Fox News, citing RNC sources, now reports that John McCain will not pick a pro-choice running mate:
As speculation grows around who John McCain will select as his vice presidential running mate next week, Republican National Committee officials said Tuesday that McCain is no longer considering former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.Note that all of Fox's sources are from the RNC -- nobody with the McCain campaign itself. Nevertheless, with this having come from the right's most trusted news source, the perception will certainly be out there that McCain has thumbed-down the idea of picking a pro-choicer -- which means that it would look doubly like a betrayal if he now did.
Several sources at the RNC told FOX News that in the last 36 hours, senior McCain advisers and aides have told RNC officials that McCain “got the message” last week that choosing a running mate who supports abortion rights would not be helpful.
In other words, as difficult as it was for McCain to pick a pro-choice running mate before, it just became a whole lot more difficult now. That may have been precisely the purpose of the story; it's sort of the Xiang Yu strategy of burning part of your own fleet in order to achieve a desired end.
As such, it sure looks like Ridge is off the list, as are Lieberman and Meg Whitman.
204 comments
Well, his declaration at Saddleback that he would be a "pro-life" president and his would be a "pro-life" administration, I think we could probably draw this conclusion three days ago.
What convinces you that Meg Whitman is prochoice?
Why does nobody talk about the CEO of Fedex...
A McCain buddy.
A Vietnam guy...
There's your shocker.
Does Meg Whitman actually have political positions?
A pro-choice candidate was NEVER under serious consideration. McCain's camp is very smart to talk up Lieberman and Ridge to give a nice 'Big Umbrella' feel to his campaign and to throw out trial ballons for his social conservative base to shoot down.
Now the Evangelicals are made to believe they have won (particularly after McCain's spectacular Saddleback performance) and are brought into his campagin just as the vital GOTV operations are falling into place. McCain knew, all along, that without the Evangelicals he would have no chance of winning and now he has them firmly in his grasp. McCain will now be able to go mano on mano with Obama's GOTV forces.
It will be Pawlenty
John is in trouble.
If he pick a conservative VP, he lost some indies and moderates.
If he pick a pro-choice VP, he´d screw the cons base.
Uh oh, watch out, McCain! There will be an expose tonight on your "character"!
Hope it's fair and balanced. LMFAO!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/characterconduct/index.html
US News says Whitman is pro-choice.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/8/19/tom-ridge-ruse-ceo-meg-whitman-as-veep.html?s_cid=rss:capital-commerce:tom-ridge-ruse-ceo-meg-whitman-as-veep
After all this time and effort spent running hard right, there was never a real chance that his VP choice was going to be a reach for center.
This is good for BO - it means they will not be able to run to the center nearly as strongly or appeal to Hillary PUMA's. Lets hope Lieberman is off the table.
BUT - consider the source, this is from Fox News and always remember that Brad says, "Somewhere in America, a conservative is lying."
John McCain is balancing on a rope between his base and independents. It´s mostly his biography and an Anti-Obama-union that keeps him up. It seems he has to take his side now, because in the end the two camps cannot be united, not this year.
If Pat Buchanan is to be believed, the 527 groups will be going after Obama with the Infanticide-smear, and the abortion issue is probably meant to be this year´s wedge issue. It might work with his base, but I really think it will lose the election for republicans. After all, the majority of the electorate consists of women and, apart from the fact that a majority of americans is on the pro-choice side, it might also split the vote of core republicans and libertarians who would not like to see the government intruding their private lives.
Ouch, looks like she is prochoice:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/24/nation/na-whitman24
Michael and I are on the same page. Pawlenty.
To pander to the pro-choice crowd would be terminally suicidal.
Is there really a game-changing VP option on the table for McCain, like Obama has with Clinton?
I'm 100% against Obama picking Clinton, by the way, but it cannot be argued that a decision wouldn't soak up media coverage for weeks. McCain, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have anyone on his short list that could the same thing.
"Is there really a game-changing VP option on the table for McCain, like Obama has with Clinton?"
He could pick Dick Cheney. That would be a game-changer!
haha yeah sedi. picking a Bush is also game change-y.
By the way...
Aren't the virulently pro-life crowd the same people that are virulently anti-Obama? I kinda get the feeling people like that would hold their nose and vote McCain no matter what he did just to keep Obama out of office. It could be another "maverick" move!
Bummer. Now it will be harder for McCain to instantly obliterate his chances of winning.
Kascich or Portman will do nicely.
I think I disagree Mark, even Rush and the crazy Dobbs from FOTF have come to McCain. They will not go to Obama no matter what happens, even if the VP is pro-choice. They all have a fear of the world, and a latent racism is part of that world view...
Rasmussen has Obama only down 2 in Florida the week before the Convention (I honestly expected it to be more). If he can be successful in consolidating the Hillary supporters, then his investment there could very well pay off.
Go Pawlenty !
That would confirm that McCain is desperate since recent polling confirms that with TPaw on the ticket, McCain loses the MN IND voters & would guarantee an Obama victory. DFL would love it !
Go TPaw !!!
David, the last Rasmussen poll from FL was Obama up by 2 points.
But it´s a swing state.
with the internals, the RR poll in FL is decent news for Obama for pre-convention.
proves RED FL is still in play.
New LA Times/Bloomberg national poll.
Obama 45
McCain 43
LATimes/Bloomberg has Obama 45, McCain 43. (link)
(concern troll response)
OMGWTFBBQ?!???! Obama is toast.
(McCainbot response)
Another poll showing Obama with a national lead? EXCELLENT NEWS FOR MCCAIN!!!
Florida is moving away from Obama. McCain has spent very little in the state and continues to consolidate his lead. Obama's negatives are pushing 50% in FL according to Ras. This is shaping up to be very much like 2004. Obama's "Southern Strategy" will be abandon by Oct - that includes GA, FL, and NC. He will fight hard for VA.
The Florida Rasmussen poll underscores Obama's need to take Hillary -- she put him over the top in FL. A Hillary VP pick almost forces McCain to take Crist to protect FL but he can do nothing to stop Hillary delivering OH to Obama.
I think a Hillary pick makes most sense for BO but he'll go safety first like everything else he does.
Right now, I can't see it being anybody but Biden.
Florida is, in fact, the one state McCain has more ground organization than Obama.
Funny how, a few weeks ago, Obama was up in the state polls and relatively down in the national polls, now it´s the other way round... I guess it depends on which states you poll...
@overrated
I agree. This chart clearly shows how Florida is moving slowly but surely outside of Obama's reach. He might as well not even try.
Well... McCain +2 is less than the regression.
McCain picked his strategy long ago. He's going to try to swift-boat his way to election.
He has to keep the base happy and hope that he can win exactly like Bush did in 2004.
That means picking a VP that the base will be happy with, regardless of how Independents feel about it. He's living by Karl Rove's maxim: "there is no middle." If there's no middle, then there's no point trying to appeal to the middle. Just get them to divide evenly in half and get your supporters to turn out and try to depress your opponent's base.
The problem with this strategy is that Obama has a larger base than Kerry did and McCain has a smaller base than Bush. But, McCain is hoping Obama won't be able to get his united.
If Obama can't get another 5% or so of his party to support him, then McCain can hope to win by throwing red-meat at the base with endless attack ads.
Republicans love those kinds of under-handed smears, so they get excited and ready to vote for McCain. This strategy has been very successful so far.
If Obama gets another 5% of Democrats it won't matter what McCain does. He'll be toast.
Dario,
I know that Rasmussen had Obama up 2 last month, but that appeared to be an outlier (and I believe it was in the aftermath of the Berlin speech).
Given that most states have showed movement toward McCain, the fact that Florida is still so close is a good sign. The key is consolidating the Hillary vote; if that can be done, than Florida could very well end up in the Obama column.
"Note that all of Fox's sources are from the RNC"
LOL You mean they sourced themselves?
My prediction is Bobby "The Exorcist" Jindal will be McCoots running mate.
Adam, your logic is correct as far as it goes, and I think it's what McCain was thinking at one point.
However, it's the end game that would induce big chunks in the pro-life wing of the party to stay home or do Barr as a protest vote.
There's no winning for them under an eviscerated scenario, so they'd just as soon take their medicine with Obama, and hope for a Reagan-like resurgence in 2012.
McCain can't afford to bet that he would pick up more moderates under that scenario than he'd lose as a base. Moreover, it would hurt him in congress.
For one-issue voters, there's no compromise solution, and there are plenty of those in both parties, enough to make the difference between winning and losing. Getting behind him is hard enough for most of the base; he needn't totally thuumb his nose if he wants more than tepid support from the core.
Florida was also the state that effectively decided the Republican Primaries in McCain´s favor, while Obama didn´t campaign there at all. There is a real potential in Florida for the Obama campaign. It´s a state I wouldn´t give up too soon, in contrast to Georgia that has never shown Obama with a lead or within 5% (except 1 outlier).
Andrew, i´m not an Obama supporter and i think that the LA Times/Bloomberg is a bad result for him.
If Obama should give up on Florida, then McCain should give up on Michigan because they are polling very similarly for their respective candidates. I'm not saying FL won't be tough for Obama, but MI would be just as tough for McCain.
Of course McCain isn't going to give up on Michigan, and Obama won't give up on Florida.
Wow, I can't believe I am saying this. I think BO need Clinton.
Can he fire her once he is elected?
Andrew -
Try RCP polling avg. trend line. It clearly shows fading momentum for Obama. Obama will lose Florida. His Southern Strategy is a growing failure. It will be abandoned as the race moves into the home stretch.
Just for fun,
The LA Times/Bloomberg number is a ten point slide toward McCain for Obama, The same poll one month ago had Obama +12. If we make the same adjustments to other polls, McCain must be winning by 6-8 points right now.
Brad, if BO picks Clinton, he would lose WA, OR, IA, MN and other states.
