above. He used racist code words and savaged triple amputee war hero Max Cleland with baseless attacks on his patriotism.
(Saxby Chambliss did not serve in the military).
This PTBS voting group probably made the difference is electing Saxby. He is running for reelection, and I expect he will have coattails up the ticket, to the disadvantage of Obama. The Georgia Republican party will get out its base in some fashion; and they will suppress or disenfranchise the vote among black, young and liberal voting demographics. It may not be for McCain, but he will benefit for being on the ticket.
I do not see as large a PTBS bloc remaining in VA and NC, I am pleased to say. This is why in VA, the "macaca" incident actually helped James Webb. In Georgia, it may still motivate a significant group of marginal voters (those who would not otherwise bother to vote).
To Anonamoose above:
A poll was just taken on Daily Kos, 85% of the Kossacks are totally behind Obama's candidacy. Remember that the DailyKos, despite its Democratic orientation, has a readership with a vocal minority of independents, libertarians, Greens, disgruntled Republicans and a sprinkling of trolls and troublemakers. Some of these people though Obama was a "far" leftist or absolute Naderite, or Greenie in Dem clothing, whatever these absurdist notions might mean in our right-wing oriented political culture.
Obama was never any of these things. When the dreamers woke up, they started screaming. The only change Obama has made, and I agree it's significant, is he has softened his stance on the FISA bill. A sad compromise and an unnecessary one, in my opinion. But is is disingenuous for Republicans to get so hot and bothered about it. They are the ones responsible for this whole mess in the first place.
JoeG-
First using Hussein is an abhorrent attempt to spread racist and fear based tactics into politics. Classifying Obama s Hussein while classifying McCain as The Hero is ludicrous. Is that his middle name- yes, is John McCain a hero for what he endured in the war-yes-no one will argue those- but to characterize the two candidates this way is despicable. You mention an atomic attack on Israel yet fail to offer any reason why McCain would handle the situation better. You speak of 5 dollar a gallon gas and blame Obama's stance on drilling.
How about this- look at facts:
On the atomic situation there are less facts to think about. Admittedly it comes to opinion. Obama supporters will suggest McCain's temper andl ack of judgement in foreign policy are aliability and say Obama will bring America greater standing and thus true authority in the world. McCain supporters suggest Obama is naive and inexperienced and thus will be unable to handle these situations. Either opinion is fine as long as you have facts to support why you take your side- you mention none.
Gas- ignoring the fact that gas prices increased under Bush and we were lied to about the war and its impact on gas (they said it'd be cheaper) lets look at facts. Drilling won't have an impact for a decade- when it will drop prices maybe 5 percent. Economists unanimously agree it is apolitical gimmick like the tax holiday. Cars do not run on wind or solar. But they dont have to run on gas. They can be electric or hydrogen etc. But alternative energy isthe best way to decrease demand for oil. And if you have taken any class on economics- or understand the economy- you will know decreasing demand means lowering prices. Ohh, and since republicans lose jobs and the real wages of americans have dropped gas is really more expensive than it may seem especially with the dollar- which bush has ruined.
So unless you can use facts to back your ideas or claims you have no reason to comment. You purposely post to be difficult and it is childish and despicable. This site is for appropriate and well reasoned thought. Spreading racism and hate has no place here. It has nothing to do with supporting McCain, it has to do with your method of posting and the character of the posts. Political discourse from both sides is encouraged and sought out here- even if the site has more liberal minded fans.
Nate,
You said the up and down these last couple days "is probably just random noise." On another post within the last couple days, you noted that really it only take 15 minutes CPU times to run all the data. How much more of an effort would it be to run 50K or 100K or 500K, instead of 10K? This isn't meant to give you more too much work, but realistically, would it be worth seeing what a difference that made, at least for a couple weeks?
Keep up the excellent work.
Sunny Steve
Your name should be changed Dour Dan. How dare you call people names who differ from you politically.
Your argument is that anybody who supports a Republican is nothing but a stupid Redneck.
How about black people, they are going to support BHO by something like 9/10. Are all black people stupid and racists because they refuse to consider a man like John McCain, who is a hero and has 10 times the experience of BHO. Are they PTBS?
Furthermore, you indict all people who vote for McCain or Bush as Racists. You must have forgotten about BHO attending a church where the Pastor God Damned America and talked about how bad White People are and how great a man Louis Farrakhan is. Are the people who attend this church PTBS?
Look at the facts Dour Dan, I mean Sunny Steve, BHO is a left wing liberal, for abortion, gun control( or he was until a few days ago) against NAFTA (or he was until a few days ago) for public funding of Presidential campaigns ( or he was until a few days ago) against faith based church programs (or he was until a few days ago) against a law that stopped late term abortions (or he was until a few days ago) for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq (or he was until a few days ago) would talk to dictators the world over without any preconditions( or he would until a few days ago)
Anybody that supports BHO must be PTBS because who would support such an unqualified, shifting political hack such as BHO. You Sunny Dan must be PTBS.
Funny how you just criticized Sunny Steve for calling people names and then call him Dour Dan- kind of as if you were calling him names because he didn't agree with you.
Although I agree with your point about calling all McCain supporters racist or dumb- that is clearly not the case.
As for your "facts" you fail to mention any flip-flop of McCains- of which there are of course many. By the way- the BHO like I said earlier discredits you on your attempt for civility and fairness as you are clearly using his middle name to incite racism...
The paragraph starting Look at the facts Dour Dan... well you could change liberal to conservative and change the flip flops to McCain's- so it's unclear as to why that paragraph has any weight- the polling shows most americans see them as equally prone to flip-flopping so that arguement makes little sense.