If I'm a betting man, I bet against Jindall; his youth would be an awful contrast to McCain's age, and it would take the legs out from underneath the "Obama isn't experienced enough to be POTUS" argument.
Plus (and I know this is cynical of me, but it's worth mentioning), I wonder how much McCain is depending on the "I'll only vote for the white guy" segment of the independent electorate. Assuming that subset is statistically significant (and I'm not quite sure how to test that), if those guys stay home, Obama wins; if those guys come out for McCain, it'll be close.
David,
The thing is, McCain *has* to win Michigan, unless he also wins Ohio and Colorado, both of which are toss-ups. Obama, on the other hand, just has to win one of Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, Florida, etc. So, it's a lot more important for McCain to contest Michigan (and I really think he chooses Romney for this reason). Obama probably shouldn't give Florida up, but he should use as much of McCain's limited resources there as possible.
OVERRATED,
any stoopid post. at least qualify your ill-informed opinions.
Ever heard of MOE, plus it is mid-August while people including Obama were on vacation.
Obama did not campaign here in spring, so he is shoring up the base nicely.
FL is a RED state that will remain in play through election day. A must for musty McCain, a nice p/u for Obama if he can.
Time to rerun the simualtions. Big McGains in Latimes national, Florida Rass, Minnesota Rass, North Carolina rass and others.
I wonder about MI, a very popular Detroit Mayor is now on trial before the governor for perjury and deriliction of duty. There is no party unity among the Dems right now. The unions appear to not be overtly involved so far, they have their own economic problems that are preventing the rabid spending and campaigning they normally do.
If Detroit, Flint, Saginaw are not mobilized Obama will lose MI. The political aftermath of the repeated Mayor scandals may put MI in play. It was the Detroit Mayor that pumped up the base in past elections, as the highest office of an AA in the state. Obama probably won't be seeking out his endorsement and joint appearances like politicians have begged for int the past.
McCain retakes lead in Ras FL poll. Obama unfavorables rise to unacceptable levels. Evidence of Bradley effect abounds. 61% view McC favorably while only 49% view Obama the same way. Not good.
Landrieu looking good in LA. Must be the drilling thing. Watch the dems stampede and run all over the gang of 10 to "Drill Here Drill Now"
Andrew said...
"LATimes/Bloomberg has Obama 45, McCain 43. (link)"
thanks for the link.
actually reading the article gives valuable insight as opposed to just scanning the topline.
Results can be spun either way, but nice to see Obama holding his base.
Also, interesting to read about their commentary on the Negative ads by GOPers in terms of strategy for the last 2 months post-conventions.
Confirms a consensus snapshot of the mid-August national picture.
Obama is not gonna pick Hillary as VP. If she had any hopes of being on the ticket, and I think she WAS on the shortlist at one point, she should have told the likes of Lanny Davis to STFU. But the PUMAs went too far by making ridiculous demands. Obama has bent over backwards to accomodate the Clintons and their supporters. That's a fact.
BTW, prominent Clinton surrogate and PUMA Lanny Davis just wrote a Washington Times editorial titled "Ted Stevens: An innocent man," where he defends the indicted GOP Senator and Alaskan coot.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/lanny-davis-defends-ted-s_n_119539.html
That's the type of DLC corporate shill Hillary Clinton surrounded herself with and took advice from. I mean no wonder she lost the primaries.
The LA/Bloomberg has shifted by 10 pts over 2 months for McCain. How is this good news for Obama? The narrative has shifted in a short 60 days from a blowout/landslide for Obama to Obama still ahead (barely) in the national polls. In the meantime, crucial states like VA, OH, and CO have shifted toward McCain. Florida is moving away and Obama is looking to defend MI, MN and other Midwestern states. This is almost identical to 2004.
Overrated etc,
If it weren't blatantly obvious, the 12 point poll was a large outlier at the time. Nate said it, we all said it. It was about a 5 point national lead then, and about a 2 point national lead now.
And uh, is there actually a new Rasmussen FL poll? I can't find one, and it wasn't announced. Regardless, FL was never part of the gameplan.
Don't event try to say there's been a 10 point shift. Everyone knows the 12+ poll was an outlier.
DCM the stooge thinks LA Times poll is good for Obama. Overrated points out his idiocy.
McCain is still BEHIND in all the national polls, so how is he 'ahead' ???
GOPers have managed to suppress voters with negative ads in mid-summer.
Obama has a base around 45% as shown
McCain's seems to be closer to 42% depending on the date a poll is taken.
a 3% advantage nationally correlates to an eventual EV potential blowout.
Neither is at ot above 50% so simmer down until mid-September when these things matter.
But If I had the misfortune of being a McCain troll, I would probably be spouting trash like that nonsense also since they need something/anything to hang on to since reality & morality has escaped them....
"McCain" is behind, so he must be ahead" ???
Pete Kent
OK, that's just amateur hour. No poll can be evidence of the Bradley Effect because, by definition, the Bradley Effect is "an explanation advanced as the possible cause of an alleged phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate."
In other words, for the polls to be evidence of anything, they have to be accurate, and if the polls are accurate, there is no Bradley Effect.
C'mon, Pete, get your head in the game.
I see DCM is hurling insults again.
Adam,
FL is not yet posted on the RR public page.
But if you type in FLORIDA on the search line inside RR, then choose 'FL prez elections', you can access it back-door.
Did anyone outside of the upper echelons of the MSM (who are horribly out of touch) expect McCain to even consider a pro choice running mate?
This is a guy who is (wrongly IMHO) already seen as not conservative enough by certain segments of the base. Picking a pro choice VP would be a kiss of death. Hes too smart for that.
Adam -
Yes, Ras has new data on Fl today. Will you at least concede that this race has shifted in McCain's favor over the past 60 days? Granted, national polls still favor Obama but the electoral map has tightened considerably.
Overrated-
I've also notice the national polls don't seem to be tightening as much as the EV map.
Can someone please explain abortion electoral politics to me?
A majority of the electorate as a whole are pro-choice, but (at least until abortion is outlawed), the anti-choice partisans are much more vocal and passionate - to the point that it's the make or break #1 issue for many of them.
And yet, the conventional wisdom on all sides seems to agree that McCain would be foolish to pick a pro-choice VP
Is it an EV thing? Does a majority of the electorate of the swing states favor outlawing abortion?
Is it an EV thing? Does a majority of the electorate of the swing states favor outlawing abortion?
No, it's that a sizable portion of the Republican base -- the 30% or so of the electorate that still approves of Bush's job performance -- will vote based on this single issue alone. And McCain needs them if he is even going to avoid a landslide in November.
obsessed,
No it's more that you have to look at who needs which voters. Democrats can't alienate pro-choicers (outside of the South, or in Pennsylvania) because they make up a sizabe chunk of the base. Republicans can't alienate pro-lifers (outside of the Northeast) because they make up a sizable chunk of their base.
Obsessed -
You ask a legitimate question. The passion from anti-abortion/pro-life voters typically comes from a deep-seated passion to protect the miracle of human life at conception. It is religious issue that cannot involve compromise. I have seen polls suggesting that a slight majority want to keep abortion legal, but as a whole the country also favors making it as rare as possible.
Interesting in that Rasmussen FL poll that support for drilling off th FL coast gained another 3 points in the month, now 57 to 29, and that's after the price fade of the last few weeks.
Nice to see NIMBYism isn't as rampant as it is among the 9%'ers.
Va Con -
Well, Ras and Gallup have tightened slightly but nothing of significant note. I think the huge bump that Obama got from finally defeating Clinton has simply faded to zero over time and at the eve of the conventions we are looking as a jump ball.
obsessed,
Re: abortion politics - it is all about energizing a small but sizeable base and trying to pound the opposition into submission through the unchristian use of negative attacks and claiming the hypocritical 'high moral ground' to confuse & obfuscate the low-info voters.
That way they can manage to win with minority positions. Tie it in with waging christian war on the heathen moslems & the gays & the poor are scum & tax cuts are great, and you have yourself a solid 40+% base of the 50% left who can stomache the negatives.
so in a prolonged election, fool a few more low-infos & one can steal the result... IMO
DCM,
I think the point most people (pro or anti-Obama) is that this race has turned from one that seemed to favour Obama heavily (post-unity bounce - which is why March is not a good basis for comparison) to one that is something like 2004 with the Republican and Democrat positions reversed, and momentum on the side of the GOP.
Obama has a losing scenario that he didn't 2 months ago. It isn't just the considerable slide in the polls, but also the decline in his favourability. From the LA times poll:
"Obama's favorable rating has sunk to 48% from 59% since the last Times/Bloomberg poll in June. At the same time, his negative rating has risen to 35% from 27%.
By comparison, McCain's ratings have hardly budged during the same period: 46% of voters have a positive feeling about him; 38% give him negative ratings."
Obama is still the favourite, however. Iowa and New Hampshire have moved solidly into Obama's column, alongside all Kerry states. This leaves Virginia, Ohio and Colorado as true tossups. McCain will have to either win all three - or eke out a bare win in Michigan to keep afloat. The chance, given polling error, that McCain is actually ahead in all three, is minimal - even before you start talking about Obama's impressive ground operation.
Overrated, it will come down to the debates I think.
The plus for our side is the very last debate is on foreign policy, thank God! That should really benefit McCain.
It really is a jump ball now. Obama is the slight favorite but all Republicans have to be happy at how things have transpired over the past month or two.
MI and MN are now barely Obama - so he is going to have to pay them some attention. What looked like a totally offensive game benefitting Democrats now looks much more balanced considering that McCain can play psy-ops games in MI just as easily as Obama thought he would have been able to in Georgia - but now that's no longer the case.
VA, OH, CO, NV, MO, FL all look much better for McCain than they did six weeks ago. Obama supporters rightly point out that he only needs to pick off one. But the reality is that the electoral vote game is not like a buffet line. You can't just pick and choose a state to pick off. The numbers of one state are largely dependent upon the numbers elsewhere. And to whatever extent that's not true is where there are special circumstance. And Republicans can take solace in the fact that special circumstances give them a real legit shot at MI - even though they're not favored there.