Your attacks on Wright and Farrakhan are as sleazy and off-based as use of Hussein. Are they issues- yes- but they can be discussed in a straight forward and respectful way without veiled racism and fear.
Be better than that- you contradict yourself about fairness in posting and in spreading lies and partisanship and go and do the same and one upped him.
You point was valid- but you made it in an invalid way. As is aid in an earlier post- that's not what this site is about. Discuss the topics of the post respectfully. This is for political discourse not political attacks....
And one more thing- especially for posts that are critical and attack other posters- at use a made up name and don't post anonymously. Its the equivalent of throwing rocks and hiding after.... Let it be known who you are if you are going to question another poster..... you lose all credibility otherwise
Dear James,
Just to let you know that your idea of economics is drinking poisoned kool-aid.
Yes, less demand brings down brings down prices, but if there is no supply it doesn't matter how much you bring down demand.
Perhaps the person who posted about the drilling can't afford $5 gasoline. I know I can't.
By the way, there are no electric cars at present and none being produced that I know of any where in the world. At present cars and trucks run on gasoline and diesel, both of which are very expensive.
It has nothing to do with the low dollar but everything to do with low supply. Your ignorance of economics 101 is shocking! 10 years from now, there will be 20 million more cars in the world and almost all running on gas.
By the way, in Jan 2007, the month congress was taken over by the Dems, oil was $60 a barrel, and gasoline was around $2 a gallon.
Since they have taken over, every time somebody has called for increased drilling a Dem would stick his head up and say we need wind power or solar power. Cars don't run on wind power or solar power and as far as I know won't for some time to come!
Before blogging about economics again, please retake Econ 101
First off there are hydrogen fuel cell cars right now. There are cars that run on solar for university competitions, and there is even a car that runs on compressed air. And if the electricity is from renewable sources electric cars use no fuel consumption-- so yes I think my point is valid.
Are you debating alternative energy can reduce fuel prices????
Also- to reduce fuel prices you can reduce the demand in fuel by better gas mileage- like the EU, Japan etc. that have the strictest efficiency standards. If America did the same the price would decrease.
Drilling won't decrease polling for years and only by a little amount.
Before questioning my economic skills use facts yourself (the point about a democratic controlled congress was however quite a good point).
Cars dont have to run on wind or solar thats not my point. My point was efficiency and fuel standards can decrease the price of fuel. And also that alternative energy would help create energy domestically which will decrease the price of foreign oil. That is actually simple Econ 101- if you are going to say I'm wrong use facts or point to economists who argue otherwise- until then I still believe my points are valid.
Link 1- McCain's psychological benefit of drilling
Link 2- ANWR taking decades
Link 3- Hydrogen power car
Link 4- Air powered car
we have the solutions we need to invest and use them. wonder why gm and ford have lost money and smaller cars and fuel efficient companies and cars- think Prius and Japanese automakers are doing well...
http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/news/story/mccain-drilling-benefits-psychological-obama-pounces/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2934033020080429?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2934033020080429?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6138972/
Now any time you want to point to economists backing your points I'll be happy to see it.
James,
There are no viable alternative fuels on the road today, tomorrow or even 10 years from now.
10 years from now there will be 20 million more cars on the road. It doesn't matter how much you reduce demand, it will be eaten up by more cars on the road. Therefore, 10 years from now we will need to increase our supply of oil. There is only one way to do this and that is DRILL, DRILL and DRILL.
Hydrogen is great, but it takes twice the energy to produce a gallon of liquid hydrogen. Therefore, we will need to increase our energy output 10 fold for the amount we will need. Wind and solar power will not do this.
Ethanol and bio fuels have proven to increase the cost of our food supply and are not viable alternatives.
Every time, I hear people talk about alternatives it sends shivers up my spine. There are no alternatives at this point and you have to be realistic about energy.
It has to be produced from somewhere and unless people want to spend $10 dollars a gallon for gasoline they had better start drilling now.
Furthermore, if speculators knew this country was going to go on a drilling blitz it would bring down the price of a barrel of oil because they would then know that supply was going to increase and their money would go somewhere else.
Again, when energy experts tell us we need to increase our supply of oil in the world and a DEM stands up and says NO we need wind power and solar power the price of oil goes up because the speculators know that the supply will not be increased. That is econ 101.
Drilling is inevitable but don't blame the Dems. Republican's & Democrats were in agreement over the ofshore drilling ban, including McCain.
McCain's switch to drilling is a recent and utter reversal of policy, and trashes his green credentials (about his only evidence that he was not McBush).
OK, I lied. McCain's green credential were already trashed by his "gass tax holiday".
Sadly on this one topic I think he is right. America must go green, and Obama is the best hope fot it but it will take generations to complete. The oil will be needed.
Please Obama, soften your stand on drilling or you could loose this election.
Anonymous:
Please note: my comments express concern about a bloc of voters who are not influenced by policy issues, but rather are easily rallied by racist stereotypes and bullying or boorish behavior. I respect the outcome of any election on policy differences, but I wish all candidates and parties to stick to issues and decline to rouse our fears and animal instincts.
Many Georgians enjoy Redneck jokes, but we are able to distinguish when the joke is a humorous exageration of a southern cultural genre and when it is a joke made in a disdainful way at our expense. Those I criticize are the minority of poor whites who are unable to make this distinction and are therefore so easily manipulated by the likes of Saxby Chambliss.
James,
I have to agree with Barryb, alternative fuels will not drive a mack truck and the high cost of diesel is causing food prices to skyrocket. It think it would be much better if we drilled in our own country and developed our own oil fields instead of depending on Middle East Oil.
Hybrids are great but they are extremely expensive. As far as I can tell we are in big trouble. Drilling won't bring down the cost of a gallon of gasoline, but there are no alternatives that I can see anywhere in our future except a bicycle.
This is a pox on all of our houses and we are yet to fully see the ramifications of these high oil prices.
I remember 8 years ago when Bush said we need to drill in alaska, if we had this oil would be on the market now and gas prices would be lower. I'm afraid we are all going to perish at the altar of environmental extremism.
Thanks for responding.
If its true about hydrogen using twice the energy to be produced I'd like to see it- please post a link.
First off- climate change is real- so its important to start transitioning to renewable energy now- debating this is silly. Yes we need to have the energy supply meet demand so that does mean that we will have gas in ten years i didnt say otherwise.
Ethanol takes fuel to make and brings up food prices i agree- no arguement there.
But solar, wave energy, wind power, there is speculation of tornado energy (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372487,00.html), and nuclear/hydro etc. can all be implemented now- we have the technology. The technology is getting faster and better very quick. Its realistic and possible. How are there no viable alternatives. How is wind or solar not viable? They are being used now and they work, all it takes is more turbines and panels.
Not sure why you are scared of alternative energy? It does work.
Speculation has also increased prices- hence people wanting to end oil specualtion. Alternative energy will decrease fuel prices- thatsfact and that is Econ 101.
"Again, when energy experts tell us we need to increase our supply of oil in the world and a DEM stands up and says NO we need wind power and solar power the price of oil goes up because the speculators know that the supply will not be increased. That is econ 101."
Point out where energy experts- and by experts Bush's staff is not valid- where they say increase oil- and domestic oil isn't that much of an addition. WE need energy- it doesn't matter how we get it except oil pollutes and destroys the world.
It costs millions to combat effects of climate change- hurricanes,flooding,drought etc., so thats alos a cost of fuel and coal. Alternative enrgies are clean, safe and produce energy that can be used the same way.
You are specific about cars- so a gain I say why not make efficient cars, and look at the links for hydrogen and air etc. We have the potential to solve problemes iwth tecnhology. WIth increased funding in ten years we tont need just gas for cars- new technology will be available- and the technology now will be muchmore affordable (prices drop very fast for technology think computers etc.)
So again answer why alternative energy can't be used???? Because you didn't. Although saying i need to take 101 again must amuse you so you can continue that.
Blame Said:Drilling is inevitable but don't blame the Dems. Republican's & Democrats were in agreement over the ofshore drilling ban, including McCain.
Please,have you not been listening to the news lately. the republicans have been trying to open up drilling in ANWAR for 10 years, but the DEMS have been blocking this leg. Haven't you heard Harry REID and Nancy Pelosi. They are Mr and Mrs. No drill. The REP.'s have been trying to open up drilling on the continental shelf and Alaska for 10 years.
Yes, you are correct about MCCAIN and drilling offshore. But let's not get into flip flops on policy decisions, OBAMA would lose every time. On this policy, Obama needs to change, as does all the DEMS.
5, 6 and 7 a gallon gas will shut this country down, and we are damn close to this now.
This has now become a national emergency. This country is not Europe, no matter how much some people wished that it was.
We need to drill.
For some perspective on drilling in the ANWR:
The Department of Energy estimated in 2002 that it would take 7-12 years to begin drilling in the ANWR, so if we had begun when Bush was first elected, we still wouldn't be getting any oil from there.
The DoE also estimated that oil production from the ANWR would peak in 3-5 years, with the peak lasting for another 3-5 years and then falling off rapidly afterwards.
They estimated that, at peak production, US dependence on foreign oil would drop from 62% to 60%. Remember that's for about 3-5 years, until we're back where we started.
I know they had another report that estimated the amount by which gas prices would go down, but can't find it just now. The answer was in the neighborhood of a nickel a gallon.
The sad truth is that there aren't any easy answers on this one. There isn't some magic supply of oil waiting to be tapped that will significantly change prices, and alternative technologies, while promising, aren't going to arrive quite fast enough to keep things from getting ugly for a while.
(Effects of the Alaska Oil and Natural Gas
Provisions of H.R. 4 and S. 1766 on U.S. Energy Markets, SR/OIAF/2002-02)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/aong/pdf/sroiaf(2002)02.pdf
james,
check out this post
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Hydrogen is a waste of time!!!!!!
Fossil fuels are still the only way at this point, we need to drill, drill and drill some more until some type of alternative comes forward.
Right now, there is no alternative fuels available.
By the way, your green candidate OBAMA is against Nuclear Power, or he was yesterday.
Again, gasoline at $10 a gallon will bring this economy to it's knees.
Your energy policy is wishful thinking, with increased funding we may come up with an alternative. That is some policy for a great nation to have.
Anon@3:18,
The research shows pretty clearly that drilling in the ANWR or offshore is pretty much a waste of time, too.
And yes, $10/gal gasoline will be devastating, but so will the $9.95/gal gasoline we'll get if we do drill. Don't forget it'll take a decade to get that nickel a gallon reduction.
There just isn't an easy answer here. We'd better start planning for a world where we use a lot less oil, because that's the world we've got.
barryb,
More drilling will have only a marginal impact on oil and gas prices (and not for ten years).
The call for offshore drilling is in large part a farce.  Over the last seven years, the Bush administration has given out leases on public lands to energy companies at record rates. However, most of this land is not exploited for drilling, see here.
Energy companies do not have the necessary equipment and infrastructure to drill where they already have leases. There is no plan to build additional refinery capacity, despite that being the limiting factor on gas supplies in the US.
Yet somehow opening more areas to drilling will be the magic bullet?