This is a close election. This is not going to be any realignment. Obama is not the reverse Reagan that Democrats were hoping for just a short time ago.
That alone is reason enough for Republicans to enjoy cautious optimism.
Rudy said...
"Interesting in that Rasmussen FL poll that support for drilling off th FL coast gained another 3 points in the month, now 57 to 29, and that's after the price fade of the last few weeks.
Nice to see NIMBYism isn't as rampant as it is among the 9%'ers."
do not bet the bank on that. Floridians will say OK if 'pushed' like Rassmussen does [what are the choices & look how & when it is framed].
But we are having a big storm today [that shutdown some production in the Gulf] & if/when it ever comes down to it the state will vote NOT off FL shores [unless over 150-300 miles counts].
They want them to drill off LA & CA & AK - not FL. Oil drilling is the ultimate NIMBY.
However, Crist & friends have so screwed up the state's financing, especially for Education - that if he is really clever he would tie oil royalties to education funding & sell that 'pig-in-a-poke' fairytale which the GOPers might be able to sell in a special election in FL with low voter turn-out.
This is their usual strategy to sell such silk purses from a sow's ear. Crist did it with property taxes & homeowners insurance in the last few years, and now this state is much more in financial trouble than ever.
If you're going to compare favorability ratings in the LA Times poll it's worth pointing out Mccain went negative weeks ago and has backed it up with a ton of money. It's arguable that Obama should be faulted for not staying at Mccain's pace, but there's reason for those numbers to change as they did and reasons they may not stay that way.
DCM -
This is an explosive topic and I don't want to blow up the thread, but you might want to consider that true pro-life advocates view the act as essentially murder on a massive scale (40 million abortions since R v W). They feel aggressive tactics are justified in an effort to stop the carnage. Concerning your other commentary, well...
>> They feel aggressive tactics are justified in an effort to stop the carnage. Concerning your other commentary, well...
With respect, this pro-choice Republican is sick of hearing that argument. If abortion is murder, or if radical pro-lifers want to equate an abortion at three weeks to murdering a person then if they were intellectually honest they would call for the death penalty for anyone that gets an abortion. The radicals only use that sort narrative (40M murders) to try to demonize the opposition. While I would never be okay with third-trimester abortions, that is nowhere near the same thing as if it is done during the first month. And any pro-lifer that believes it is ought to try to legislate that way. We'll see if they don't learn pragmatism really quickly.
Va Conservative -
Agree...I am working from the assumption that red and blue states "come home" after the conventions. I think we are already starting to see this play out. What makes this election fascinating is that Obama has a built in advantage with GOP negatives, but the Dems rolled the dice and offered up a very poor candidate (sorry guys). So we have a new dynamic at play but it is being mixed with the traditional red and blue moves to the base. CO and VA are keys for both sides...IMO
I agree overrated, with Clinton this would be locked up for them.
Plus McCain has done better than I expected. Theres one thing you can say about him, and thats never count him out. Ever.
Well, I am sure the RNC wants to tell McCain what to do, but I am not so sure McCain wants to follow orders. Ridge is out on grounds other than being pro-choice. Lieberman is a different story.
I still think Lieberman is in play as a McCain gut shot.
All this post tells me is that whatever hatred McCain harbors for his own party will be exacerbated and that a guy who play's craps for 14 hours straight does not like to be pushed around by anyone.
A pro-choice candidate was NEVER under serious consideration. McCain's camp is very smart to talk up Lieberman and Ridge to give a nice 'Big Umbrella' feel to his campaign and to throw out trial ballons for his social conservative base to shoot down.
Now the Evangelicals are made to believe they have won (particularly after McCain's spectacular Saddleback performance) and are brought into his campagin just as the vital GOTV operations are falling into place. McCain knew, all along, that without the Evangelicals he would have no chance of winning and now he has them firmly in his grasp. McCain will now be able to go mano on mano with Obama's GOTV forces.
This is certainly one way to look at it. I disagree though.
There is absolutely no way that McCain can win a base mobilization election with Obama. It can not happen.
Bush barely won in 2004 and nearly half of the people that voted for him disapprove of his presidency. Saddleback might have proved that evangelicals slightly prefer McCain to Obama but its nowhere near the level to which they prefered Bush to Kerry. McCain's base mobilization will go down. Obama's will almost certainly go up.
McCain needs to turn out the base but he also needs to win a sizeable chunk of the people in the middle. The people moderate independents that now strongly disapprove of Bush.
In order to do this, he needs to prove that he won't be Bush III. He needs to prove that he isn't in the right wing's pocket.
McCain needs to separate himself from the right on a big issue. I think that is what he was trying to do with the pro-choice veep idea. If he could have gotten away with it, it might have worked.
I don't see how this whole episode helped him. He reemphasized that he is in the right wing's backpocket. He reemphasized that he won't be different from Bush in any substantial way.
It might have helped a little with his base mobilization, but it also just made them distrust his instincts. It also gave them the lesson that if they whine enough, he'll change back to suit them. When McCain tries to move back to the middle (and he will have to try), they will know that if they protest enough, they can change him back.
hosertohoosier,
valid post above. Yes the public polling releases do make the election appear to be much more of a close horserace granted.
no question that the 'bounce' Obama appeared to get has faded over the summer.
But reality is that no one logical ever really believed that summer polls meant anything. After mid-September the results start to be useful.
Right now the polls show both camps have 40+% base as history predicts. Then you have 10-15% UNdecideds [real swingers] and another 5+/-% OTHER/not voting.
The swings that people are talking about are those 'soft' leaners only that are being pushed in mid-summer. They will not pay attention or really make up their minds until October probably, but at vthis point as the poll show the soft 'leaners' moving back & forth mean next to nothing.
They were with McCain in the Spring, then he 'lost' them to Obama in June & July, then they moved back or into UNdecided again in August... noise & noise.
As I have been saying for the last month, the best tracking barometer in national polls has been the Econ/YouGov weekly releases.
They have been showing these same results so no big deal. For instancehere are the past 2 polls:
Economist/YouGov 8/11-13/08 1000 A Mc 40 Ob 41 OTHER 4 UND 12 NV 2
Economist/YouGov 8/4-6/08 1000 A Mc 39 Ob 42 OTHER 4 UND 13 NV 1
tight ? yes, of course. but high UND & OTHERS have remained fairly stable. over the summer, the NV % dropped alot.
this poll has a good model & easily to track trends on Pollster @ National Polls link since they are the only one using NV & do not push OTHERS or UNDECIDEDS.
let the #'s speak for themselves...
McCain wins by 1)turning out the base AND 2)making Obama unacceptable to independents and late deciders. Hes doing well so far.
Actually Obama's doing quite well with independents. It's old democrats that are the problem.
LOL - Brian Williams is on TV now saying Lieberman is still on McCain's short list !
One can only hope that is true...
especially all you anti-abortionists
>> There is absolutely no way that McCain can win a base mobilization election with Obama. It can not happen.
Everyone keeps repeating this but I am not sure it's true. While the Republicans have obviously suffered because of the failures of the Bush administration, the Democrats are not on-board. Democrats are not as united around Obama as they were around Kerry. While this could change, there is simply no guarantee that they will ever be united.
Obama has weaknesses, just like Kerry. When you combine the problems that Republicans have had over the last four years with the problems the Democrats have had by nominating a candidate that a big chunk of the party simply does not like, it could well be a wash.
And yes, i am well aware that not all GOPers are crazy about McCain - but he certainly has proven better able to consolidate his base than Obama. At least so far.
Adam in NY
your rational, unemotional & pragmatic post on abortion politics @ 5:23PM is a breath of fresh logiccal air,
thanks
McCain does have a game-changing VP pick available to him: Lieberman. I know the folks here mostly think it would be a bad move. But the folks here are far more informed and partisan than the typical voter. Picking Lieberman is McCain's strongest play for the center, by breaking from the Republican brand and reinforcing his mavericky-ness. The cost is a huge hit to his base. Net positive or negative? I don't know. But it would be game changing.
But I agree with Nate's analysis -- Fox saying it won't be a pro-choice candidate makes it highly unlikely (and more costly if does go that way).
I think Portman is his strongest choice, but I can't shake the feeling that he'll pick Huckabee.
DCM,
Brian Williams doesn't know any more about it than you or me.
Adam - advocating for the death penalty for those that have an abortion would be a contradiction of the Christain ethic of sin and redemption. If you want to pt out hypocrisy, you could pt to those who advocate the death penalty but also are opposed to abortion. The Catholic Church has remained logically consistent on this issue with advocating the protection of life in all forms - fetus, disabled, elderly - and yes, even profound sinners that commit acts of murder, rape, etc..
"It really is a jump ball now."
I really hope that the McCain campaign is filled with people who think like you do. If you think that this election is a jump ball, I have a bridge that I'd like to sell you.
McCain's numbers have improved steadily in the past two weeks, probably due to his massive spending on ads (many negative ones) and the fact that Obama went on vacation while Russia invaded Georgia. And the current state of affairs is a small (about 2%) but remarkably stable lead for Obama in national polls, with key swing states like OH, CO, VA, FL being very close in either direction. Obama only needs one of those four if he holds MI and NH -- and he has had a very consistent lead of low single digits there for a while -- and gets NM & IA where he hasn't ever trailed. Plus, Obama is getting a smaller percentage of his party than McCain is of his. On top of all this, McCain has local issues working against him in CO (water rights) and OH (DHL deal), which the Obama campaign is starting to hit hard on. OH also has a new early registration/voting law that Obama could use to mobilize the youth vote, which often underperforms on election day.
If I were McCain and you were my adviser, I would immediately fire you if you suggested that this race was a jump ball. McCain might now have a reasonable shot at winning, but the map is still very difficult for him. He will be almost certainly be entering the race with some monetary disadvantage and a significant enthusiasm gap. Furthermore, his GOTV efforts lag far behind Obama's right now, and the ground game has proved to be critical in recent elections. Can McCain win? Sure. Is he likely to win? No. Jump ball? Yeah, right.
Overrated: Okay, how about stiff jail time (25 to life) for women who have abortions? That dodges the right-to-life hypocrisy while still treating abortion as, y'know, murder. Try that bit of consistency in a stump speech and see how it plays.
>> The cost is a huge hit to his base. Net positive or negative? I don't know.
It would be a negative. And I am a pro-choicer that would have gladly cast a ballot for Lieberman if I lived in CT.
McCain doesn't need to pick Lieberman. His chances for victory are edging closer to 50 percent every day. There is simply no reason to put a Democrat on the ticket that holds liberal positions on everything except war and defense. There is nothing that McCain could do to increase his chances of throwing the election away besides choosing Lieberman.
Lieberman has no constituency anymore. If people don't like the war they are already not voting for McCain. If McCain wants to attract Democrats then Lieberman isn't the guy to do it because Democrats have disowned him. Plus, Lieberman is that elite, northeastern type of politician that blue-collar conservative Dems in MO and OH won't relate to.
It's just a stupid idea. I don't think McCain will actually do it. I agree with others that say McCain is just floating this to get the idea across that he is "big tent" minded.
Sedi,
That's quite a pushback. Getting worried? And I am not an advisor to McCain. I am an armchair pundit. Just like you. I'd take the job though (and if I did I would actually talk up how we are slightly behind. McCain does better when he is the underdog). I doubt it's above my paygrade :-)
Adam in NY said...
"DCM,
Brian Williams doesn't know any more about it than you or me."
I couldn't agree more. Although he did cut to Andrea Mitchell imediatelt after for comment [lol].
I just think it is really silly season when the primetime talking heads spout such nonsense on 'the news'.
It is one thing on a gab/opinion fest like Hardball, etc - but how can they claim that is news ?
I bet McCain is floating that again for feedback after the Ridge thing [if the blowback is not as bad, then maybe].
But if Lieberman couldn't help Gore - then how would he help McCain with INDs or GOpers ?
It would prove his judgment is impaired [IMO].
GO LIEBERMAN !!! GO WAR !
Sedi -
Sorry, but it is a jump ball, and the McCain camp is excited by the fact that it is so close. The OH and CO issues are no worse the the MI and OH issues for the Dems with key party members in both Detroit and Cleveland either in jail or under federal investigation. Obama has never proven capable of moving the meter with Dem Bluecollar and older voters and that puts OH and FL beyond reach. Worse yet, the Dems are walking a dangerous tight rope regarding party unity and party meltdown on "blowing this layup" of an election.
Very interesting...
realclearpolitics.com has removed Missiouri as one of its leading battleground states (presumably more leans McCain now) and replaced it with the formerly safe Minnesota.
Nice!
Sedi,
>> Plus, Obama is getting a smaller percentage of his party than McCain is of his.
I will respond to this. That is not something you ought to be encouraged about. McCain became the GOP nominee with plurality support. He didn't even enjoy the (very slight) majority support that Obama got on the Democrat side. That the entire summer has passed and Obama still garners a noticably smaller percentage of Democrats is not a strength. It's a weakness. There is no guarantee that he will overcome this and his unfavorables are climbing at a rate that ought to be very concerning to Team O.
Overrated said...
"Sorry, but it is a jump ball, and the McCain camp is excited by the fact that it is so close."
Actually, for a change you are correct. The game is in no way over which any reasonable DEM will admit, and it never was.
But just like for the current Olympic 'redeem team' [basketball for the low-info sports crowd], Obama can allow the game to stay close for 3 quarters, then turn on his basketball skills/jets & put the other team away in the end.
Your analogy to a jump ball is too easy that I must take the bait.
In a close basketball game, which guy would you want to take the JUMP BALL at this point ?
Tall, young, athletic Obama w/skills [3 pointers even] or short, old, arthritic McCain with no game ??? hhhmmmm.....
sorry, that was just too easy...
[get a better analogy for your guy, maybe a poker one ?]
I'm getting rather tired of this. Why won't Democrats just admit that this is a close election? It's as simple as that. I don't believe McCain is dumb enough to choose a pro-choice VP. As Rush said, he just made big gains with the evangelicals on Saturday, why get rid of it? It's not like picking a pro-choicer would all of a sudden make a bunch of Dems vote for McCain. Sure he might pick off a few more disgruntled Dem women, but is that worth the evangelicals?
DCM,
Let's turn the election into an Olympic competition in the spirit of current events.
You Democrats can have Basketball. But word on the street is that Bowling is next.
Be afraid. Be very afraid :-)
DCM -
That was actually a pretty funny post. I can't believe we are agreeing on something here. I'm sure we will resume our death match struggle in future threads.
Thank you DCM, the election is close. And by the way, whoever up there thinks that putting Clinton on the ticket puts WA in play is absolutely wrong. I live in WA. People think from the caucus results that Obama killed Hillary but hardly anyone saw the nonbinding primary results where Hillary was within 4 points. WA is solidly Democratic because of Seattle and nothing else. Get used to it.
ADAM,
funny, but actually you have a point.
The Olypics changes what sports are played regularly. Women's softball [and and others] are OUT after this year often because of USA dominance among other reasons...
So your idea that the GOPers might want to change the game & play by their house rules as usual...
not sure if John can bowl though... bet Pawlenty can & he likes hockey !
Overrated,
I felt I needed to weigh in because that is one of my least favourite arguments (though you made it better than most by framing it in terms of redemption, rather than saying that any killing is inconsistent with being pro-life).
First-off Catholics oppose the death penalty, but not in all cases.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html
The gist of the Church's position is that if you can accomplish X by bloodless means, then no death penalty.
Moreover, a fair case for accepting the death penalty could be made, particularly drawing from the Old Testament. Not only did God regularly kill people for transgressions (eg. Sodom and Gomorrah), but numerous wars were also waged by the Israelites, often with the favour of the almighty.
What you have identified is a tension between a need to do justice and Christian forgiveness. Different folks have weighed one or the other differently, but I think Adam's position is defensible.
Finally, I think it is audacious to assume that somebody has a religious basis for presuming that life begins at conception (or anywhere). For instance, Juno, in the film Juno, seemed to adopt "fingernails" as her standard of person-hood, a decision that, as best I can tell, was not rooted in theology.
Moreover, most people do believe abortion is wrong under certain conditions. My own standard of person-hood is rationality. I don't think it makes sense to grant rights to those without the ability to act on the responsibilities that accompany those rights. Hence, the government offers a different schedule of rights to the mentally incapacitated, and to children. In that context, though I am pro-choice, I would consider third trimester abortions to be murder. Indeed, for those secular (and essentially pro-choice) folks that oppose late-term abortions, what IS an appropriate punishment for those that practice illegal back-alley late-term abortions (it must happen somewhere)? I think anything less than something in the life imprisonment/death penalty range fundamentally challenges the equality of all persons, and undermines a basic (and secular) underpinning of any liberal democracy.
On RCP there is a new poll that shows McCain leading by 6 in Indiana.
McCain is now leading by 1 electoral vote in the RCP count.
Adam in NY -
Yes, the unity issue is not dead...yet. All eyes on the Dem convention going forward. I have a feeling some Dems will never come home to Obama. I'm going to say it will be about 75-80% unity.
Overrated
welcome. I do not mind playing with you & others, but please let's stay out of the mud, OK ?
keep it fair [ok, partisan fair] and clean.
Give & take is good, like on Hardball or such - no fun if only homers...
Of course it's a close race. Always has been. It's not as clear as some claim that it's closer than it was in May or mid-June.
But it's also clear that it's not tied. McCain has never led, not in the national polls, not in the state polls, not for one day this entire summer. It's going to come down to how well Obama can consolidate his base the next few weeks, the debates, and GOTV. It's going to be exciting, it's going to be a close race, and I'm certainly not going to claim that Obama has a lock.
But it doesn't change that the lead's on the Dem side at the moment.
james,
Evangelicals happily voted for pro-choice Bush Sr. both as president, and as Reagan's VP. According to the 1992 exit polls, of those saying abortion should be illegal in most cases (only 6% said illegal in all cases), 54% voted for Bush, while 26% were for Clinton (68-32, taking out Perot) - and this in a bad election for the Republicans. This suggests to me that something like a pro-life pledge by Ridge or Lieberman would be sufficient. The religious right wants to deter McCain from appointing a VP they will dislike, but ultimately they are probably bluffing.
Anyhow, a pro-choice VP moves McCain to a more centrist position on abortion, more in line with the majority of public opinion. The key - as in all politics - is in telling both camps what they want to hear. Making pro-choice Clinton supporters okay with McCain, while also soothing the anger of religious conservatives. If McCain thinks he can pull that off (and it is do-able - Obama managed to convince centrists he was a centrist New Democrat, and Daily Kosians he was a fire-breathing liberal) he should go for it.
The Xiang Yu strategy is sure better than the Liu Xiang startegy of burning your achilles tendons so you can't hurdle like you ought, which is what picking Lieberman or Ridge would be. God bless MccAin! (I can't be bothered to get the capital in the right place any more- please don't hate me for it, Mule Rider)
That is a new SUSA IN poll with McCain +6.
but strange demos [again]:
SUSA sample went from 38%D, 36%R, 19%I in July to 36%D, 42%R, 15%I in the new one.
that is a LARGE demo re-weighting...
so not sure what it tells us in mid-August except that pollsters can make their #'s say whatever they want by who & what they include...
but it is still close in red IN. I do not think any DEM believed that Obama was really ahead though.