You are correct that alternatives are not wdiely available today. Yet your proposed "solution" ignores economic reality. While oil and other fossil fuels are controlled by a limited cartel of producing countries and a limited number of huge conglomerates, more drilling will have a very limited impact on pricing. If you have expertise in economics, or remember your freshman economics class, describe the supply curve in an oligopolistic market, since the energy market is such a market. Then explain in detail why you expect that this oligopolistic market will respond to drilling by lowering prices. Since the supply curve in an oligopolistic market is inelastic, you cannot make a meaningful argument to support your position.
To get out of this mess, we must engage in a massive program to develop alternatives, similar to the Manhattan Project or the space program in the 60s. McCain tried to wrap his proposals in such a package, calling his energy plan "the Lexington Project."  Yet his proposals do not call for major investment into research to commercialize alternative energy sources.
On the other hand, Obama has proposed investment in such research and development. I support such efforts, as much of the money we are paying for energy is going to support countries and causes which seek to do harm to our country. Until we can wean ourselves off oil, we will continue to place ourselves in economic jeopardy, and we will also weaken our national security. More drilling will not and cannot help.
"By the way, your green candidate OBAMA is against Nuclear Power, or he was yesterday"
No. Obama is cautiously pro nuclear.
I checked his energy policy on his website. He is not planing 100 nuclear power stations like McCain, but if the plan came up with costs & safty issues sorted he would not veto it.
I have not seen a cost estimate or a safety plan for McCain's 100 Nuclear Power Stations, so I think the difference between them is that Obama wants to see the details first before making promises.
@ barryb and others: There are two main reason for increasing oil prices: (a) increasing demand from industrialising countries, in particular China and India, and (b) the extremely low energy efficiency of the world's largest energy consumer, which is the USA. Oil consumption per capita in the USA is about double as high as in Germany or France, without making a significant difference to the standard and quality of living.
Off-shore drilling might provide some short-term relief (estimates are it may cover US demand for some 4-5 years) over the mid-term. But it will not send any credible signs to markets. It will rather have the opposite effect, in that it convinces the world that its largest oil consumer, i.e. the USA, is unwilling to seriously reduce demand, and thus the current undersupply is likely to continue.
The argument that rising numbers of cars will inevitably mean higher demand for gas is wrong. In spite of an increase in the number of cars, Germany's gas consumption has decreased by more than 22% between 1999 and 2004. For 2007, German gasoline sales have been reported to have dropped again by over 4%compared to 2006! This decrease has been brought about by increases in the oil price, as well as in gas tax (the revenue from latter being used to fund railway modernisation, public transport, as well as social security and thereby reducing employers' and employees' social security contributions).
A key mechanism has been investment into new, energy efficient cars (helped by the fact that lower social security contributions allowed more people to carry out such investment). Average miles per gallon in the EU are some 55% higher than in the USA.
So, what the USA (and ultimately, the world) really needs is increasing price pressure on vehicle owners, coupled with mechanisms that allow them to buy more fuel-efficient cars, improve thermal insulation of the homes (which is another key weakness in the USA), developing public transport, and promoting investment in new energy sources. Hydrogen is probably only a long-term alternative, ethanol or bio-diesel is definitely none (they use up more energy for production than they contain), but bio-gas (extracted from waste dumps, and/or generated from cow dung, eventually even from human excrements) may definitely be one of them. Colleagues of mine have recently investigated the feasibility of a bio-gas production unit at a large, 7,000 cattle dairy farm in Serbia, and found it to be highly profitable.
For anybody interested in some more data on the subject (unfortunately in German, but the diagrams should be pretty well understandable and speak for themselves):
http://www.hvv-futuretour.de/wiki/index.php?title=Kraftstoffverbrauch
has some figures on the development of fuel consumption in Germany until 2005
http://www.jjahnke.net/umwelt.html
contains a variety of international, in particular USA/EU/Germany comparisons on energy consumption and efficiency issues.
For assistance in translating German terms, you may use
http://dict.leo.org/ende?lang=en&lp=ende&search=
Counsellorben
You arguments will not hold up at the voting booth however valid.
It will not work with the stupid because the oil is there and they need it.
It will not work with the inteligent because they know that it will be American oil. It is liquid money out there to be pumped into the American economy. Gas may not go down in price but the money stays in the USA.
A lot of it will go direct to the goverment to reduce taxation. More will go the American oil industry and from there to American workers & American pension funds.
That there isn't enough there to make a big difference is beside the point. Times are hard. Will they vote for a President who doesn't do what he can for the American Economy however small?
The companies already have huge areas to drill in US. What good is opening even more areas if the companies ain´t using the areas they already have?
Fact- alternative energy can be 100% American enterprise
Fact- Oil will be controlled by foreign nations (almost all of which we do not want to fund in any way) regardless of American drilling.
Alternative energy sources will create several hundred thousand jobs for Americans that can never be shipped overseas.
Alternative energy will slow or stop effects of climate change- thus reducing the economic impact climate change had through-hurricanes, floods, drought, water resources, climate change induced warfare etc.
So overall alternative energy:creates American jobs, can help lower gas costs, lowers costs of climate change perils, and can help educate a work force as American workers will compete for thousands of new skilled labor jobs that will stay in America- look at how fast alternative energy companies are growing- it's a bright future
Drilling- "psychological" benefit, until in a decade we save a couple nickels for half a decade of gas. We will also slow the adoption of renewable energy- thus extending and increasing climate change concerns and directly funding American's enemies abroad in an unstable region of the world.
Advantage...... Alternative Energy
ahem. Electric car anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
If they hadn't killed it, this would probably already be on the road: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Volt
If they hadn't killed the EV1, I mean.