Okay, if we take DCM's more literal take on the jump ball analogy -- Obama vs. McCain in an actual jump ball -- then it's not so implausible (though the election is still contested). But in a metaphorical jump ball, the outcome is 50-50. For the host of reasons that I noted above, and others, I don't think this is even close to being the case. If Obama's support doesn't rebound, this could be a close election either way. If is does, it will be a relatively easy win for Obama (15+ EV). Blowouts are pretty difficult in our hyperpartisan, highly divided country.
Adam in NY, there is some reason to believe that Obama's failure to consolidate support in his party is due to the fact that so many Clinton supporters still think that she has a shot to be president and they are mad at Obama. The vast majority of them will come around once Clinton starts campaigning for Obama in a serious way (perhaps as VP?).
So many people are angry about the direction that the country is going and just need to be convinced that Obama is safe enough. Many people aren't really following the election closely, and will be waiting for the fall and for the debates. Several of my family members fall into this category, and they are heavily-GOP-leaning independents. Obama still has control over the outcome of the election. McCain doesn't.
If you looked at the situation in 1980 at this time of year (and even later, into October) you would have thought that Reagan was in real trouble. He wasn't. You are welcome to think that Obama is in real trouble right now. He isn't. He could lose the election, but he would have to lose it himself. Granted, it is too early right now to be taking polls too seriously, but differences in party ID matter, as do the approval ratings of the president, the state of the economy, the state of our armed forces, etc.
But, hey, Adam in NY & Overrated, I urge you to continue your believe that this election is a jump ball. Take a good look at the trees all around you and ignore the forest. I'm pulling for you as campaign director for McCain, Adam in NY!
Hoosier -
I appreciate your commentary. Here is the reference from the Catechism -
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
The Florida number is fantistic for Obama. McCain can't close the deal there, and when the Clinton supporters get on board after the convention, watch out, consider it prime Obama real estate.
National numbers cannot break even for McCain. he has peaked in support, and most undecideds are democrats waiting to come home. This a great sign for Obama, McCain is in deep trouble. McCain knows he needs a pro-choicer to have any chance but the intolerant social conservatives won't allow it and will doom McCain.
McCain will have to defend VA,OH,CO,NH,FL until election day while the Obama machine registers and turns out unprecedented voters. As the pressure builds, sooner or later the GOP will break and the avalanche will be historic.
The countdown is on.
John McCain is pro-life except when it comes to Obama who he wants to abort.
Hosertohoosier,
Picking a pro-choice VP would be fatal. The Evangelical movement has gained a stronger foothold in the Republican party since '88 and '92. Dobson recently said he's now considering endorsing McCain. McCain can't afford to lose Evangelicals even if he makes marginal gains among disenfranchised Democrats
according to that SUSA poll McCain gets 19% of the black vote? he is also winning in the 30-50 demographic but Obama wins in the 50 to 60?
Also--Obama seems to be behind him in Indianapolis. I don't know the state well enough does this make sense?
Sedi -
I'm off to dinner...but I will read your reply later tonight. What is your electoral map looking like come Nov. With the new Indiana poll and the pink shading of VA, OH, and I would argue CO...how do you see these states or other battleground states playing out? Just curious
Interesting that the drop in Obama's lead is predominantly in the drop in Obama's support, NOT a gain in McCain's support, leading to an increase in the number of undecideds. This likely means that this was "soft" support that left Obama as a result of the McCain attacks and the Obama vacation. what does this mean? Frankly nothing if Obama has a great convention and does well in the debates. Which is the same situation we had before.
The main concern in the state polls is Minnesota. Down 2 in Florida? That IS good news. For all the bad Obama press and supposed free-fall, he should be down 5 or 10 points.
Also, remember the media is forgetting that the drop in Obama's numbers occur at the same time there has been talk of ClinTon's convention nomination. Coincidence? I think not. Anytime Hillary's name pops up, OBama's numbers drop. A concern? Maybe. But as before, if the convention is stellar, it's a non-issue.
I would be delighted...
http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=1747
P.S.: 4th SUSA poll in a row with crosstabs in republican favor - while new registrations have been in favor of the Democrats basically everywhere...
Evangelicals happily voted for pro-choice Bush Sr. both as president, and as Reagan's VP.
Are you f___ing kidding me?!?!?!
Bush Sr was never pro-choice!!!
I agree Tibor75. Also the media has been focusing on Hillary and the roll call vote and all that greek drama. The SUSA poll had Obama at 79% backing of dems only. These numbers should go up after the convention not out of bounce but out of bringing the party together.
Nate, or anyone, has the convention bounce in the past been partly accounted for in shoring up the base or something else?
Yeah, I just saw that IN poll where McCain is leading by 6. This state is falling out of play and I don't think picking Bayh will help close that deficit all the way so he probably will not be the VP.
Numerically, I can see Obama winning the popular vote by 1-2% but losing the EV quite easily. Obama will be competitive in the South but will lose all of the states by MUCH closer margins than Kerry or Gore lost them. Gore started out with a net 500,000 vote lead over Bush (0.5% Popular Vote victory) but he got hammered in the South and won CA by only 12% and IL by 12%. If Obama wins by 20% in IL and 14% in CA, he will have a net 1,100,000 vote margin or 1% in the Popular vote. Combine that with a Gore shellacking in VA (7% loss), NC (13% loss), GA (12% loss), TX (21% loss), IN (16% loss) and CO (9% loss), if Obama halves the margin in these six states, he will net another 1 million votes, lead in popular vote by over 2 million votes (2%) and lose the election 278-260. The problem is that many of Obama's votes will be wasted so a 1-2% deficit for McCain is an even race.
I agree that abortion will be used as a wedge issue in this election but it is his own fault. He can justify the 2001 vote but there is no realistic way he can sell the 2003 vote as that bill mimicked the 2002 bill in the US senate 98-0. Our best shot is for McCain to submarine himself and pick a pro-choice VP.
LAT,
The crosstabs on the SUSA polls are fun to look at - but I don't know that they are all that useful. Any poll with a sample of 500 or even 1000 is going to have wildly huge margins of errors with individual subgroups, like AA votes because they will only make up 100-200 people polled at most in any given sample and you just can't glean much with the resulting double-digit margins of error for that subgroup.
CNN has released its latest "Poll of Polls" under the headline "Obama's lead cut in half". This just shows that either the media are just stupid about how to read polls, or they're committed to a close race because it increases their readership, or both. Shame thoughtful, careful, expert analysis is gone.
Let me explain.
Last week, CNN had Obama over McCain 47/41 in their "Poll of polls" (which I think is just a way of not having to spend money to fund your own polls). This week it was 46/43. OMG OBAMA MUST BE LOSING IT (sarcasm).
... wait ...
Take a look at the race history according to the same poll of polls:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/poll.of.polls.chart/
Obama's support has been between 45 and 48 since they started measuring on April 29. (OK, once he made it up to 49.) McCain's support has been between 40 and 44 that whole time. (And, yes, in early June, he got to 45 for two weeks.) Both have jumped up and down with some degree of randomness.
Where is the evidence that anything serious has changed in the race in the last week? On 7/11, the poll of polls had Obama up by 8. By 7/13, he was up by only 4. (THE LEAD WAS CUT IN HALF!) By 7/15, though, he was again up by 6. (HE REOPENED HIS LEAD) By 7/24, it had dropped to 3. On 7/28 and 7/30 it was 5 again, then on 8/1, it was 3. By 8/6, it was 5. Now it's 3.
You get the picture, I hope. Random noise has entered into the CNN Poll of Polls. It happens folks. Even if you average three or four polls together, they're still samples; they still have errors; and they're still subject to random variation.
Too bad CNN doesn't get it.
I highly doubt Obama will get more of the base than he already has after the convention.
The pro-Clinton Democrats who aren't supporting Obama now are doing so not out of any kind of rational consideration - Obama is much, much closer to Hillary than McCain is on almost every issue - but out of something much more powerful: bitterness.
Clinton has been speaking and campaigning on Obama's behalf ever since the primary season ended, and her supporters have not followed.
NJ_moderate,
I definitely think there is something to that. If Obama makes inroads in some of the souther states like GA, MS, AL, NC for example, but makes them all 5-10 point losses instead of 15-20 percent losses it will easily allow him to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.
Of course, if this does happen, the Dems will cry foul about "selected not elected" but the Republicans can easily turn it around and say the same about Barry given his primary seson popular vote loss if you count FL and MI.
It could get messy.
I agree that abortion will be used as a wedge issue in this election but it is his own fault. He can justify the 2001 vote but there is no realistic way he can sell the 2003 vote as that bill mimicked the 2002 bill in the US senate 98-0.
This is a perfect example of the Republican slimily telling lies in order to do anything to win.
We've been over this many times:
It wasn't the same bill!!!!
There was trojan language in the Ill. bill. He voted against it because of that.
BTW, I guess a substantial portion of the fairly conservative Illinois State Senate must be far to the left of every single member of the US Senate because he was hardly alone in opposing the trojan bill.
Sedi @ 548
I don't know about Kilpatrick (sp?) in detroit but I wouldn't worry about it in cleveland. The County officeholders here are not connected in any way to Barack. In fact I would guess they endorsed Hillary. And while Dimora can throw his weight around politically, and russo has his name, the ground operation is disconnected from these two. While there have been some LTE trying to tie these 2 and Obama, they are from the same names who predict Kucinich will lose to the latest republican.
clarkejeffrey,
Search for abortion in this article
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E4DE133AF933A05754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3
Scroll down to the last paragraph of this blog.
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/08/18/how-mccain-could-pick-a-pro-choice-vp.aspx
Search for abortion in this article.
http://www.answers.com/topic/george-bush
hoser: searching for abortions is weird.
ClarkMiller, thanks for that round up. I think the numbers have gotten closer in the last two weeks but I really don't think anything of it until I see McCain leading. Then I will be hear with my head exploding. ;-)
eponymous--I have to disagree. I really doubt that Obama will not get more of the base after the convention. There are not 20% of democrats who are raving Hillary supporters? When gallup polled this question a week or so ago only 1% of those polled said they would not vote for Obama and would write in her name. And in that poll Obama had a 10 advantage over McCain. So there goes the idea that those Hillary votes go to him. In the end maybe 2% of democrats might fit that category but no more, and that is being generous. The issue is that people in some states have been seeing her campaigning but in the last week all people have seen nationally is she is trying to take it away, they are forcing obama, etc etc. So the imagery of the convention will be very important because she will be there to do Obama's bidding nothing else. On prime time in the networks.
But my question was--the convention bounce: who makes up this bounce demographically? a shoring up of the base or inds? in historical context? if anyone knows. thanks.
On the Indiana poll a few things.
1. McCain's lead in Indianapolis is reasonable. SurveyUSA's June poll of the governor's race had Daniels (the Republican incumbent) leading 63-34 in Indianapolis.
Generally the GOP does best in Central Indiana and Indianapolis (when you include the suburbs). The Democrats do well in Northern Indiana, around Gary/South Bend. Southern Indiana is socially conservative but also fairly poor, and is usually the key swing region in gubernatorial elections.
As to the lead in African Americans - the poll of Daniels had him winning 30% of the black vote (Bush got 8% of the black vote in Indiana in 2004). I think something about SurveyUSA's methodology does tend to inflate black support for Republicans - it could just be that you are only talking about a sample of 63 black Hoosiers.
The poll in Indiana will be a plus for pick Bayh.
The RCP electoral vote gives Colorado to McCain.
I think CO is a toss-up with a less margin for Obama.
Obama leads the electoral vote for eight or nine votes only.
>> it could just be that you are only talking about a sample of 63 black Hoosiers.
Almost certainly that's why the AA numbers have been so messed up in so many places.
The Rsamussen Reports electoral vote is Obama 273 - McCain 227.
dario,
Actually with the IN poll, McCain now leads 274-264.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10
I think the EV for RCP was wrong because it takes the last 4 polls and them they make the averages.
That is the error in some states like Colorado, they ignores the 538 regression.
thanks hosertohosier for your info.
I do know that during the primaries as good as SurveyUsa was they were off in the south. So I always look at the internals to see how the have things. It will be interesting to see if any of these pollsters change their LV screen as the vote nears (and if they will tells us!)
Adam, i respect very much RCP but in this case was wrong. Colorado is one example.
Dario - you would not be saying that if Obama were ahead, would you?
Hoser,
OK. I stand corrected. I didn't know that Bush changed his abortion stance.
I guess part of the thing is that he did change it though.
Would Ridge or Lieberman change?
I thought part of the idea of picking them was that they would keep their old stances.
If he picks somebody that immediately flipflops on this issue, I have a feeling both sides won't be impressed.
Also, did the evangelicals show up in force for Bush in 1992. I thought part of the reason he lost was that they didn't approve of him anymore.
Rob, i wouldn´t.
For example, after this SUSA new poll in IN, RCP gives the state to Obama for 0.7 points when McCain were leaning the state for 5 points.
The RCP metodology was wrong.
Oh please, oh please, oh please, select a pro-birther VP to go with McCain's new-found life begins at the twinkle in the eye position.
And then let's see McCain's appeal (claimed) to Hillary-aged feminists who fought for the right to choose.
That would indeed be a gift. Even better would be if the pander to the base was explicit--a gay bashing, brown-skin-hating ultra nationalist who also wants to bomb Iran (and fuck the deficit).
dario,
RCP methodology worked very, very well in 2004. The only states they got wrong were IA and WI - and both states were decided by less than 1 point.
Dario,
The Indiana poll is NOT a plus for Bayh. If Indiana was at +1 for Obama, then yes, Bayh could secure the state. +6 for McCain, however, is quite difficult to swing.
Lloyd Bentson is probably the best example of a VP helping his candidate in a key state - there was a 5 point swing to the Dems in 1988, but a 7 point swing in Texas - even though the GOP was running an adoptive Texan as their candidate. We can try to measure the Bush effect too (roughly), using Dubya. In 2000 there was a national 7 point swing to the GOP, but a 10 point swing in Texas.
So Lloyd Bentson had enough profile to beat the national swing by 2 in his home state, plus erase about a 2 point Bush Sr effect (Dubya surely had more Texan street cred than his dad).
If 4 points is about the limit of what Bayh can do, and if Bayh has few other good qualities, a 6 point McCain lead hurts Bayh's chances as VP. Even if Bayh gets Indiana down to McCain + 2, the 2 point national shift required to make Indiana a Florida 2000 crapshoot would already put Obama ahead.
Moreover, Indiana is a bad place for Obama's GOTV strategy. It has a fairly low African American population, and is one state where lower income folks that tend to vote less often hold strongly socially conservative views.
Bush performed similarly with most voters making over 30,000/year.
Other random Indiana fun fact... Indiana seems to exhibit less of a gender gap than most other states.
ogre,
Any feminist that would not vote for McCain because he chose a pro-lifer for VP already wouldn't vote for him because he is himself pro-life.
If I were you and I wanted McCain to lose I would be hoping he selected a pro-choicer. And again - I am pro-choice, so take that for what it's worth.
adam in ny,
Just before the election, RCP had a lot more polls to go on. In Indiana, Obama's "lead" is based mostly on polls from June - not long after a primary was held there (another thing that didn't matter in 2004).
Lilinev,
I would like to see Portman on the ticket. I think he would be very impressive from an intellect and policy standpoint and THAT would be refreshing. I used to like the idea of Huck only b/c he has such a disarming manner and can skewer an opponent in a folksy friendly way that still leaves him bleeding on the floor, but the fiscal conservatives don't like him.
The short odds bet is Romney. I have never cared for him except when he ran the Olympics. He reversed course on the social issues in MA and has a sort of fake patina about him. Too coiffed, like John Edwards but w/o the Viagra.
* * *
The polls today have been fascinating. Contrary to what was asserted above the national polls are tightening. The LA Times poll showed a 10 pt decline in Obama's lead and Gallup and Ras are statistically tied. All the other Nat polls are coming in on the low end of the range and we no longer see those leads for BO close to 10 pts.
The state polls have shown even more bad news for Obama, with nary a poll in the last week or so showing movement in his direction and most like the latest FL, MN and now IN showing McC closing the gap or widening his lead.
BO having a 2 pt lead in MN is astounding. One doesn't even want to comment. Heating oil pops into my mind.
Fl with BO behind by only 2 might give Obama some solace, but McC has spent zero there compared to millions for Obama. As they say in Lauderdale he got bupkus for it.
The IN SUSA has McC up by 6 at 50%. The 50% is huge. With all the talk of Bayh and attention paid to the state, this is the best Obama can do? It is doubtful that Bayh could do much to move this state.
Do you really think Biden can turn this around? And while I will pray to the Virgin Mother that he picks Kaine, I do not expect my faith to be rewarded here on Earth
The upshot: Obama is no dummy. He needs a game changer and he has only one.
Calling Mrs. Clinton!
The NYTimes article on Bush is interesting. If you think about it, it is sort of similar to the idea of Obama picking Clinton.
I've gone from thinking the idea was a totally horrible one to sort of a good one.
There are a lot of similarities between now and 1980.
A really unpopular incumbent party temporarily staying in the race by demonizing the personally likable challenger as an extremist.
The incumbent party kept the race deceivingly close until the very end.
I've often times thought the same thing would happen because I expect the undecideds will ultimately break for the challenger, just like they did in 1980.
You know, I don't think that the presidential camps look too much at these polls. They probably have many many internal polls going that they trust much more.
They know the situation much better than we do.
Adam, i think RCP was wrong in Colorado only. I think Obama is leaning CO for less margin.
See the Rasmussen Balancing of Power. Rasmussen was right in the Balancing of Power states in 2004.
If I were you and I wanted McCain to lose I would be hoping he selected a pro-choicer. And again - I am pro-choice, so take that for what it's worth.
I know I'm in the minority on this but I actually think it would have been good for him if he did.
He needs to do something that screams out loud:
"I am a moderate. I am not a right-wing Bush Republican. Bush doesn't speak for me and my administration will be far more centrist than his"
I don't think that he can win without doing this. I still expect him to try it at some point.
McCain is in the race because he is still seen as a "maverick".
Sooner or later, Obama will get the message through that McCain hasn't done anything very maverick-like in over 6 years.
That's why McCain needs to have a serious Sister Souljah moment with his base.
Anyhow, McCain's pick is after Obama's so it is all about reaction.
If Obama picks Kaine, Cantor suddenly becomes a better pick.
If Obama picks Biden or Clark, McCain would probably do best with a national security pick, like Ridge, continuing to up the salience of McCain's strongest issue area (and ensuring a good VP debate). For a really radical pick, Petraeus or Gates could definitely help McCain.
If Obama picks Bayh, Richardson or Reed McCain will probably make a safe pick like Romney or Pawlenty (none of those guys are game-changers).
If Obama picks Clinton or Gore, McCain will probably need a radical pick - either a Fiorina/Jindal/Palin type pick, or Lieberman/Ridge to claim the center ground ideologically.
If Obama picks Webb (who I bought 100 shares on in Rasmussen markets just for fun), McCain would do well to pick Fiorina/Whitman/Palin, and peel off Clintonites.
More tea leaves...
Biden says "I'm not the guy"
Any thoughts about Giuliani on the ticket with McCain?? That could have been the impetus for sounding out the base regarding a pro-choice VP. I'm not sure it puts any different states in play, but Rudy as an attack dog is probably a pretty good role for him, assuming the personal baggage isn't too much of an issue.