Anon @3:18
I find it interesting that you base your conclusion about Hydrogen not being an economically viable substitute for carbon based fuels for cars upon one paper, almot two years old, that appears not to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal (generally speaking, papers presented as part of a "Proceedings" are not fully reviewed, although they are not the work of cranks). Bossel's work is by no means accepted as gospel.
FWIW, Bossel seems to be championing electric cars, not carbon fueled ones.
On the other hand, you chose to completely omit any mention of the far for widely accepted model of global warming, which makes reducing the use of carbon based fuels imperative.
Sigh.
People we need both.
Alternative Energy because the oil is running out.
Oil because Alternative Energy can't be implimented fast enough.
The evidence for Global Warming convinces me but it is for the Politicians only an excuse for getting ready for the day when the last drop of oil has been guzzled.
blame,
You are probably right that what I say will have little impact on voting. It certainly is not a sound bite argument.
But more drilling will not contribute significantly to the US economy, since the drilling is done by multi-national corporations, most of which are headquartered outside the US. Most of the revenue from further oil drilling will flow outside of the US, as currently is the case with such revenues from domestic drilling.
Rather, a comprehensive government-sponsored R&D program to develop alternative energy will contribute more to the US economy than drilling, as basic research leads in many ways to wealth creation, both directly and via spin-offs.
It becomes a question of whether Americans think that continuing on the same path as the past seven years (give the energy companies everything they want) is a good path. Given the right track/wrong track polls, I think that when offshore drilling is framed correctly (it is another corporate give-away from Bush/Cheney), the more Americans will understand, and react accordingly.
I could be wrong. But I will not stop trying.
Germany has a very robust public transportation system, probably paid for by America, and most of their fuel is diesel. therefore better mileage. they also pay an arm and a leg for their transportation. that will not happen here.
There are states in America almost as big as Germany that requires vast distances to traverse $10 a gallon will not work in America.
This problem in America has been brought about by a policy of not drilling for oil. If their was an acceptable alternative, it would have come to market already and made somebody or some company very rich.
The argument that drilling will not bring down the cost of a gallon of gasoline is right up there with it will take 8 years to get the oil to market.
That was the argument Dem's have been making for 10 years and still are using today!!
I place this problem squarely at the feet of the Dem. Party. they have led us down the primrose path of economic destruction.
The evidence for Global Warming has not convinced me, and I don't want to pay $10 a gallon for gas; nor do I want a large tax increase placed on my electric/gas bill every month to appease some left wing, environmental nut job.
The Democratic Party use to be for the little guy. However, it has now been captured by environmental extremists.
There is no alternative at this time and to hope that some Manhattan Project will develop an alternative that will replace fossil fuels is nothing more than kicking your heels together three times and wishing you were back in Kansas.
This argument is not about how we heat/cool and bring light to our homes, it is about how we fuel our cars and bring food to our table.
All the solar power and wind power in the world(on the days we have wind a sun) will not fuel a mack truck, a train, a tug or a car.
At $10 a gallon everybody will be for putting an oil rig in their back yard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mirror Universe JoeG just sent the following message. Kind of funny how silly this invective looks from either side:
GOOD GOD
Can't you right wing, bomb hugging conservatives take a break. It is the beginning of July. Talk to me at the end of September and we will see if the ever changing John Sydney McCain is still close in IN, MT, NV, or NC. or ahead in FL.
I suspect that with $5.00 a gallon gasoline Mr. 'I Slept With Oil Lobbyist Vicki Iseman' will begin to drop in the polls in areas where the car is king, THE WEST. The last I heard Wind Power and Solar Power are making big inroads in the west, and electric/electric hybrid cars running on wind/solar generated energy will be WAY cheaper per mile, and I believe that is the opposite of Sydney's policy for America's Energy future.
This election is still going to go down to this, "Mr. President, Iran doesn't have any more nuclear weapson than Iraq did, what do we do?"
Who do you want in the oval office answering this question, Barack "Not A Republican" Obama, or John "I'll Lie About Getting Blow Jobs From Oil Lobbyists in the Oval Office, and Call My Wife a Trollop" McCain.
.
I've got a simple solution to this problem.
Let's vote in every state where there is a possibility that there is oil. If that state doesn't want drilling, a state such as California, let's impose a $5 a gallon surcharge on every gallon of oil and diesel sold in that state and then redistribute the tax money to the people in the other states that want drilling.
I think this is fair since the left wind has been imposing their views on America in the form of higher energy prices for the last 20 years.
Who do you want in the oval office answering this question, Barack "Not A Republican" Obama, or John "I'll Lie About Getting Blow Jobs From Oil Lobbyists in the Oval Office, and Call My Wife a Trollop" McCain.
James Cannon where are U-Could it be that left wing bloggers can say ugly things about a candidates wife and you not speak up about it surely what is good for the goose is good for the ....
By the way Mirror image-THERE IS NO ELECTRIC CAR, YOU DUMB, STUPID TROLL, and there won't be one for years to come!!!!
@barryb: 1. Oil companies have huge land areas open for drilling. 2. They are not drilling on those areas.
Please explain how opening even more areas for drilling helps?
barryb,
"The argument that drilling will not bring down the cost of a gallon of gasoline is right up there with it will take 8 years to get the oil to market.
That was the argument Dem's have been making for 10 years and still are using today!!"
It's also the argument made by the Department of Energy, in reports issued under the Bush administration. Even John McCain said that the real benefit of offshore drilling would be "psychological," and conceded that such drilling would be unlikely to reduce gas prices any significant amount any time soon.
Of course, if you've got access to geological reports or anything like that that might contradict the overwhelming consensus that offshore drilling won't in fact lower domestic gas prices, we'd love to see that evidence.
Can't help but notice that the Montana poll showing Obama as being ahead by five points isn't visibly included into the statistical analysis of that state. Since there are other polls in the state that show Obama as being ahead there (including the previous Rasmussen poll), why is this poll not included?
Boy the trolls are out in full force today. And they're completely ignorant to the world around them it seems. No electric cars? REALLY?! Why the hell do I own one? Is it fake? It must be!
@Drew: Looks like MT +5 poll is included (it is dated 7/1). Perhaps you were inadvertantly looking at MO (Missouri)?
Unbelievable.
Oil is a commodity controlled by a cartel of foreign nations (most of which are not friends of the US), and exploited by a small group of corporations.
Despite this, you believe that higher US energy prices are caused by environmentalists stopping drilling in the US? Despite the fact that over the last seven years Bush has given the energy companies leases to drill on millions of acres of public lands? Most of which is not being used for drilling?
Such astounding ignorance.
Fortunately, this year the Democratic Party will be more aggressive, and will not permit such foolishness to go unchallenged.
@ Barryb and others: I think you are not getting the point. The world market price of oil will continue to rise further, because industrialising countries with large population (India, China, Indonesia etc.) are increasing consumption, and those who could reduce consumption, i.e. the industrialised countries, are not (or not fast enough) doing so. According to any information available, you can drill as much as you want in the USA, including your back yard, without being able to come up with even a fraction of the oil to quench China's thirst for oil.
Asides, i have read a number of reports that the US refinery capacity is insufficient and outdated, so you are buying a lot of gasoline and diesel in Europe, thereby driving our prices higher than than they should be if it was just for the increase in crude oil prices. So, drill oil in your back yard, ship it to Europe for refinement, and continue to burn it in your SUVs? Great concept for the future.
If (far from energy-efficient) Europe is a banchmark, you can easily reduce oil consumption. Maybe not by 50% - I agree the US is much more sparsely populated than Europe, so transport costs should be somewhat higher - but 35% should still be reachable. That is a far bigger source of oil than anything that can be gained from drilling, and definitely a more effective way to reduce the upward trend on oil prices.
In short - the issue is not how to prevent 10 USD/gallon, because this will happen anyway, but how to have it happening a few years later, and how to reduce the impact it has on the average American (and German, and Chinese, etc.). All I can say is that the German way of increasing gas taxes in time, and paying the money back to citizens by reducing social security contributions, has helped me to change from a 10 l/100 km Ford Sierra to a 6l / 100 km VW Golf TDI (sorry, to lazy for the mpg conversion, you have to do it yourself), and ultimately left more money in my pocket in spite of rising gas prices.
If you are interested in a few other mechanisms that follow the same ideas, I suggest (this time in English:
http://www.kfw-foerderbank.de/EN_Home/Housing_Construction/KfWCO2Buil.jsp
on low-interest energy saving loans for private home-owners, check also on the other loans and grants offered, like on Solar Power Generation;
http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/english/renewable_energy/downloads/application/pdf/eeg_gesetz_merkmale_en.pdf
on promotion of renewable energies.
[Is there anybody with a DKos account who could cross-post these links to this Blog of today, as they may answer a number of questions on practical examples that had been asked in the comments:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/6/11566/50666/832/547325]
Well, and if you don't believe in climate change, that's your business. However, you might be interested to know that the large re-insurance companies such as Munich Re and Swiss Re believe in it, and claim they have data supporting this belief. Which means, whether you believe in climate change or not, you will see insurance premiums against natural disasters (including the ones on the oil rig in your backyard) go up in line with athmospheric CO2 concentrations. Oh, and in the Alps, conversion from ski lifts to bicycle rentals for the summer is already a big issue - may also hit the Rocky Mountains in a few years ...
In response to "anonymous"at 5:57 asking where I was to reject leftist comments that were inappropriate. I haven't been back on the site until now- sorry, I wasn't aware I should check every post and be the moral authority of the blog.
But I agree- before reading your post I had read the post you had objected to- and I to came to the same conclusion-and had intended to respond.
First off to the same anonymous-
"James Cannon where are U-Could it be that left wing bloggers can say ugly things about a candidates wife and you not speak up about it surely what is good for the goose is good for the ..."
Well, I'd be careful about that considering what the Right has been doing to Michelle Obama-since I have not seen you post about it I am not faulting you of course. But neither Obama nor any surrogate has attacked Cindy McCain which I believe is fair- however Michelle has become Fox victim number two after her husband- so to say liberals are ok with wife-bashing is mistaken and misleading.
To Mirror Universe Anti-Matter JoeG
"Who do you want in the oval office answering this question, Barack "Not A Republican" Obama, or John "I'll Lie About Getting Blow Jobs From Oil Lobbyists in the Oval Office, and Call My Wife a Trollop" McCain."
While the Vicki Iseman issue is perhaps a legitimate issue (I contend that it is not- and I am as liberal as they get) there is no way to know if the story is true. To suggest it as fact is irresponsible and shameful. It imo should only be used to point out his tie to lobbyists- although looking at his staff this incident isn't at all needed- and thus is used as a cheap-shot imo. Your point about Iran is sensible , but the Iseman bit is not. One- talking about bj's in the oval office isn't exactly an issue democrats want to seriously discuss and will lose points. Two- Obama's campaign is about being above this type of politics. It is about values and fact and where to take America. Every left wing blogger or surrogate that stoops to this level is just fueling right wingers to yell hypocrisy. And in a sense they are right. While Obama IMO has been quite genuine in his attempt to be above this all, comments like this do not help that image. If you are a true Obama supporter IMO you should follow Obama's suit and stick to issues etc., and leave the gossip and suggestive/hurtful/quasi-news etc. crap out of the blogs and out of political discourse.