Overrated,
If I had guess, I think VA, OH, and CO are all toss-ups right now, with only minor advantages for either candidate in any of them. My gut says that VA might lean slightly McCain, but that could be because I live in one of the most conservative parts of the state. Because of the local factors that I mentioned in my previous post (water in CO and DHL/job losses plus same-day early registration and voting in OH) that both CO & OH both lean slightly toward Obama. I am not a betting man unless I think the odds are heavily in my favor. I wouldn't bet on either candidate in any of these states. But because Obama really only needs to win one of the three (and hold on everywhere else that he has leads, which I believe is likely), I would bet heavily on Obama to win the election (not to beat the spread, necessarily, but to win).
On a far less rational and defensible level, I get the sense that Obama's team knows what they are doing, have a plan that they are carefully following, and are not panicking. They seem like they know that they are likely to win. McCain's team, by contrast, seems to be grasping and flailing, hoping that they are going to win. They have been more disciplined in the past month and have hit Obama hard. I think much of it is hugely unfair and way below the belt (which is why I will probably never vote GOP in a general, though I have on the local and state level before), but that's politics in modern America.
I don't think they can keep it up, however, once the Obama team starts to intensify things. Obama needed the break, even if it is costing him now, since he had been campaigning intensively for more than six months without any time off. But McCain has a lot that is attackable, and he has been moving to the right for the general election while Obama has been moving to the center.
If I had to pick an analogy, it wouldn't be a jump ball, it would be a heavily favored team (Obama) that has been leading all game. It's now late in the third quarter and their lead is down to three after the other team (McCain) has made a big run. There is plenty of time left, so either side could technically win. But in such situations, the favored team who is still clinging to a small lead hangs on to win. I know who I would be on.
Hey, I'll admit that I could be wrong. Any of us could be. McCain is definitely enjoying a good patch in the polls. But I didn't believe that Obama was going to keep his 6-8 point lead earlier this year, and I don't think that McCain can keep it within 2 points from here on out.
The difference, CJ, bw 1980 and today is that RR was a fairly known quantity who had been on the national stage for years. Obama is a mystery and there is a race going on to define him. A race that he is losing. McCain's allies in this are the Daily Kos, the HuffPo and Michael Moore who demand ideological purity from him. That such purity fits with his instincts and his left wing philosophy only aids McCain in this endeavor.
McCain does not need a Sister Souljah moment. He is a moderate Republican and he is a maverick. What he needs to do is to continue to re-assure this right of center country that he will be the steady considerate hand that will put the country's interest over his own political fortunes. He is well on his way to doing this.
Obama was an interesting, high risk gamble, but appears to have been too big and too unnecessary a risk. Y'all got too ahead of yourselves with him. Wanting to have your own Ronald Reagan. Such men are not made up of whole cloth but come from an authentic experience that speaks to a yearning in the country.
Reagan spoke to the nation's need to feel good about itself again.
Obama speaks to people's fears and insecurities. Not the same thing at all.
The only thing uplifting in Obama's speeches is his prophesy of his own ascendancy. Then what?
Pete Kent:
It ill behooves you to sink to personal insults (referring to someone you disagree with's "idiocy) when you are so clearly indecently exposing your oown woeful ignorance.
You have been blathering about the "Bradley Effect" since you started posting on this site wihout showing any sign that you know what it is. You posted earlier in this thread that "Evidence of Bradley effect abounds."
Since the existence or non-existence of a Bradley effect cannot be determined until after an election, you are full of it, and the it is not knowledge of the Bradley effect.
By definition, a Bradly effect has occurred when people report that they will vote for one candidate when they vote for another, the reason being it is supposedly embarassing to admit that they will select their vote for "non-appropriate" reasons. That is, they might not admit to an interviewer that they will vote against X because X is Black (White, Jewish, Catholic, etc.).
The essence is that there is a discrepancy between the reported intention and the eventual act. Without the eventual act - their vote in the election - the Bradley effect remains hypothetical.
The polls are currently showing a trend toward McCain that has wiped out almost all of Obama's prior lead. Obviously people are not embarrassed to say they are voting against Obama.
There may well be a Bradley effect in this election (although I do not think so) but saying that you see evidence of it now shows that you don't understand what it is.
BTW, the effect would expect to be greater in face-to-face interviews, less in direct phone interviews, and non-existent in robo polls, since there is no person at the other end. No one is doing face-to-face polls except the academic institutes, since they are cost prohibitive.
Guliani? Then I cant wait to see Biden hitting him over the head repeatedly in the debate.
That would be an unexpected gift for the democrats.
Adam in ny,
Your answer assumes that the marketing job fails. Coming from a multilingual country, you see quite literally, cases of politicians saying very different things to different people and getting away with it. That is what successful politics is all about though - convincing different groups of people with conflicting interests that you will do what they want (hence Obama appearing at Saddleback).
Secondly, you are assuming a degree of ideological rigidity that does not exist in practice. About 10% of Americans oppose abortion in all cases, about 45 % oppose abortion with exceptions, while 25% support abortion in almost all cases and 20% support abortion in all cases.
Here is Ridge's position on abortion (from ontheissues)
# Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy.
# Abortions should be legal only when pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered.
# Abortions should be limited by waiting periods and parental notification requirements.
# Prohibit the late-term abortion procedure known as “partial-birth” abortion.
So yes, Ridge pisses off the 10% hardcore abortion supporters (who probably voted for him anyway in Pennsylvania), and is unacceptable to the 20% hardcore pro-choicers. However his position looks like the 45% position.
Lieberman is a more audacious and risky choice, because his position is closer to the 25% group, if not the 20% one (he has voted both for and against partial birth abortion bans).
Good news filistro.
But i think he doesn´t pick Hillary.
another debate that will not happen but would be something--Gore vs Lieberman? Yes that would be something.
hosert, Lieberman not help McCain.
LAT,
The VP debates aren't really about the VPs; it's how well they play attack dog and support the ticket. Do you really think Biden is better suited to that than Rudy?? While both guys are self-promoters, I can see Rudy playing the attack dog role much better than Biden or any Dem other than Hillary. I guess I think more of Giuliani than you.
It looks like the McCain campaign thinks that when the smoke clears it's going to be Obama-Clinton. I can see why.
I'm not so sure myself (though he's surely thought on Kennedy-Johnson and Reagan-Bush,) but then I think Obama is going to be an easy winner on November 4th regardless of who gets the nod on either side.
judas_priest,
I don't think it is correct to argue that because Obama's lead is shrinking the Bradley effect is disproven.
People that lie to pollsters probably weigh that lie among many other things. On the one hand they dislike Obama, but on the other, they don't want to seem racist. Moreover, McCain's negative campaign has given such people specific non-racist reasons they might oppose Obama (or reasons by which they might justify a decision that was ultimately the result of racism).
A better argument against the presence of the Bradley effect would be to point out that it didn't show up in the case of Harold Ford Jr. (and Tennessee is hardly the heartland of racial tolerance), nor in the Democratic primaries (the polls were wrong in New Hampshire, but that was probably because of methodological problems).
well I am a new yorker so my ideas about Guliani are formed both by his tenure in the city, the scandals that came at the end of his time in the office and his performance as a national politician. Rudy can be very withering but he is angry not funny, this reinforces the sense that you have two very hot tempered people in one ticket. I don't think this is good for McCain. Biden is excellent in debates. Quick on his feet , and very ironic and withering without looking mean. I think it is a pretty bad idea to go with someone who banked all his votes on Florida spent all his time campaigning there and could not even get close. But if Republicans like him I think they should put him on the ticket. I think it reinforces some bad aspects of both of their personalities. And the ads just write themselves. IMHO.
Nate, it would be nice if you didn't always assume there is a conspiracy among the right every time something happens you don't like (e.g., if McCain gives a clearly improptu but brilliant performance before Rick Warren, he must have cheated). Frankly, it rings a bit hypocritical, and ruins the objectivity you strive for.
loner, how do you explain that?
Obama has to pick someone with some foreign affairs experience and who will act as his attack dog. Biden is more than capable in both those roles.
McCain will choose Fox networks O'Reilly Factor sub John Kasich, the former Ohio congressman.
I guess it all depends on what you think a VP is supposed to do. For most of the country, Rudy isn't the guy that New Yorkers know; he's the mayor from 9/11. It's basically doubling down on the tough guy card. Whether that's a good idea or not is a different question.
And while he ran a terrible presidential campaign, I'm not sure that's exactly a disqualifier for VP. Gore did a pretty good job in 1992 after a less than impressive run in 1988.
I just look at the rest of the names that the Reps are throwing out there and none of them is really that exciting.
"Reagan spoke to the nation's need to feel good about itself again.
Obama speaks to people's fears and insecurities."
Pete, what are you smoking? Obama's message is almost diametrically opposed to the playing on people's fear and insecurities. In fact, that is McCain's strategy right now, and probably his only chance to win. It was certainly the approach the Bush took. Have you ever actually listened to one Obama's speeches? They are anything but all about him.
I normally just quickly skim past your posts, but you've seemed slightly less trollish and more thoughtful in the past couple of days. Perhaps you just typed too quickly and didn't realize what words were appearing on the screen...
Sedi,
If you listen to Obama all he talks about is how bad things are now, but how they will get better once he is Pres. i stand by my comment. his speeches could have been recited in the great Depression.
Judas,
Looking at the FL poll, think it iwas, you can see that Obama's negatives are greater than the pro-McC vote. To me that says that people are unwilling to say they will vote against him, but still don;'t like him. Its evidence of the BE.
millco88
I think before this campaign you may be right that this is what most people thought of Giuliani. But I think his run made him into something beyond the Mayor of 9/11 (as the onion so well put it).