You could just have easily of made your point without Iseman. McCain is clearly tied to lobbyists (Phil Graham and on and on) so you don't need to take cheap shots like this. It is the equivalent of bringing up Farrikan and the Weather Underground etc. It is half-truths or unprovable innuendo etc., that is manipulated to distort opinions- and 538 and Americans are better than that-cut it out- on both sides. This isn't just Republican trolls (also a term that should be dropped- they can voice there opinion- if McCain backers use these habits it should be that poster not all Republicans who should be blamed). It is true for liberals to. Plenty of democrats post inappropriately-like the Iseman incident- but that doesn't mean all left wing bloggers are trolls either.
Cut out all the crap- especially on 538- people come here because this site is notorious for being about facts and polling and analysis and not any agenda political issues. And for the most part the blogging is the same-but those who use this blog for cheap political shots are being disingenuous- and it should stop.
Well since this has turned into an energy/transportation free-for-all, let me throw in my two cents.
First, there's a distinction between power generation (electricity) and transportation fuels. This distinction will probably disappear in the next 20 years or so as electric vehicles take over, but for now they're not interchangeable.
Second, I've become convinced that oil is not only finite, but that we're rapidly approaching peak extraction rates. I think the tail is going to be fatter than many doomers do -- continued high prices will drive enough investment to drag out the plateau, then slow the descent -- but I don't think we can expect to meaningfully expand global oil supplies by just drilling more. Discovery of new reserves peaked in the '60s and has declined every decade since. Most of the best fields have been found and tapped, and are now depleting. Our love affair with oil is coming to an end. The only question is, are we going to leave it, or is it going to leave us? I think and hope and believe that we will leave it (under the duress of price pressure), without catastrophe.
So would it be good policy to allow drilling in ANWR and offshore? I used to be opposed to ANWR on environmental grounds, and indifferent on offshore (I've been backpacking in Gates of the Arctic National Park adjacent to ANWR, and damn it is beautiful; possibly the best two weeks of my life). I now think that these areas should be on the table, as part of a comprehensive energy/transportation package. They can fatten the tail of oil decline (US production peaked in 1970), lessen the disaster that is our balance of trade (oil imports are now more than half of the trade deficit, weakening the dollar), and contribute funds to the gov't to support the energy/transportation programs we need: expanded urban rail and commuter rail in all medium and large cities, so that people don't need oil-based cars; high-speed electric rail between cities to replace the soon-to-be-dead airlines; incentives to speed the development and adoption of eletric vehicles.
So, yes, I hope that Obama says that opening new areas is possibly acceptable as part of a comprehensive solution. But "drill-drill-drill" by itself doesn't even resemble a solution. And he shouldn't be afraid to say it. We need to get off oil, and new drilling can, at best, soften the transition.
Anon@5:57p: By the way Mirror image ... YOU DUMB, STUPID TROLL !!!!
I believe that was Mirror JoeG's point, showing by example that JoeG himself was a 'dumb, stupid troll'.
That would seem, anyway, to be the point of the remark, "Kind of funny how silly this invective looks from *either* side..."
Not much for the reading comprehension, are you Anon@5:57p?
.
lilnev: Well since this has turned into an energy/transportation free-for-all...
Yes, JoeG appears to have successfully derailed the conversation on this thread, which means, I suppose, that he has successfully trolled us.
Anyway, returning to topic, I kind of intrigued by the apparent weak support for McCain in ND and SD. But I know it's partly due to the regression analysis. It would be nice to see some new polling from those states to determine if the regression is accurately predicting trends there.
Also, it would be nice to see some more polling in MT, just to find out if the last poll with Obama at +5 is an outlier or not.
.
That last post regarding polling in MT, ND, and SD was from me, JGabriel - accidentally hit the publish button before adding my ID.
.
As I have noted here before, Obama will be forced to back off from his position on ending the war. The box he finds himself on this became apparent on Thursday with his dueling press conferences on what "refining" his Iraq policy meant.
The military and political situation in Iraq has improved so greatly that Obama will have no choice but to reverse course on his strategic assessment and in so doing align himself with Bush and McCain.
Where McCain will receive credit for his advocacy for the surge, Obama as a Johnny come lately on the issue will get none from the center-right and will only piss off the left.
This coupled with Obama's stubborn refusal to permit more drilling and nukes will put him on the wrong side of Americans with respect to issue number one.
I am waiting to see the shift in the polls and I suspect McCain's desultory campaign thus far has not helped him. But it is early yet and he has $85 MM plus the Republican convention and the RNC to help him.
If Obama is successfully portrayed as being opportunistic and not true to his originals ideals, a good deal of his enthusiasm among the young and the internet vote will evaporate. The revolt at the Nation and the Dalily Kos is a harbinger of this.
One way or the other, the over 50 crowd will vote. By all accounts Obama has not found the inroad into that group.
These early snapshots are interesting, but not dispositive and not reflective of trends informed by the issues. Too much focus has been on horserace issues and what to do with Hillary and Bill to date.
Anon@5:53p: I think this is fair since the left wind [sic] has been imposing their views on America in the form of higher energy prices for the last 20 years.
Hoo boy! I know I shouldn't respond to trolls but...
Congress has been in Republican control for 12 of the past 14 years, and the Presidency in Republican control for the last 7.5 years (or 20 of the last 28 years).
Yeah, lots of view imposing going on there - just not from the 'left wind'.