I agree that choosing him is doubling down. But my thought is this--in a year when people really express concern for the economy and exhaustion from the bellicosity of the Bush years is this doubling down wise for McCain. Note that if you believe the idea that the celeb ads are what is driving the numbers for Obama down they are working not on being 'terror' guys but on painting Obama as an empty suit. The only way to make that narrative the one until the election is to pick someone that reinforces that not Rudy who brings out something else in McCain. But again, I don't want McCain to win so the Rudy idea works for me. I can tell you the ads would be pretty devastating against such a ticket, as I see it.
PeteKent:
I give up. By definition there is no Bradley effect until the election itself. What part of that don't you understand? That part that requires being able to think?
You can cite the evidence that you did as a reason to believe that a Bradley effect will occur, but it cannot possibly be evidence of an effect that as yet doesn't exist.
You are obviously wandering around in Wonderland.
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less'"
LAT,
I think what the celebrity ads have done, if they've truly moved the polls, is paint Obama as inexperienced. You can call Rudy a lot of things, but inexperienced isn't one of them. I think that would be the doubling down aspect -- two guys who know how to get things done, especially if Obama goes with another less experienced guy like Kaine. Then it becomes experience versus change. Plus Rudy probably can't easily be painted with the Bush brush. If it's Biden, I'd want it just to see the VP debate -- the snarkfest from both guys would be pure gold.
But you might be right. Rudy's baggage might be too much of a risk for McCain when the race is so close. I just look at guys like Pawlenty or Portman, and I have to stifle a yawn.
agreed. the debate with Biden and Rudy would be gold. One can always hope. ;-)
Dario—
In the case of the McCain campaign thinking it'll be Clinton, they're stepping all over what they did for themselves on Saturday for no good reason unless their thinking has suddenly changed regarding what Obama is going to do. They appear to be looking for a sensational counter.
In the case of Obama winning easy in November, it's just my hunch based on my take on history and on what I've seen during the past 40 years.
Thanks loner.
and this one is for Dario :-)
Thanks filistro.
If this happens, McCain wins easily.
A lot of polls out today. Enough to push McCain 10 EV ahead over at RCP. Where's the update, Nate?
Well, maybe.
She can help Obama in OH and FL but probably cost him some states like OR, MN, IA, and WA.
Darren, RCP was wrong in Colorado.
McCain has 3 real options here: Romney, Crist and Pawltney. The only one who does him any good is Crist.
Pawltney is a boring white guy from MN. He won re-election by one measley point. MN is not a swing state, so Pawltney will not put any states in play for McCain. Perhaps he is a brilliant campaigner, but his milquetoast approval rating in MN is not reassuring.
Crist is sexually ambiguous, which makes Evangelicals squirm, but Obama cannot make hay with that issue. He is highly popular in Florida, and that is the one state that could kill McCain if he loses it. RCP puts him up by a mere 1.5% right now, so nailing down his largest target would be well worth a VP, even an ambiguously gay one.
Romney is the worst pick available. He seems like a good idea, and McCain probably fantasizes about winning MI with him. However, his ties to MI are pretty weak outside the GOP, and Romney has two major downsides: 1) He comes across as a complete phony. His flip-flopping on every major issue, and his lies about his father marching with MLK all made us sick watch him lie through his teeth and not even very well. This phoniness will repulse any weak McCain supporters, especially independents and cross-over Dems. 2) Romney's Mormonism offends the Left for its homophobia and racism, but more importantly, weakens McCain severely among Evangelicals. With Barr running, Evangelicals can turn against McCain without having to vote for Obama, so Romney could threaten to put GA, the Carolinas and VA into Obama's column.
Crist seems the only one with a major upside, and that's nailing down Florida. Pawltney brings little to the table and Romney just drives people away.
Dario,
Again, hardly anything Obama could do will lose him Washington state. I live here. WA voters don't hate Hillary enough to sit home much less vote McCain
I don´t think Mac picks Romney.
Mitt said in the primaries that McCain isn´t a conservative. And McCain hates Romney.
Judas,
You are arguing over angels dancing on the head of a pin.
And remember your own words, as you ill-tempered: "It ill behooves you to sink to personal insults (referring to someone you disagree with's "idiocy) when you are so clearly indecently exposing your oown woeful ignorance."
You are guiltuy of the very thing you accuse me of.
You are a sanctimonius and dull.
You need to liven up your act or you will turn int0 another Cugel.
Sedi -
Back from dinner. Thanks for your reply. I want you to entertain me by going to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/OH/P/00/map.html. These are the results of the OH 2004 election. The eastern and se side of the state tend to go mod GOP or blue. Now look at the primary results between Clinton and Obama in 2008. Do you see anything of concern? It is not just the big cities in OH that matter to Obama. It is also the blue collar dem that are moderates in the rural SE and E counties that Obama must have to counter the OH GOP surge in middle and western part of the state. I would argue BO will not win or be neutralized in those crucial blue collar counties. I would argue that OH is GOP by at least 2% this year.
I've come around more and more to the idea that Obama has to pick Hillary. Believe me, I despise her with all the vitriol and virulence in my body, but I think she's the guy, as it were.
She does nothing but help him in FL, OH, IN, MO, and maybe even AR, and I honestly don't think dems in WA or other places wouldn't vote for Obama just because of Hillary. Hell, she might even put WV in play, because honestly we don't know much in the way of how it's trending.
I think she helps him almost across the board in rural areas and with the working class, and maybe the only places she hurts are in CO and VA, and maybe the Dakotas and MT (but that's just speculation).
Biden is good, but I don't think he can net many more votes for Obama and Bayh is even more boring than Larry King interviewing the American Idol contestants. Kaine does nothing but accentuate Obama's inexperience.
And Axel, I don't think conservatives like Crist very much, from what I hear. I could honestly care less who he picks. But if Obama doesn't take Hillary, I think Sarah Palin is a good choice to maybe grab some of the PUMAs.
and she helps in MI too.
Forgot that one.
uhm...i found a little error in latest update...in pennsylvania poll numbers are 46-41 for Obama and not 44-38...
If Obama picks Clinton it will lead to a big surge at first - mayne 10 pts in the extreme. But by Oct it would be the same story with "who's in charge" and "Obama needs help" etc...Obama has never lacked confidence and he could not stand the second guessing. It would be very powerful, but only until the press moved on to another campaign narrative. They would have a field day with the perceived conflicts between the two.
Overrated,
I certainly take your point, and it's quite possible that Obama will fail to consolidate Dem support in those places. And he may lose OH. But he might not, also. Losing votes in a Dem primary to a popular, skilled politician who is associated with 8 years of prosperity is one thing. Losing to an aging, none-too-charismatic pro-NAFTA Republican is another thing. I'm not sure what his level of support in eastern OH is right now, but it is certainly possible for him to attract Clinton voters by November. He has yet to really hit hard on the economy and hasn't spent an inordinate amount of time in OH yet. As the election draws closer and some of the longer reach states (NC, MO, GA, etc.) fall out of play (presumably), he'll focus more on the ten or twelve states that realistically could swing, with special attention on OH, VA, CO, and NV.
I also think that approaching an election as a zero sum game is the wrong approach. Many people who could vote either aren't registered or don't vote. Obama is aggressively courting these people with a strong, organized ground game. If the total electorate in OH increases 5-7% and he is able to attract 75% support from the new voters, he wins. The early voting law makes this easier. The fact that the GOP does not control the state government machinery could also be important, as there were definitely voting problems and irregularities in Democratic-leaning districts. OH was pretty close in 2004, and the economy has just been getting worse.
I don't know, when added all together, I think Obama has a slightly better than even chance. I could be wrong, and I am no expert on OH politics. If I were Obama, I would definitely make a few stops in Youngstown and vicinity, as well was Cleveland, Toledo, Columbus, and Cincinnati. I'm guessing that he already knows that, though.
Oh, and he could pick Clinton and ask her to spent half of her time between now and November in OH and the other half in FL. That might help him, too.
Peter Kent:
That you think it is like arguing about the counting of Angels on the head of the pin merely shows you don't understand the issue. And referring to your ignorance in this area, which you have so amply demonstrated, is quite different from using the term idiocy.
The Bradley effect has a specific meaning. This meaning is generally accepted. You are using it differently. You can do or say anyhting you like, but the fact remains that your use of the term is not consistent with its generally accepted meaning. Hence my quoting teh character Humpty Dumpty from Through The Looking Glass.
From Wikipedia:
"The term Bradley effect or (less commonly) the Wilder effect refers to an explanation advanced as the possible cause of an alleged phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate.
"Specifically, there were instances in which such elections saw the non-white candidate significantly underperform with respect to the results predicted by pre-election polls.
Researchers who studied the issue theorized that some white voters gave inaccurate polling responses because of a fear that by stating their true preference, they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced. This theory suggested that statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but that those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the non-white candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate."
The essence of this effect is the discrepancy between reported preference and the actual vote. There has been no actual vote; ergo, no Bradley effect (yet).
But by Oct it would be the same story with "who's in charge" and "Obama needs help" etc...
I think you might be making too much out of this. The "who's in charge" argument could actually help him with certain voters.
Dem leaning working class voters could say "I like the Dems on issues, but I'm not sure I completely trust Obama is not an extremist...but Hillary will never let him be too extreme"
"Obama needs help"...all politicians do. Its a close election and the fact that candidates pick VPs to help win elections is hardly a secret. I doubt McCain is going to make a completely non-political choice.
Obama has never lacked confidence and he could not stand the second guessing.
Aren't you contradicting yourself...She second guesses him. So what? He has the self confidence that he can shrug it off.
They would have a field day with the perceived conflicts between the two.
Like...for example...seriously, what is the major conflict.
This isn't like prochoice anti-Voodoo economics Bush joining Reagan's ticket.
Everybody talks about the conflicts. Frankly, I don't see what they are. They agree on nearly everything. It got so bad that reporters would spend 30 minutes during debates talking about the minute differences in the two health care plans which were 95% alike.
It seemed to me like they had different personalities during the primaries but that was just emphasized because they had so little to go with on policy differences.
Post a Comment