If you want to know why people are blaming Republicans for the current state of crisis in America, take a look at those numbers again.
.
On the oil issue....
Yes, non-fossil fuel technologies are a ways down the road (so to speak). But what about just getting into more efficient vehicles?
Europeans already drive cars that are 30% or 40% more efficient than ours. So we could all be in these cars today--if we wanted to. If the price of gas goes up 40%, you don't pay any more to drive around if your car is 40% more efficient.
And that's what we could do right now. Five or ten years down the road, we could be in still more efficient vehicles. That should tide us over until the new technologies become available. So the economy won't come to a standstill, even without more domestic drilling (which won't do much to help anyway).
Peter Kent,
"The military and political situation in Iraq has improved so greatly that Obama will have no choice but to reverse course on his strategic assessment and in so doing align himself with Bush and McCain."
I don't really understand this argument. Obama's position on Iraq has been that he intends to withdraw one to two brigades per month as soon as he takes office, with all combat troops out within 16 months. If the situation on the ground in Iraq is as good as the right would have us believe, doesn't this make such a withdrawal timetable MORE tenable, as Iraq is, allegedly, in a better position to take over security and governing responsibilities for itself? Wasn't the critique of Obama's plan from the right that withdrawing too quickly would cause Iraq to descend into civil war? But if progress is so great, doesn't this vastly reduce the risk of civil war upon our withdrawal?
In fact, isn't McCain - we'll stay 100 years if necessary - the one who's moving toward Obama's position - gradual careful withdrawal over 16 months - with the argument that conditions have improved enough that we can begin withdrawing troops?
America has let the events of 911 throw you into a tail spin. The rest of the modern world is already paying $5 a gallon for gas and more. We've accepted it. You'd better.
Global Warming has been accepted as a fact in the rest of the modern world yet the U.S. is still debating if it exists. Come on guys. I watched an Inconvenient Truth. You think Gore is making this up?
You've gotten yourselves stuck in two wars, 1 necessary, 1 not, but your not doing great in either. Israel and Iran are about to start WWIII, and all I hear from the U.S. media is who wears a flag pin and if being a POW is grounds for being commander and chief.
Your public education system is terrible. You've got the best health care in the world and half the country can't afford it. Your $10 trillion in debt most of it to China who's coming up your rear and about to replace you as the worlds super power.
God help us if China becomes the top dog.
Theres a reason the world is paying attention to your election, it matters. And from where we sit, its a no-brainer, you gotta vote Obama. No one knows if Obama will be a great president or not, but for the problems the world needs solved, he's our best chance. Nothing against McCain, I always thought he was miles ahead of Bush, but his thinking is old.
The world has gone global, its not country against country anymore. Theres a reason Obama is favoured by younger people, he gets it. Some fights can't be won through the barrel of a gun. Terrorism is an idea. An idea thats spreading. The musslim world hates you right now, and thats creating the very problem you wish to fight. Thats why Bushes foreign policy is so wrong.
Americas greatest strength isn't its military, its the moral authority it carries. America since WWII has spoken for the free world whether we liked it or not. And right now we don't like what your saying.
We wait holding our breath for November fourth. Please don't disappoint the world again.
"The military and political situation in Iraq has improved so greatly that Obama will have no choice but to reverse course".
The political situation has improved so greatly? The political situation shall remain as it was and has been since Saddam was overthrown--A Shiite dominated government that is a strong ally of Iran at best, and an Iranian client-state at worst. If you consider that an optimal political situation, you are delusional.
I have to laugh at the right. "We're winning in Iraq" they say. laughable. You've beaten down Alqaida , but they were never the biggest problem. America is not the decider as to who wins in Iraq. Our own security estimate finds only 2% of violence was from terrorists. The other 98% was the suni and shia killing each other. Right now the US troops are nothing more than a well trained , well armored police force trying to impose order in the middle of a civil war.
2/3 of Americans know violence is down in Iraq and they want to get the hell out. Theres hope for us after all.
Iran has much more influence than we do, in fact we are causing much of the problem that currently exists. You think the extremes of the middle East will ever be satisfied with an American presence in Iraq. Of course they won't. We can stay. But we can't win it. There is no enemy left in Iraq. Iran is the only enemy left, and they're next door pulling everyone's strings.
I don't blame Bush for all this. This was Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. The Republicans deserve punishment at the polls. Electing an incumbent party when 80% of the country believes we're on the wrong track would serve to recognize only one thing. We can't blame anyone else for the state of our country but ourselves. The constitution elected Bush the first time, thanks to the electoral college. We elected Bush the second time, of our own choosing. If we elect McCain, for what we know is Bushes third term. The voters will have no ground on which to complain. McCain couldn't get elected in any other industrialized country in the world over Obama. We must ask ourselves, who is to blame for our current situation?
NATE:
Have you seen this: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1523 ... You will find it interesting
It's curious to me that so many people want to discount Obama's chances in Georgia. With NO effort in the state whatsoever, Kerry narrowly won Chatham County, the majority-white county of which Savannah is a part. Literally, Kerry was the worst possible candidate to compete in the South -- and he only took 23% of the white vote. Sure, Obama needs to mobilize the Af.-Am. vote, but the white Georgia populace is made up of more than just evangelicals, who are not by the way any great lovers of McCain. It's easy to see Obama getting close to 30% of the white vote here (still a Republican landslide, obviously) which would mean that Georgia is very, very competitive.
Remember that in the primary here, when both parties had hotly contested elections, Obama won 35% of ALL voters, more than twice as many as Clinton, McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. The Democratic electorate is motivated, and the Republican one is not.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment