8.04.2008

Is Obama Underachieving?

In an article in today's Los Angeles Times, I examine the widespread notion that Barack Obama has been 'underachieving', especially relative to the performance of a Generic Democrat.

My conclusion is that this characterization is a bit misleading. The apparent underperformance of Obama can partially be explained by structural factors, most notably the fact that the Democrats have a wider, more diverse coalition than the Republicans. It is therefore more difficult for any one Democratic nominee to please all his party's constituents.

But also, Obama has heretofore been unable to brand John McCain as a Generic Republican, as McCain is regarded by much of the electorate as a moderate. In terms of their distance from the median voter, then, Obama v. McCain is a much fairer fight than would be indicated by their respective party affiliations:

In terms of party principles, the Democrats have already won the election. The party's liberal base didn't have to compromise on its candidate, whereas a substantial number of conservative Republicans did.

But the Republicans seem wise to have compromised, because polling showed that Obama was headed for a landslide victory if his opponent was an identifiably right-wing candidate.

According to polling averages compiled by the website RealClearPolitics, at the time they discontinued their respective presidential bids, Fred Thompson trailed Obama by 12 percentage points, Mitt Romney was behind by 15 and Mike Huckabee by 17. For that matter, a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports showed Obama leading President Bush by 20 percentage points in a hypothetical matchup.

McCain has managed to retain his reputation as a moderate and thereby avoid the fate of his conservative former rivals of falling far behind Obama. And so Democrats will aim to undermine McCain's perceived moderation -- by possibly highlighting his rightward shifts during the Republican primaries and by attempting to tie him to Bush. The problem for Obama is not so much that he's underperforming a generic Democrat. It's that he hasn't yet been able to re-brand McCain as a typically conservative Republican.
In a sense, I think the media's Obamacentrism has confused it (the campaign coverage has certainly been Obamacentric -- though by no means always Obamaphilic). If Obama is underperforming a Generic Democrat, that is presumed to reflect some or another weakness of Obama's. But it could just as easily reflect some or another strength of John McCain's -- such as his perceived moderation. Since Obama was polling ahead of non-McCain Republicans by blowout margins, I would argue that the latter is more likely.

*-*

To make this something of an omnibus thread for media hits, you can listen to the audio of my interview last week with WNYC's Brian Lehrer here. And I'm cited in an article by The Politico's David Mark on electoral college ties here.

198 comments

Arnaud said...

The reality is than at this moment, Obama is very low with the democrats(75-79%) and McCain who has 85-88% Republicans with him is always behind or tied.

These facts are not good for McCain.
When Hillary begins his campaign for Obama and after the convention, the Democrats numbers for Obama will increase.

Nick said...

Nate,

Spot on with that LA Times column. When Obama succeeds at one or both of the following his thing is over:

1. Unites the Democratic party with the proper Veep pick

2. "Outs" McCain for the idealogue in maverick's clothing that he is

Jackson said...

Comparing hypotheticals to an actual race isn't very telling.

A hypothetical race isn't "real", so people are free to drop the agendas and just give a whimsical, gut answer.

A PUMA type probably wouldn't mind saying they'd pick Obama over Bush, because that isn't the race in front of them. However, when you change the question to the very real race between Obama and McCain, the contempt for Obama returns.

stop_the_stutter said...

The fact that the Republicans are so united behind McCain shows how liberal Obama is perceived to be.

Overrated said...

Nate - you are reaching here. Obama is underperforming because he is a high-risk candidate. If Clinton was running the South would be fractured with states like TN, Ark, KY, and LA all major battlegrounds or leaning Dem. She would be ahead by 10-15 pts and this thing would be over. All this hope that BO will some how suddenly pull away is wishful thinking. Put down the Obama Kool-Aid and back away from the computer. This thing is going to be close. BO best chance at 270 is out West with NM, CO, and NV.

Ian said...

"Clinton would be winning big..."

Oh, please. She would be underperforming in half a dozen other states.

Obama has to do two things to win: drive large numbers of new voters to the polls and frame McCain for the schizoid right-winger he is. There have already been numerous postings analyzing the former on this site: the real question is why Obama hasn't set off a blurry of ads framing McCain as dangerous. My guess? Because most people who aren't geeks don't pay attention until after Labor Day. Wait til after the Olympics. Take a vacation.

Ben said...

Hillary Clinton had extraordinarily high negatives nationally. The electoral map would look very different were she the nominee, but it would be no less close at this point. And Clinton is a much better known quantity than Obama, so my guess is that a Clinton-McCain race would have stayed close. And we all saw how effective a campaign she ran in the spring.

With Obama as the Democratic nominee this race might indeed stay close, or he might pull away, or he might collapse.

Clinton and Obama are different candidates and they'd have conducted different campaigns. But the notion that Hillary Clinton would have been a shoe-in to win in November is a much bigger fantasy than anything Nate has written about Obama.

Given the deep partisan divisions in this country, and despite the unpopularity of our current president, this year was never going to be a cakewalk for any Democrat. And as Nate points out, those who look at generic Democrat vs. Republican numbers and draw the conclusion that we ought to expect the Democratic nominee to be waltzing to victory are perhaps the biggest fantasists of all.

Overrated said...

Sure, Ian she would be underperforming in some other states....notably out West but not in key states like Ohio and FL..and she would have all the Kerry states in her back pocket. Face it ...Obama is high-risk and its going to stay close.

Jaka said...

I think all of you (Nate included) are missing the most important point. Obama is "underperforming" because he is under continuous negative attacks. It's easy to say that Hillary would be doing better or that "the generic democrat" would be doing better, because those are not the ones under attack. If they were, things would be a lot different. Keep in mind that the Republicans would come up with tons of negative material, either real or made up, against ANY candidate (yes, even the generic one) - that's the only thing they're good at.

And they are good at it. Have you considered that McCain's flip-flopping is at least 10 times as bad as Obama's and still Obama's the one being called "a flip-flopper". McCain has seven houses, his wife said "a small plane is the only way to get around in Arizona", and Obama is the one being called "elitist" (mostly because he has Harvard education, which is suddenly a bad thing). McCain has shown that he lacks BASIC knowledge of the Middle East, and still he's considered as the "foreign policy expert" (why? because he was a POW in a foreign country 40 years ago?). And most importantly, Obama constantly describes his policy plans with tons of details, while McCain doesn't give out ANY plans at all, except moronic statements like "I'll win the war in Iraq", "I'll balance the budget" and "I know how to catch Bin Laden"; and STILL it's Obama being called "an empty suit" and "a celebrity with no substance".

So really... It's the media, stupid. They're eating up McCain's smear fodder like candy. Against that, not even a hypothetical PERFECT Democrat would be doing much better.

Bryan said...

It's easy to say that Hillary would be doing better or that "the generic democrat" would be doing better, because those are not the ones under attack. If they were, things would be a lot different.

And don't forget that the GOP has had 16 years with which to develop anti-Hillary narratives; they've had only 16 months with Obama.

Overrated said...

Lets see...a minority candidate with a foreign name that has yet to complete his first term in the US Senate is going to drive unprecendented turnout because of high Dem involvement in primaries....talk about fantasy.

Brad said...

OBama is underperforming. Let's face it, a major part of that is his race - there is a silver lining though. Since black turnout has been low and many blacks are not registered, they are not being polled. My bet is the folks who are consciously or unconsciouly voting against Obama because he is black will be balanced by a greater black turnout.

Thus Obama is not underperforming, the polls are not correctly the judging the electorate.

Brad said...

As for Hillary, she would be ahead and she would win but it would be an even uglier and more divisive race. She would also energize the repub base.

Can you imagine Limbaugh if Hillary were the nominee? Remember, he wanted Hillary for a reason folks!

Overrated said...

Brad - I agree. It would have been a very nasty campaign but she would have won because people are fond of the 90's boom years and Bill and Hillary would be seen as "safe". The economy would have been the Clinton ace in the hole

Andrew said...

While we talk about Hillary's "extraordinarily high negatives," remember that there's a huge wing of the Democratic Party that fell in love with her (call it the Clinton Coalition) over the primary season, some nearly 17 million casting votes for her.

If there were some way to ensure he'll win 80% of the Dem vote and that turnout will be huge in the youth, black, and urban sectors, I think he'll be fine.

Jackson said...

Clinton would be struggling to hold many of the Gore/Kerry states, particuarly Iowa but also Wisconsin and Oregon and perhaps even Minnesota. Also there'd be little chance at Colorado and Virginia.

rob said...

The race would definitely be a lot uglier with Hillary as the nominee, and (speaking hypothetically) I'd be supporting McCain over her (I'm an Obama donor and volunteer), but that's just reverse ageism . . . I feel like the baby boomers are responsible for a lot of the deadlock, the partisan sniping, and the mudslinging in Washington, and I'll take a silent over a boomer any day. Maybe that's why I find Obama/Nunn so attractive (though Sebelius is my fav from the top four).

Overrated said...

By the way...did anybody notice Bill Clinton's comments to an ABC interview when asked about his thoughts of the primary...talk about bitter. The split is significant and it will be a factor come Nov

rob said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Jackson said...

While we talk about Hillary's "extraordinarily high negatives," remember that there's a huge wing of the Democratic Party that fell in love with her (call it the Clinton Coalition) over the primary season, some nearly 17 million casting votes for her.

And another huge wing that fell out of love with her and her husband. If Clinton were the nominee, a lot of the black vote would go to McKinney now that she's the Green candidate. No way Clinton would be up anywhere near 10-15 points. Obama also has a key demographic that is decidedly underpolled. All they have to do is show up on election day.

Brad said...

Yes, she got 17 million votes but he got more delegates! What really makes me mad at Hillary, who I once supported, is that she went into significant personal debt to build up the negatives on the person was assured of winning. Those negatives account for some portion of Obama's underperformance - and it is unforgivable! The fact that she now wirtes me tohelp her retire the campaign debt used to make the road to the White House harder for dems is infuriating.

Hillarry and Bill supporters need to wake up, they are in this as pure lust for power, and not for you or the party.

Jackson said...

Brad - I agree. It would have been a very nasty campaign but she would have won because people are fond of the 90's boom years and Bill and Hillary would be seen as "safe". The economy would have been the Clinton ace in the hole

The 90s economy ain't coming back, no matter what the deluded tell themselves.

China and India aren't going back in the bottle.

Overrated said...

Boom!!!! Ras has McCain up by one today. First time since May. Nate update your model...this is getting ridiculous.

Jaka said...

Lets see...a minority candidate with a foreign name that has yet to complete his first term in the US Senate is going to drive unprecendented turnout because of high Dem involvement in primaries....talk about fantasy.

There WILL be an unprecedented high turnout, no doubt about that. But I would argue that the main reason will more likely be Bush than Obama.

To put it another way, in this election people won't be voting so much FOR a candidate than they will be voting AGAINST the other candidate.

Let's face it, Obama has only the qualities that you would normally EXPECT a president to have (smart, educated, honorable, good diplomat). He wouldn't be NEARLY as much of a celebrity if it wasn't in contrast with the corrupt retarted moron who's been in the Office for the past 7 years.

And let's face it, NOBODY is excited by McCain - people will vote for him mainly because they don't want or they're afraid to vote for Obama.

Andrew said...

Just for the record, I'm an Obama supporter and have been since the keynote in 2004; I was never enamored of Hillary.

But my girlfriend's a Wellesley College undergrad and knows the PUMA wing of the party well; even now, she says there's "something about Obama" (inexperience or his gender, perhaps, or the veneer of competence that Hillary built with her First Lady cred and her eight years in the Senate) that prevents her from being as enthusiastic about him.

It's sad that Obama (or any one party's nominee) had to endure such a fractious and internecine primary season, then fight the fire and brimstone of the attack ad specialists on the right without guaranteed or structured support from the disenchanted elements on the left.

With America stuck in a two-party system, if you want to change the status quo, your best chance in a Presidential election is by casting a vote for the non-incumbent major party's nominee, not by staying home or whining about how your man or woman got jobbed.

Brad said...

Overrated-

McCain up 1 is huge. Ras has a terrible way to collect data, and it overstates McCain support, but hey, that is what it is. This be be huge as it will be widely reported.

Brad said...

From Rasmussen today:

"McCain is currently viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 51%. That is the lowest rating for Obama since he wrapped up the nomination."

This means going negative on Obama is working, don't be surprised to see some 527's pop up now - with the backroom approval of McCan't.

Brad said...

Andrew-

Ask your gf if Obama actually losing, use today's Ras poll, will energize any more? Does she really want Bush III?

I want to see how cynical these PUMA's are. My wife is one too.

Overrated said...

Brad -

It has tracked Gallup pretty close and yes, going negative appears to be having some impact. Obama has so some huge built in disadvantages. He better pick his VP quick b4 the Clinton side of the party revolts and makes it Obama/Clinton.

Darío said...

Yes, Rasmussen tracking said McCain leads for 1 point. August is McCain´s month.
But Rasmussen market gives Obama 59% winning the White House.
That´s funny.

Arnaud said...

Why the McCain supporters are happy? McCain up by 1(tied without leaners)..waoouuuu.

1)Rasmussen is leaning republicans and he works for Fox News.

2)If you look the numbers, McCain leads by 15 amoung independents and 85-88% Republicans backs him.

His numbers are on top and he is only up by 1. If i'm a McCain supporter, i'm not happy with these facts.

Obama has a great and good possibility for increase his numbers, not McCain.

It's the reality.

Bryan said...

Although we've likely all seen this already, this WaPo article has a poll that says that Obama is leading 47-37 among white working-class voters.

1)Rasmussen is leaning republicans and he works for Fox News.

Again, we've not yet seen any ideological biases in the Rasmussen tracking or state polls. The issue polls, perhaps.

Virginia Conservative said...

Good analysis as usual, Nate, but I think there is another factor at work--the popularity of offshore drilling. Larry Kudlow this morning on CNBC said it could be THE issue that turns things around for the Republicans.

Brad said...

Arnaud-

True. But if you are McCain and you know you have a ceiling, the whole goal will be to get Obama under that number. It is going to get real ugly. Maybe they will compare him to Diana, or Madonna, or God forbid - CHER!

Brad said...

Drilling is the issue, and the Dems are late to the table, but they are coming. They need to get that bill passed and get ads out on it - pronto!!!!!

Globe199 said...

The idea that Obama can safely wait until after Labor Day is an exceedingly risky and dangerous one. The Swiftboaters struck in August and it basically spelled the end for John Kerry (despite a handful of strong debate performances).

No, Obama must strike hard and soon or he could be in real trouble.

Virginia Conservative said...

Globe its too late. I think we've begun to see the beginning of the end of the Obama phenomenon.

moondancer said...

McCains biggest problem is McCain. Yes, his brand to casual or uninterested voters is very good, but the obvious decline in mental capacity and physical frailty is going to crush him as people tune in and look at whats left of the McCain of 2000.
It's anecdotal, but I have yet to talk to anyone of any affiliation that hasn't agreed or admitted at being surprised by his diminished capacity.
I encourage anyone who hasn't seen the video of McCain mentally faltering in Fla to go to JED Report and check it out.
I expect an Admiral Stockdale moment from him shortly.

Nick said...

Obama's new attack ad: "Pocket"
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/pocket_ad

Sam said...

Nate, you make a good point about the special challenges facing democratic candidates in holding that coalition together. However, its a bit inaccurate to characterize the "loyalty gap" as immutable.

Ultimately, there is a large "loyalty gap" when the Dems field crappy candidates, and this is not the case when they field better ones. Clinton outperformed party ID gaps in both of his presidential elections. Even Gore and Kerry ended up with popular vote margins within a few percentage points of the differential between Democratic and GOP party id.

Obama is on track right now for a performance roughly between Dukakis and Kerry in terms of his vote share vis-a-vis party id, underperforming the party id differential by somewhere between 5-10 points. All signs really do point to the idea that he is performing poorly given the political environment.

Matt Stoller said...

In terms of party principles, the Democrats have already won the election. The party's liberal base didn't have to compromise on its candidate, whereas a substantial number of conservative Republicans did.

Can you explain this? For many of us, neither Clinton nor Edwards nor Obama were particularly liberal. In terms of data on, say, Iraq votes, Obama and Clinton were identical.

jack black said...

On this date in history, August 4, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry and President George Bush were tied 48% to 48%.

For final results, please see Presidential Inuaguration January 2005.

For those of you looking forward to my daily posts, I do not work on weekends, as I like to take a break from politics once and awhile. I doubt anything I say can change the mind of any left winger, nor can a left winger change my right wing mind.

jeremy said...

Obama losing 15 points among unaffiliateds in a week is pretty drastic. It would be nice to know if all of that loss came from a specific subgroup.

Virginia Conservative said...

Nah, independents picked BOTH party nominees. Had the entire primary seas been closed, we would be looking at Clinton v. Romney, or quite possibly Clinton v. Huckabee.

joel said...

At this point polling means nothimg. We won`t know where we stand until after the conventions and at least one debate.
If after all his negative ads all McCain is doing is driving down Obama`s positives it doesn`t bode well.
The state of the economy will decide this election and it won`t help McCain.

thatmarvelousape said...

VCon,

Those of us following this election have seen about thirty "beginning of the end of the Obama phenomenon." Obama certainly needs to tweak his tactics (today's ad is great), but people who make predictions like yours inevitably end up looking foolish a week or two later. Perhaps you are hoping that people will forget the details of your relentlessly negative noisemaking, but I, for one, will remember your comment and remind you of it in the weeks to come.

Virginia Conservative said...

And when/if Obama loses in November, I'll remind you how you crowed Obama had it in the bag.

jack black said...

Oh, I forgot, I along with hundreds of thousands of other right wing bloggers have changed the mind of Obama on Offshore Drilling.

Now, that wasn't so hard was it my fellow right wingers. As for you left wingers out there, come on, admit it, he threw you under the bus!!

You defended him, you stood by him when he said no drilling! You railed against drilling for over a month, you said it shouldn't be done! It wouldn't change anything, but now, yes, can you beleive it, another FLIP FLOP by both ways BARACK!!!!!!!!!!

Now standing by for further flip flops, and asking the question, "Who is Barck Hussein Obama."

Brad said...

Way to take credit Jack! We are so proud of you!

Back to reality...

The oil thing has two sides and the American public has only seen one. Today's ad is too late, but it may not be too little.

DarcyPennell said...

Jack Black:
On this date in history, August 4, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry and President George Bush were tied 48% to 48%.

So it took a week for Kerry's post-convention bounce to dissipate. Good point. We should be sure to compare that number with the polls on September 2 and see how well Obama's bounce holds up.

Virginia Conservative said...

BTW, for all you people pushing party ID, Rasmussen says the number of people who identify themselves as Democrats FELL in July.

filistro said...

If Amerians had to pick (from a prepared list) ONE WORD that best describes what they most want in their president, what do you think that word would be?

Intelligent? Diplomatic? Flexible? Wise? Educated? Graceful? Brave?

I think it would be "TOUGH." And I think whoever comes across as looking "toughest" is going to win this election.

Darío said...

moondancer said McCain´s biggest problem is McCain.
Yes, but Obama´s biggest problem is Obama, too.

Mason said...

Not Jack Black said:
"As for you left wingers out there, come on, admit it, he threw you under the bus!!"

Sure, Jack. Keep telling yourself that. I'm remided of an SAT question I saw long ago:

Compromise is:
A. Everybody wins. Everbody loses.
B. Everybody wins. Nobody loses.
C. Somebody wins. Somebody loses.
D. Nobody wins. Everybody loses.

Being young and idealistic, I think I chose B. The correct answer, of course, was A. Someone around here stated the other day that liberals tend to see the issue as ENERGY-USE/engery-supply whereas conservatives see the issue as ENERGY-SUPPLY/energy-use. In this light (CFL, of course), BHO still sees drilling as a not so useful means to the ultimate ends of reduceing usage, since it addresses supply. He also sees it as a useful bargaining chip. He's throwing you a bone, as it were. They can drill out there, but we'll crank up the royalties and use the proceeds to fund a generous set of tax credits for the commercial, residential, and industrial use of renewable resources. Everyone wins. Everyone loses.

Only those who are incapable of compromise would think this a bad turn of events. After all, what's Johnny Mac gonna do? Put out an add accusing him of changing his mind on oil? I doubt it.

thatmarvelousape said...

VCon,

I have never 'crowed' that 'Obama had it in the bag.' In fact, if you look over my comments, you will find that I have repeatedly said that McCain has a decent shot at winning, though I think Obama has a slight advantage. As I've said before, the fundamental landscape will not shift, and those proclaiming doom & gloom for either side are being silly. Your dramatic claims about "the end of the Obama phenomenon" will be easily debunked when the state of the race continues to reflect what we've seen for two months now: a generally tight race in which Obama fluctuates in and out of a negligible lead.

Brian Dell said...

The contention that Obama is being held back by Republicans is not supported by the evidence. He's failure to do as well as Kerry amongst Democrats suggests that Obama is instead being held back by nativists within his own globalization-skeptic coaltion.

Sophisticated urban liberals have no problem using one hand to embrace a rather aloof, Indonesia-raised, arugula-consuming, Harvard-educated minority named Barack Hussein Obama on the one hand and using the other hand to point an accusing finger at international investment bankers plotting the outsourcing of US jobs over cigars and brandy. For the Kentucky coal miner, however, the easy assumption that the latter is obviously "the Other", scheming against hard working Americans, while Obama is an all-American "good ol boy" is too subtle by half.

Obama supporters can't see the rednecks in the Democrat coalition because they believe Democrats are more cosmopolitan than Republicans almost by definition.

If Obama had a better appreciation of just what was holding him back, he would have never called attention to the fact he doesn't look like the other Presidents on the money. You do that, and it's not the Republicans who are going to be reminded of the unverbalized "problem" they have in their sub-conscious - the GOP is quite verbal (in their charges of liberalism) - it's the Clinton voters who are going to be reminded of why they didn't vote for him.

Brad said...

Well, registerin comments helped for awhile. Can we somehow add a sanity screen? Brian, you are delusional, go take your meds.

Higglytown said...

Hooray for Obama, another FLOP. After being against seating the Florida and Michigan delegations when it looked like that might draw his razor thin margin of vicotry into question, he finally flopped over like a wet fish out of water. Seating the Michigan and Florida delegations is the right thing to do now, so much for his and his surrogates tirades over the past months, gotta look good at convention time.

Virginia Conservative said...

thatmarvelousape-

August is always about the time liberal candidates start to go down the toilet, and I have no reason to believe this time will be any different.

Gas drilling combined with McCain finally getting a good narrative against Obama (arrogance) is going to drive his numbers down, starting this month.

Higglytown said...

Mason, Republicans see both Energy Supply and Reduction in Demand as equally necessary. Until today Obama felt reduction in demand was all that was needed. Its nice to see him come to his senses and FLOP over to the right side of the fence on this issue.

Christopher said...

Can we please take the phrase 'flip flop' and put it on ice for like another 50 years??

If a public official changes his mind on an issue due to changing realities, it shouldn't be a bad thing. Worse is when they refuse to change their mind due to political convenience.

McCain has held just about every position of every issue during his career. This would make him King Flip Flop. But really, I don't think it's such a bad thing.

Mason said...

Brian-
He's doing better than Kerry in most demographics. There was a post on that the other day.

After that kind of a misstatement of fact, do you really expect to be taken seriously?

Higgly-
Oh please... You're missing the point of tossing them out in the first place: Making them irrelevant. So long as they didn't tip the nomination one way or the other, they were always going to be let in. Now that their votes no longer matter, they get to have their say. Mission Accomplished.

someperson718 said...

I have been saying this for a while. Obama will have to do 2 things and once he does, it won't be a squeak by victory, it will be a landslide victory.
1.He has to continue to increase the number of democratic supports from 75% to the upper 80s
2.He has to continue, EVERY SINGLE DAY, to paint McCain as the third Bush. You do that, you win BIG. Something tells me Obama isn't trying to get to 270 he is looking more for reaching the mid to high 300s.

Ben said...


August is always about the time liberal candidates start to go down the toilet, and I have no reason to believe this time will be any different.


Yes, August is a magical month full of sunflowers and fairy tales where everyone changes their opinion about everything. Either that or you've got your little head in the clouds?

Brian Dell said...

The fact Obama didn't get a bounce from his overseas tour where he was feted by the European chattering class should have set off the warning lights that there is a deep-seated nativism in the American electorate that the media pundits were not fully appreciating.

The Obama campaign should have looked at that, realized that cosmopolitanism does not sell, and then done everything possible to avoid a dust-up that called attention to the fact Obama isn't as easy to identify with for an older white voter.

The New Yorker cover caused so much outrage because even for those for whom the satire was obvious (latte liberals), they had an inkling that the American public is simply not conscious enough in its reasoning to focus on the satire.

Those smear e-mails that are circulating are killing Obama with Clinton voters. It's Clinton's ghost that is bringing him down, not McCain.

ajbeecroft said...

On the partisan ID numbers:
Rasmussen has the Democrats with a 7.6 point advantage right now, down from 9.5 last month. Let's put those numbers in context:

In 2004, the Democrats began the year with a 2.3 percentage point edge over the GOP. That grew to 4.0 points by March before moving in the Republican direction for the rest of the year. By Election Day in 2004, the edge for Democrats was a mere 1.6 percentage points.

In 2006, the Democrats began the year with just a 1.6 percentage point advantage. That grew to 6.1 percentage points by November.


In other words, more people are identifying as Democrats now than were doing so during the 2006 election. And we know how that turned out.
And these numbers remind us that partisan ID numbers matter. A narrow Democratic advantage, like in 2004, isn't enough to win an election; a bigger advantage, like in 2006, is.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends

Mason said...

Higgly-
"Mason, Republicans see both Energy Supply and Reduction in Demand as equally necessary."

*Scoff* Right. Sure they are. That's why Reagan took the solar panels off of the roof of the White House. That's why we had so much movement of CAFE standards while the GOP had all the levers of power. That's why Dick Cheney said "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." I'm sorry, Higgly, but you're making quite an extraordinary claim, and you're going to have to back it up with equally extraordinary evidence.

zozie said...

McCain is not very moderate:
- very strongly anti choice.
- wants to wreck Social Security as we know it.
- is a war monger: wants to continue in Iraq and start a war in Iran.
- a platform contains no real relief for the middle class (earning less than 100,000 a year) but lots of help for multimillionaires and corporations.
- help on oil pricing amounts to saving a buck or two over the summer and starting drilling for oil off the coast which won't see any actual oil for 5 years, may not yield much at all, and is very anti-environmental. These are gimmicks not policies.

McCain's actual stands on issues need to be spotlit.

Virginia Conservative said...

Brian-

Chill out with the xenophobic rants.McCain is at least as "international" as Barack Obama--hes a Navy brat. There are few people more "cosmopolitan" than navy families. Both candidates (despite Obama's pandering for two weeks in the primary) are free traders.

Sorry, Brian, but the 1952 Primary is over, and Taft lost.

Mason said...

Oh... One other thing Higgly. At the risk of repeating myself - I'd be willing to bet that Obama STILL feels that drilling is useless for reducing the cost of crude in the near term, but he's come to realize that if he says "yeah, whatever" to it, he can ram through some things he really wants. For example, he might want, solar panels on every south facing roof in the country. Sometimes, saying "maybe" isn't a weakness.

Brian Dell said...

I'm not the xenophobe. Obama's international popularity is, in fact, a big plus with me and, I think, with urban conservatives generally. You are rather proving the point by blinding yourself to the possibility of xenophobia amongst Dem voters.

Dick Morris has shown that Obama's distinct problem, the one that distinguishes this cycle from others, is white women over 50. Don't tell me this demographic is more informed and less intuitive in its voting rationale than the others.

Virginia Conservative said...

Well, women 50+ isn't the Kentucky coal miner. Its people like Geraldine Ferraro. They're hardly provincial.

yiannis said...

I don't see how one can explain a 10 point swing on national polls from the ads of last week.

If 10% of likely voters are convinced by McCain's ad or are sensitive to the media's discussion of the race card, then they were never really undecided.

Mason said...

Yiannis-

Really bad polling last week? Judging by the way the poll moved, there had to have been some days in Ras that had Obama up 10-13%, and that's just not right. Maybe a change or two in the LV screen?

ajbeecroft said...

Brian and VA Con,
I guess white women over 50 are, roughly, the group we were jokingly calling "Pottery Barn Women" here a couple of weeks ago, and the group which Mark Penn all-too-earnestly called "Active Grannies" a few days later.
All the usual cautions about micro-demographics aside, my own take on that particular group is that they're the one place we're likely to find the PUMA in the wild (as opposed to its protected habitat on Youtube).
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that there are a certain number of white women 50+ who voted for Hillary, whether or not they're particularly liberal (or even pro-choice), because they identified with her on an emotional level. Most of them have moved on to Obama, especially the ones who are on the left anyway, but some of the rest may be torn, and not very strongly attracted to either candidate.


I'm glad, by the way, that the initial hyperventilation around today's Rasmussen has died down. If this site has taught us anything, it's that it's probably not the smartest thing in the world to project the future with a straight line drawn from yesterday through today. I can guarantee that both campaigns think they've got a chance of winning, and that neither side thinks it's over.

Brian Dell said...

They are married to Kentucky coal miners. Women like Geraldine Ferraro are exceptions who are in the bag for Obama and not the problem.

If McCain is as "international" as you say, why is he advertising himself as "the American President Americans have been waiting for"? Doesn't sound like he's playing up his diverse background. The stuff you see put out by national campaigns is put out not because some guy on a blog had an opinion it would work but because polling data and focus groups says it strikes a chord.

What IS the Obama campaign advertising? "I was raised with values straight from the Kansas heartland". You can be sure they focus grouped the heck out of that one as well, so I don't think you can play down the importance of nativism.

A lot of Americans have a hard time believing Obama is truly straight outta Kansas as opposed to Indonesia and Hyde Park, Chicago. It follows that Obama is no better than tied. I'm not saying Obama doesn't deserve better.

Conservative from Rome said...

PPP poll on Arizona:
McCain 52
Obama 40

Virginia Conservative said...

Brian-

I'd be willing to venture almost all the PUMAs are white collar and suburban, despite what the Punditocracy declares.

Conservative from Rome said...

just a question but what's means PUMA???

Mason said...

CFR-
PUMA= Party Unity My Ass

Jackson said...

Can we please take the phrase 'flip flop' and put it on ice for like another 50 years??

The "kool aid" phrase is 750 times more stupid. I see that in a post and I know I can discard whatever that person had to say.

ajbeecroft said...

"throwing x under the bus" is another phrase I'd like to see the end of.

Ben said...

I'd be willing to venture almost all the PUMAs are white collar and suburban, despite what the Punditocracy declares.

You've got to be kidding me. White collar Democrats are supporting Obama like they've supported no candidate before. Look at his fundraising numbers, and witness Virginia becoming a swing state because of white collar Northern Virginia supporting Obama far more than Kerry or Gore.

PUMAs are a fraction of the Hillary voters from the primary. They tend to be white, but not white collar. Mostly older women.

Brian Dell said...

yiannis: "...then they were never really undecided." makes perfect logical sense but what if it was was something in the irrational subconscious that was triggered?

I'll grant that it might not be just that Obama's "different". It could be that more people thought he was "arrogant". Whatever it is, it's a "not like me or how I imagine myself to be" identification problem, and it's a problem people generally can't or won't articulate such that pundits are at a loss to put a finger on it. Logically, arrogance is largely irrelevant to competence, it might even be _positively_ correlated. But actually get out there and work door-to-door for a while and you'd see that there are gazillions of people who will vote against someone because "he's too arrogant".

Unless blacks and white are dramatically different people, the fact 95% of blacks are in the bag for the black Obama suggests the black Obama is going to have trouble landing whites, and it isn't because there are so many right wing racists but because he's just too far removed from some demographic groups, even those those groups should be voting for him on policy grounds. Are blacks racist by only going for the white McCain by a couple percentage points? No. Many are going with Obama because they perceive him as "one of their own" and lower information voters on both sides of the left right spectrum are more likely to do that. That's not necessarily racist.

ajbeecroft said...

Well, actually Obama's support among blacks suggests that race might only have a small effect around the margins, if whites behave like blacks.
Blacks voted 88-11 for Kerry, and 90-9 for Gore. So blacks obviously thought that those two guys were "one of their own," right?
It's entirely possible, however, that whites will turn out to be more inclined to vote for "one of their own" than blacks are, although one election with one non-white candidate doesn't give us much data to build a theory on.

Mason said...

Brian Dell said:
"Unless blacks and white are dramatically different people, the fact 95% of blacks are in the bag for the black Obama suggests the black Obama is going to have trouble landing whites, and it isn't because there are so many right wing racists but because he's just too far removed from some demographic groups, even those those groups should be voting for him on policy grounds. Are blacks racist by only going for the white McCain by a couple percentage points? No. Many are going with Obama because they perceive him as "one of their own" and lower information voters on both sides of the left right spectrum are more likely to do that. That's not necessarily racist."

Yeesh... Does no one remember the Southern Strategy? Blacks are voting for Obama because he's a democrat, not because he's gray.

Brad said...

ajbeecroft-

Isn't the Obama argument that he will greatly increase turnout among the group over Gore and Kerry? Doesn't that make your point, well, misguided...

humanist said...

If I understand this correctly, there's a monthly technical correction over at Rasmussen, as they switch to a new weighting formula based on last month's averages.

The new formula has 2 points less Democrats and 2 points more Independents, i.e. they weight to a target which is slightly less favorable to Obama (by about .7-.8 margin points).

There are two options:
that the July Democrat-to-Independent flow seen in Rasmussen's raw numbers was a reflection of a localized dip in Democratic enthusiasm which will correct itself. In this case, Rasmussen will be consistently under-representing Obama's support by about 1 point, through August.

Or that the Democrat-to-Indepdent flow was real, in which case we must say that, throughout July, Rasmussen was over-representing Obama's support by about 1 point (in reality, Rasmssen saw a perfectly tied match through July and mistakenly adjusted it upwards based on June raw Democratic identification numbers).

Worth keep our eyes open for whether or not Rasmussen underperforms the non-Rasmussen polls in August.

I also have a technical question: where does Rasmussen find his formula for State-by-State weighting?

humanist said...

What I think would be really useful to do is to put together in one place:

All the evidence from May onwards, whereever Party ID crosstabs are available, for Obama's share among Democrats.

Then we can see regional and temporal trends.

Is anyone interested in looking this up?

Mason said...

Brad-

Isn't the Obama argument that he will greatly increase turnout among the group over Gore and Kerry? Doesn't that make your point, well, misguided...

You're mistaking increasing turnout with increasing share. The former is the size of the pie, while the latter is how it's sliced. If it's a much bigger pie but you don't increase your share at all, then you still have more to eat.

ajbeecroft said...

brad, not really. Turnout is a different question from partisan identification. Presumably most of the extra black voters that Obama's turnout drive finds are people who, had they voted in past elections, would have voted for the Democrat. Obama's race may affect their motivation to vote, but not the direction in which they vote.
Whereas I don't think anybody is saying that there's going to be a surge in white turnout to defeat Obama, with Republican-leaning but unregistered voters turning out in droves. Rather, the discussion is about whether some white voters will switch parties to the Republicans because of race this time.
And my claim was that, if that indeed happens (and so far there's not a lot of evidence that it will), that white voters may then turn out to be more inclined to "vote for their own" than blacks.

realistxxx said...

Brian Dell said...

"...Unless blacks and white are dramatically different people, the fact 95% of blacks are in the bag for the black Obama..."

Blacks go 90% Dem regardless of the candidates race. This is a canard and you know it. Obama will increase AA turnout but the percentage of blacks voting Dem is not that much higher than traditional norms.

Virginia Conservative said...

Its also worth noting blacks didn't go overwhelmingly for Obama until Billary started running off at the mouth about Jessie Jackson and "fairy tales".

Mason said...

VC-
Its also worth noting blacks didn't go overwhelmingly for Obama until Billary started running off at the mouth about Jessie Jackson and "fairy tales".

Very true. If they hadn't, Hillary wins in a walk, and enjoys the support of greater than 87% of the AA community.

PeteKent said...

Obama continues to struggle with the liberal label that has been pinned around his neck (Reported by Rasmussen).

McCain is in fact out performing his brand b/c he has succeeded in having the maverick/work across the aisles meme stick and he has been judicious in picking his moments when he altered his views to suit political calculations (taxes and drilling).

McCain gives the image of a stalwart, while Obama literally looks like he could be blown away by the wind. A week ago, his weight was a topic of consideration and one might be too quick to judge that Obama has won the appearances war. It would be truer if we were electing an underwear model, but we are not.

It is early yet and we don't have the Gallup tracking poll in hand with Sunday's polling, but Ras shows its first ever lead for McCain. Obama seems damaged by the reaction to his "I don't look like the President on the dollar bill comment" (Per Ras a majority think it was racist of him to say that; while the Brittany ad attracts only 20% approx racist condemnation).

Today Obama wants to talk about energy. He has promoted a popular $1,000 credit to help pay for high gas prices, but he couples that with an unpopular windfall profits tax on oil companies.

In his goal of shifting focus, Obama will find himself hamstrung and distracted by everyone wanting to know what his position on drilling really is. On Friday he softened his stance, on Saturday he retraced his steps. The "Both ways Barack" meme is gaining steam again.

So now Obama is stuck with a muddled position on drilling and a plan that demonstrates an anti-business, anti-capitalist bias that will play into suspicions of "otherness" (Aha! I told you he was a Socialist!) and moves him right into the power zone of those who would accuse him of being in favor of high taxes (for every problem, the solution is more taxes).

Tuesday would be a good day to pick a VEEP for him. But dawn may not break on Marble Hill until Wednesday.

Darío said...

Rasmussen Tracking: Obama 46- Mac 47
Gallup Tracking: Obama 45- McCain 44.

What´s better?

Brian Dell said...

realistxxx, if he picks up another 5%, why shouldn't he lose 5% from whites? That's all it would take to lose the election.

Why are the Rush types unhappy with McCain? They can tell you why. They'll point to specific legislative bills. Why are the PUMAs unhappy with Obama? I don't think anyone can really say why. It's a whole grab bag of things that come down to the idea that they are alienated from Obama. That's my point.

Rob said...

Dario - that is Mondays Ras figure and Sundays Gallup figure, should wait until Gallup's monday figures are released.

Glenn-in-Colorado said...
This post has been removed by the author.
ajbeecroft said...

Petekent said,
"but he couples that with an unpopular windfall profits tax on oil companies."

Actually, Rasmussen shows that voters support that tax 39-36. And that's before Obama's ad went on the air, reminding voters that McCain wants to cut the oil companies' taxes by $4 billion.




http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/voters_like_obama_s_energy_credit_for_working_families_but_give_mixed_reviews_to_windfall_profits_tax

Mason said...

Brian said:
realistxxx, if he picks up another 5% [from blacks], why shouldn't he lose 5% from whites? That's all it would take to lose the election.

???

Virginia Conservative said...

Who defines what a "Windfall profit" is? Its a stupid position and socialistic to boot.

Ben said...

BHO still sees drilling as a not so useful means to the ultimate ends of reduceing usage, since it addresses supply. He also sees it as a useful bargaining chip. He's throwing you a bone, as it were. They can drill out there, but we'll crank up the royalties and use the proceeds to fund a generous set of tax credits for the commercial, residential, and industrial use of renewable resources. Everyone wins. Everyone loses.


Except the issue isn't drilling, it's giving oil companies that are not currently drilling where the already have the right to drill the right to drill in additional places.

In addition, the biggest limit on the supply of gas currently involves refining not drilling.

In short, giving the oil companies the right to drill in places that they currently can't does not only fail to address the demand side. It fails to address the supply side.

The oil companies are engaging in classic shock doctrine tactics. They're taking a crisis--the price of oil--and using it to demand a policy change they've wanted for years that has nothing to do with solving the crisis.

Any real compromise between demands to increase the oil supply and demands to decrease usage would involve actually establishing that the policy in question will increase the oil supply. And there's no reason to think that giving away more drilling rights will do that, especially no in the short run.

Glenn-in-Colorado said...

Nate, How about this theory ...

Obama's underperformance is due to a perfect storm of three mistakes:

1) We are the incumbents we're been waiting for - With lame duck Bush being seen sitting with 91 year old Ohio b-day girls, combined with Obama's decision to brand himself as the de facto President (Berlin speech, seal, etc.) along with the attention given Pelosi and the House Democrats and the Media frenzy on Obama, the Democrats have fallen into a trap of becoming the perceived incumbent party.

By seizing power early, the Dems have essentially given the voters a 6 month glimpse of their majority and administration. By doing this, responsibility for all the problems voters fear is being less and less assigned to the GOP.

2) Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - By over-playing the Iraq card, the Democrats got out in front of reality. At the same time they committed themselves into withdraw it was becoming increasingly obvious to American voters that the Iraq War is nearing an end in victory. (I trained senior Iraqi staffers with IRI in April. They were impressive, diverse and optimistic in victory and emerging positive change).

3) Energy - Pelosi looks like an elitist NIMBY protecting her NorCal district interests against the national interest as Speaker of the House. Obama got locked into the extreme alt energy wing of the Democrats and now has an energy plan which basically calls for no new energy sources, besides cellulosic ethanol. Colorado voters do not like having our mountains drilled while Cali and Nantucket offshore gets coddled (we view our mountains as being just as precious and pristine as Pelosi’s beach) . No matter how hard the Dem's try to spin their extreme alt energy plans, Jo Sixpack knows that his $35,000 Ford F150 isn't electric and there's no doubt in his mind (true or not) that the GOP means more oil and the Democrats mean higher prices.

Result – the Democrat v Republican identifier spread has been shrinking since April.

Thanks for your excellent models and insights from a McCain supporter.

michael said...

Globe199 said...

The idea that Obama can safely wait until after Labor Day is an exceedingly risky and dangerous one. The Swiftboaters struck in August and it basically spelled the end for John Kerry (despite a handful of strong debate performances).

No, Obama must strike hard and soon or he could be in real trouble.

I agree with this very much. I also think the Obamas are aware of the ugly history of GOPPER August smears, slavishly recycled by the "liberal" media. How they will handle this is very much of an open question. They may well feel that with the olympics and the fact that the Dem convention is not til late August (as opposed to 2004) they will keep their powder dry. I am not at all sure this is a good idea.

Nate is right that so far the MSM are pushing the McCain the maverick meme, even though he has been slavishly in lockstep with Bush the last few years and his list of "flip-flops" is about 3 pages long, single-spaced.

Clearly, the negative attacks, amplified and carried by the corporate shills masquerading as journalists, have worked to drive up Obama's negatives. There is nothing fancy about this. As with Kerry's military heroism and principled opposition to the Vietnam war in 2004, the sleaze machine attacks Obama's greatest strengths, his brilliance, eloquence and inspirational appeal, and turn them into weaknesses. As much as we may bitch and grouse about the sleazy, unprincipled and dishonest attacks, as much as we may rail against the mainstream media's parroting of same, are we surprised? Is anyone surprised? John McCain sold his soul when he stayed in the party of Bush anally raped him in SC in 2000, so why would we think he would be different. There is a reason Mark Murphy, Mark McKinnon and John Weaver have refused to work for him. They knew that McCain's only chance was to play the Rove demonization game, which is why principled republicans (I still don't see it as a complete oxymoron) like them are so disgusted and dismayed with this Bushian tack. Still, such attacks obviously work to drive up negatives, as witnessed by Obama's undeniable come down in the national tracking...

All this said, there remain some differences, principally enthusiasm, the quality disparity of the 2 candidates, and the unknown knowns (pace Rumsfeld) of how large the Af-Am, youth and Latino turnout will be for Obama, and how many conservatives, Pumas and evangelicals will sit home or vote for Barr, rather than vote for McCain, a man they clearly do not like or trust.

One last thought on Hillary and the PUMAS. Hillary has the highest negatives of any national politician in this country, and if somehow she had rigged the rules to get the nomination, I guarantee you that youth and Af-Ams would stay home or vote for Nader. McCain would beat Hillary by 10 points.

Any PUMA who voted for Hillary and turns around to vote for McCain is mentally unbalanced, and worthy of her own irrational subheading in the DSM-IV, since Obama and Clinton shared 98% of the issues and any fair reading of the primary would find far more negativity and dirt thrown at Obama by Clinton's campaign than vice versa. Can they even pronounce Roe V Wade?

And anyone who thinks that McCain's camp would not be utterly eviscerating Hillary right now is DEFINITELY drinking the koolaid.

BTW, are there any principled Republicans on this board dismayed by the low road and trivial tactics of the McCain campaign? Or is it alright if the Obamas start running ads questioning McCain's age, mental impairment and emotional stability?

Just curious...

Brian Dell said...

In any case, I'm not saying Obama is running behind Kerry with whites because the data doesn't support that. I'm just giving an example of the importance of identification. Why should whites be above such behaviour?

Step back and look at the power of 538's regressions. What's Nate regressing? Things like whether people self-identify as "American" or not. It shows that demographic particulars are very powerful politically. If people voted on the basis of what they THOUGHT instead of WHO THEY ARE then your demographic particulars would be poor predictors of your voting.

When a candidate doesn't line up demographically with the median voter, it is going to create a political **** storm if that demographic outlier status attracts too much attention since it stirs up the subconscious identity issues that drive so many voting decisions.

PeteKent said...

ajeebeecroft:

Looks to me like 61% don't support the windfall profits tax -- I'd call that unpopular (and socialist!).

You do a good job of parroting the Obama talking points. McCain has proposed no such tax breaks for oil companies. Please provide evidence to the contrary!

Last quarter Exxon-Mobil paid more than $30 billion in income taxes. That's a good haul for Uncle Sam!

Obama has screwed himself on energy by stubbornly not realizing how effective the drill now concept is. He has made it worse by seeming to reverse course twice over the weekend. You have to wonder if you should believe all the hype about how good his campaign is.

He will sink further in the polls this week. Youth will become disaffected, black men will continue protesting, the skies will open . . .

. . . and it will start to rain!

Virginia Conservative said...

Brian-

Far be it from me to defend The Chosen One (D-IL), but its less reprehensible for blacks to support the black candidate because he is black than it is for whites to support the white candidate because he is white. Why? Because there has never been a black President, and we've had 43 white Presidents.

realistxxx said...

It mostly comes down to turnout. None of the pollsters can really model this.

A 10% increase in 18-35 year olds and a 20% increase in AA's (both reasonable estimates) will net Obama a 3-4% gain nationally and tip many of the swing states his way.

MATT J. H. said...

Virginia Conservative said...

Good analysis as usual, Nate, but I think there is another factor at work--the popularity of offshore drilling. Larry Kudlow this morning on CNBC said it could be THE issue that turns things around for the Republicans.


Larry Kudlow. Mr conservative. Mr. Supply sider. Mr. I've never voted for a democrat in my life. CNBC is the business channel. Their business guys. Of course they support the republicans. The republicans are pro business to the extreme.The Democrats are pro- labor.

If your taking political advice from Kudlow, or CNBC, then your getting right wing dogma 80% of the time.

Mason said...

Peat Kent says-
"Looks to me like 61% don't support the windfall profits tax -- I'd call that unpopular (and socialist!)."

Nuh uh!! 64% don't oppose it!

Brian Dell said...

Virginia Conservative, I totally agree, if I CAN vote for both Obama and McCain, I WILL vote for Obama. It would be an inspiration to minorities not just in America but around the world. But note that we are both "conservatives" when we recognize that! Which proves the point: it's the provincialism of some Dems, the types that aren't found browsing realclearpolitics or 538, who are holding Obama back.

humanist said...

I quote:

"The Swiftboaters struck in August and it basically spelled the end for John Kerry"

We keep hearing this on all sides. Is there ANY evidence to support the claim that the swiftboaters had a major impact on the 2004 outcome?

Indeed, why should Kerry have won, based on the fundamentals of 2004?

ajbeecroft said...

Looks to me like 61% don't support the windfall profits tax -- I'd call that unpopular (and socialist!).

Or, put another way, 64% don't oppose it. Not sure which percentage level would be required to make it a socialist move.

As for the $4 billion tax cut for oil companies, that's the 29% corporate tax cut that John McCain wants to give. Not specifically directed at oil companies, but they'll sure as hell benefit from lower corporate tax rates at a time when they're making more money than any company has ever made.

"He will sink further in the polls this week. Youth will become disaffected, black men will continue protesting, the skies will open . . .

. . . and it will start to rain!"


I'm glad we're sticking with the facts here.

Virginia Conservative said...

Brian, we have our own provincials. Remember Tancredo and Paul in the primaries? One part isolationism, two parts immigrant baiting, a cup of protectionism, with immigrant baiting sprinkled on top. The North American Union conspiracy theory nutjobs consider themselves right wing, sadly.

... said...

Gallup Tracking: Obama +3 (46-43)

MATT J. H. said...

Jake said...
So really... It's the media, stupid. They're eating up McCain's smear fodder like candy. Against that, not even a hypothetical PERFECT Democrat would be doing much better.


If Barack doesn't start driving media message, he's done. He could give a ground breaking policy speech, and the republicans issue another Britney ad, and they gat all the coverage. It's the media. they don't care about educating the public, or issues, they want ratings.

Hillary had a communications department built to handle this. Obama does not. It's like he's oblivious, or doesn't care. Folks, its got nothing to do with policy, or being a weak candidate or the celebrity charge. The media coverage has been negative, and thus you lose support. The only time the last 6 weeks Obama has gotten positive press was oversees and he got a bounce. When he comes back home, his bounce disappears and he continues to lose.

Obama has to make news every day thet the 24h news cycle will like to press coverage. If he does that he will win. If he does not he will lose.

MATT J. H. said...

Hummanist,

give another comment on the demographical differences in this year and last time.

Darío said...

August 4: Gallup, Obama 46-Mac 43.
Rasmussen: Obama 46-Mac 47.
That´s funny, funny, funny.

Mason said...

VC-
Don't forget a sprig of "Destroy the Federal Reserve" to garnish that NAU-Nut souffle.

MATT J. H. said...

Obama's first attack add out today hitting McCain on big oil. It's about time. Theres nothing wrong with attacks as long as they are accurate and on policy. This one is. Keep em comming Barack.

He always gets a weekend bounce in Gallup. I do not know why, but he does.

Darío said...

The only difference is that Gallup pools includes registered voters and Rasmussen pools are only with likely voters.

Glenn-in-Colorado said...

I predict a new anti-Obama wave that will show up in polling over the next few weeks. The genius of the McCain Celebrity ads are many, but one that I have not seen widely discussed is the awareness of the self-proclaimed Messianic Obama. NOTHING will energize the evangelical more than hints of Antichrist. The Left will, dismiss this assertion, because they view it as lunacy. But the Left's judgment is irrelevant, because it is real. A unique characteristic of American evangelicals is that they see themselves are the world's vanguard against Antichrist. The most damaging lines in the ads are Obama's Jesus like hints at messianic identity, as in the corruption by Obama of Jesus' messianic hints and the talk of light shining from above on me the chosen one. This is death for Obama with Evangelicals. The Left's obsession with any signs of GOP race cards blinds them to Antichrist cards.

sdf said...

So Gallup and Rasmussen diverge ever so slightly now. Is this the cell phone difference?

ajbeecroft said...

Totally off-topic:

An interesting bit of trivia to add to the "Can Romney swing Michigan?" file, from a Stu Rothenberg column on RCP:

"And if that doesn't convince you that the Romney name isn't a huge asset now and would bring very much political value to the Republican ticket in the state, consider that George Romney's wife, Lenore, ran for Senate in Michigan in 1970, while her husband's term as governor was expiring, and she drew less than 33 percent of the vote against Sen. Phil Hart (D)."

Rothenberg also points out that no voter under the age of 63 could have voted for George Romney.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/obamas_choices_for_veep_are_fa.html

sdf said...

Also Rasmussen revised its Dem party ID slightly downward from July to August (just under 1% less).

jeremy said...

Also Scott Rasmussen is a neocon.

humanist said...

sdf, I'm not sure I understand - does Rasmussen weight based not on the last month but based on a longer term trend?

Mule Rider said...

You know who also needs a windfall profits tax besides big oil. Our retail grocery chains and the agricultural sector in general. There are tons of farmers and ranchers and agribusinesses and grocery store executives making millions across the board because of high prices for commodities and food. How dare they make so much money at our expense for things that are necessities....

I hope you guys can pick up on the sharp facetiousness of my comments...

And I hope you stop to ponder what I just said before cheering on Obama and everyone else to gather up the pitchforks, shovels, and torches, and gather the mob and head out into the night to kill those ogres we call big oil.

Reid said...

Rasmussen Tracking: Obama 46- Mac 47
Gallup Tracking: Obama 45- McCain 44.


As long as we're drooling over tracking poll numbers, today it's Obama 46, McCain 43.

Virginia Conservative said...

So all the last week did was drive BOTH their numbers down?

MrInsight22 said...

Glenn-in-Colorado is correct. "The One" ad that mocks Obama's messiah complex works on 2 levels. Most voters see it as a slam of Obama's cocky arrogance. But many others also see in it a suggestion that charismatic speaker Obama is the Antichrist, without ever using that word.

The search engines now show over a million search results for "Obama" and "antichrist" and it will continue to be an elephant in the bedroom that Obama cannot address explicitly without driving it in deeper.

MATT J. H. said...

Glenn-in-Colorado is correct. "The One" ad that mocks Obama's messiah complex works on 2 levels. Most voters see it as a slam of Obama's cocky arrogance. But many others also see in it a suggestion that charismatic speaker Obama is the Antichrist, without ever using that word.

Really? The anti-Christ.

You believe 95% of Americans are going to believe that? Guys, please. If our population is that stupid then we are beyond hope.

DarcyPennell said...

Virginia Conservative:
So all the last week did was drive BOTH their numbers down?

I think that's entirely possible.
A certain group of voters see the ads and think, "Hm, I don't like politicians who think they're better than me. Maybe I shouldn't vote for Obama."
Another group of voters see the ads and think, "Hm, I don't like politicians who make ugly accusations. Maybe I shouldn't vote for McCain."

Mason said...

VC-
"So all the last week did was drive BOTH their numbers down?"

That's pretty much what negative campaigning does. The only question about it is, "Will it drive down mine further than the other guy's?"

To be fair, though, McCain has enjoyed an increase in his polling numbers. He's +7 w/ Ras since Obama's +9 Ras day. LV, and weighting caveats apply. YMMV.

Virginia Conservative said...

I think "The One" ad could possibly backfire if evangelicals think its mocking Christianity. I'd say that is much more likely than someone thinking Obama is the anti-Christ*.

*Impossible, since the anti-Christ, according to evangelicals, will be Jewish.

Bryan said...

*Impossible, since the anti-Christ, according to evangelicals, will be Jewish.

Well, there is that 1% in that one poll that thought that Obama is, indeed, Jewish...

Ben said...

*Impossible, since the anti-Christ, according to evangelicals, will be Jewish.

Eric Cantor*.

*Just kidding, but even as a Virginian all I've ever heard about him is that he is Jewish.

Ben said...

Really? The anti-Christ.

You believe 95% of Americans are going to believe that? Guys, please. If our population is that stupid then we are beyond hope.


Well, according to Rasmussen, 54% of Americans believe that the Bible is LITERALLY true. In other words, most Americans believe that the Earth was created in 7 days and is about 6000 years old.

Maybe it's time for more education in the basic sciences?

ajbeecroft said...

August 4: Gallup, Obama 46-Mac 43.
Rasmussen: Obama 46-Mac 47.
That´s funny, funny, funny.

And a good reminder that there's a right way and a wrong way to read the polls.

Wrong way: follow every twist and turn in the daily trackers, then search for evidence from the day's news to account for the "change." Then assume that a 1-day trend in the poll will continue through to November.

Right way: look at the overall picture of all the polls, paying more attention to long-term trends. That is, what this site is doing.

Looking at it that way, Obama has had a lead of about 1-5% since clinching the nomination. The size of that lead has not moved in any consistent direction. When Obama's in control of the agenda (like when he was in Europe), his lead expands slightly. When McCain's more effective at grabbing the agenda (as he was last week), then Obama's lead narrows.

Last week will, I hope, act as a warning sign to the Obama campaign. I think it may have -- they've released a very explicit attack ad, and is re-focusing on the economy. But time will tell.

Incidentally, it's been fun watching "The Page" shift its headline today about Obama's announcement that he would tap the SPR. Mark Halperin began by saying that Obama had "flipped" on the issue, then he moved to "changed" his policy, and now it's "In new position, Obama backs tapping oil reserves." He's also now saying that the speech is getting "roadblocked cable coverage," which is Halperin-speak, I believe, for "it's driving the agenda today."
I think Halperin is kind of a tool, but I also think that he's a pretty good guide to the most utterly unimaginative conventional wisdom, which is something that it's useful to keep track of.

Adam said...

VC said:

"I think "The One" ad could possibly backfire if evangelicals think its mocking Christianity. I'd say that is much more likely than someone thinking Obama is the anti-Christ*."

I have to disagree with this whole line of thought. Almost everyone on this board, being the junkies we are, *massively* overexaggerate the effect of stuff like this. That wasn't even an actual ad! It was an internet video they posted just so it'd get on news shows.

But the point is: a massive amount of Americans don't even watch news shows at all. They don't read newspapers, they've never heard of any of these ads; they work all day, play with their kids, and sleep. We're so inside baseball at this point we look for the tiniest impacts of minor things that the vast majority of voters are entirely unconcerned with.

It's a lot like 1980; it's going to come down entirely to this: people know things suck, but they're not sure if they trust the newcomer. Reagan made a great debate showing and won in a landslide. Either Obama does the same, or enough people won't trust him and he'll lose. August daily tracking and ads broadcast in three states are just utterly missing the point.

yiannis said...

ajbeecroft:

On December 24th, 2007 an ARG poll from Iowa was released that showed Hillary ahead by 8 points.
The pundits were saying that this day would never come.

On December 26th I watched Obama's DNC speech from 2004 and told myself that this time it has to be different. I drove from MD anyway. Our people on the ground and the volunteers, who flooded Iowa despite the most stupid organizational decision to initially forbid the pilgrimage, covered 96% of every precinct with phone calls and door visits.

Our universe consisted of all democrats and independents and young republicans.

You should have listened Paul Tewes get really emotional the night before the caucus and you should have seen the elderly ladies in their wheelchairs who caucused for their first time.

You should have seen the looks on the faces of people celebrating in bars: an inexperienced black man named Barack Hussein Obama had vanquished the inevitable.

So like in Iowa, a victory in November will come from the bottom up. Not because of Obama, but because people will be hungry enough for change. If they are not, then we are toast. Obama has been saying this for many many months.

If the corrupt big oil lobbyists think they own the government and will do anything to maintain that control, who really thinks this is going to be an easy fight?

Brian Dell said...

"The North American Union conspiracy theory nutjobs consider themselves right wing, sadly."

That's interesting because in Canada it's exclusively left wing. The NDP and Green parties are obsessed with the NAU and SPP (see spp.gov), whereas both of the major parties, Conservative and Liberal, are generally pro-free trade. Americans are actually the most anti-free trade population in the western world, according to the Economist.

Mule Rider said...

Ben,

Give some of those people a little more credit. Evangelicals with an open mind realize the Bible doesn't say the Earth was created in seven literal 24-hour periods. And they realize that though the Bible can only account chronologically for about 6,000 years from now back to the time of Adam (give or take), that there is much uncertainty about the completeness in factual information and putting a "hard number" down as a literal time frame is not biblical at all.

I'll admit there are some close-minded Christians, but don't think that all of us are oblivious morons who deny science.

Ben said...

Americans are actually the most anti-free trade population in the western world, according to the Economist.

I find this hard to believe, being that the U.S. spawned about 4/5ths of the major multinational corporations in the world.

On the other hand, the U.S. has by far the largest trade deficit, so free trade benefits an exporting country like Japan a lot more than America.

Mule Rider said...

Brian Dell,

Yes, even after free trade has been proven time and time again to make the country richer as a whole.

Liberals yell about their egalitariansim and using "protectionsit" policies to protect the poor and lower-class people here in the US, yet they probably don't realize that overall, we're no better off and being anti-trade actually hurts the poor and less well-off in other countries.

Evidently, for liberals, egalitarianism stops at the borders and our shores.

Virginia Conservative said...

"Trade deficit" is a completely useless statistic. Having a big trade deficit means *nothing*. Its not harmful.

Ben said...

I'll admit there are some close-minded Christians, but don't think that all of us are oblivious morons who deny science.

Oh I wouldn't think that at all. There are obviously many, many Christians and maybe even some Evangelicals who don't literally believe all the words in the Bible. But they would be in the 46% minority of Americans, not the 54% who answered that they believe the Bible is a compilation of word-for-word facts.

Jason said...

I'm not too worried about polls right now. Because come mid/late September and in October if either Obama or McCain makes one big blunder that could very well settle the election.

And by this I mean if say McCain were too fall off a stage like Dole or even trip and fall down on his way to any event stage closer to the race he will be doomed because his age will be pounced on by even the MSM that has been so forgiving to McCain verbal blunders. And if Obama were to say something that would be very controversial in the final weeks that could do him in as well.

So the negative adds in August won't mean much if McCain were to show his age or if Obama says something bad late in the game "off-camera" closer to the election.

Mule Rider said...

Ben,

There are several books and articles that debunk the misconception that a "trade deficit" benefits one country over the other. Please do a little research.

And that's not to mention how the exchange rate adjusts to counteract some of the imbalance. Anyway, do a little more research on free trade, and you'll see what I mean.

Black Political Analysis said...

Dems have a history of underperforming, but I believe it has more to do with the the campaigns than the specific candidate. The GOP, with Gore, Kerry, and now Obama are very good at framing how to look at the Democratic nominee. Democratic campaigns, despite nominating solid candidates, are not nearly as good as dominating the framing debate.

Ben said...

"Trade deficit" is a completely useless statistic. Having a big trade deficit means *nothing*. Its not harmful.

I disagree. (I too have an Econ degree, and from a top school.)

The twin deficits are very large factors in the fall of the American dollar, and the fall of the American dollar is what will destroy American dominance in the 21st century.

Mule Rider said...

Ben,

Not to dispute you, but I'd have to see the survey and how the question was posed.

I find it hard to believe 54% of Americans believe every word in the Bible is literal....

...but depending on how the question was asked, I can see how some people might say "yes" to the question if it was posed a certain way, even if that meant they still held a view that certain portions had to be figurative.

In general, as a Christian, I would say the Bible is full of facts...but I would add that not every fact can be understood in a literal way.

Ben said...


There are several books and articles that debunk the misconception that a "trade deficit" benefits one country over the other. Please do a little research.

And that's not to mention how the exchange rate adjusts to counteract some of the imbalance. Anyway, do a little more research on free trade, and you'll see what I mean.


I've probably read oh about 10x more of these articles than you have. I could produce just as many articles that say the opposite.

I did the research you refer to, right before I received a degree in Economics from one of the nation's top universities. ;)

Sean said...

Hummanist - Kerry should have won in 2004. The war was turning unpopular in a hurry. Bush's approval ratings were sinking and Bush was flirting with being the first President in decades to have lost jobs on his watch.

Virginia Conservative said...

I believe the Bible is literally true in terms of faith, but certainly not in science. I'd venture to guess the vast majority of people who said "yes" meant it in that sense.

Ben said...

Not to dispute you, but I'd have to see the survey and how the question was posed.

I linked the survey in the original post, but here is a page with the actual question posed (and a state-by-state breakdown of responses).

DO YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS LITERALLY TRUE?

Mule Rider said...

Ben,

I see you share an economics background. And you are on the learning curve in alluding to what I mentioned...that the exchange rate will adjust...you're spot on, but you're inaccurate in that being our destruction.

The dollar has weakened and may continue to weaken, but ultimately that will make America the source of industry and labor in a sort of reversal of some of the things that have taken place over the last 20 years.

Haven't you seen that some of the jobs that went to China are already coming back...and they're starting to buy more USA goods because they have a burgeoning middle class and our middle class-produced goods are becoming competitive again...

A weak dollar doesn't necessarily mean a weak economy.

Ben said...

I believe the Bible is literally true in terms of faith, but certainly not in science. I'd venture to guess the vast majority of people who said "yes" meant it in that sense.

Technically that wouldn't be "literal" (word for word) but if a lot of people think the same way then we can throw the poll out the window.

Cugel said...

Hunanist: If I understand this correctly, there's a monthly technical correction over at Rasmussen, as they switch to a new weighting formula based on last month's averages.

The new formula has 2 points less Democrats and 2 points more Independents, i.e. they weight to a target which is slightly less favorable to Obama (by about .7-.8 margin points).


As usual Humanist, good analysis!

The problem with Rasmussen isn't their party ID screen, which is quite sensitive and useful. The problem is their likely voter screen which cannot be terribly reliable in July/August because nobody has any idea who a "likely voter" really is right now.

Gallup at least polls registered voters at this point in the race, which makes more sense, but they have their own problems that seem to create more poll volatility than should exist.

I think both Ras. & Gallup are producing a LOT of noise right now because voters just aren't tuned in much to the race.

Is it credible for instance that Obama shot out to an 9% lead among registered voters on July 25, and it's tied 5 days later?

Meanwhile Obama shot out to a 6% lead among Rasmussen likely voters and then it was tied a week later.

Did 6% of voters really change their minds in a week where essentially NOTHING happened? Because of a few ads most people never saw or media coverage most are completely unaware of?

Much more probable. Nothing much happened in July, then voters saw Obama's speech and the generally positive media reaction to his trip. That gave him a temporary blip. A week later the coverage had faded and they went back to not paying much attention to the race.


Result, back to normal:

Gallup: "The three percentage point advantage for Obama matches the average since early June, when Obama clinched the . . .Democratic . . .presumptive presidential nominee."

Rasmussen: With leaners McCain has bounced between 43%-46% since June 1. His latest is 47%.

Obama has bounced between a high of 50% and a low of 46%. His latest is 46%.

Anybody can construct an "explanation" of all this, but really what you're explaining is noise.

Is the race tight? Yes. It was tight in June and July too. It will be tight in August. That much we can predict. Beyond that, after both conventions? Who knows?

Right now, Democrats still have a huge party ID advantage, but McCain has rallied 88-89% of Republicans while Obama has just around 80% of Democrats. That accounts for the virtual tie.

McCain's lead in party loyalty is largely offset by Obama's advantage in Party ID.

Like always this gives a big advantage to Obama, but he has to rally his base.


McCain has to rally independents to him, while preventing Obama from rallying his base. I don't know how he can hope to do that for any length of time since attack ads are going to rally Democrats to Obama, but he IS currently succeeding in rallying Republicans to him via his underhanded Swift-boating.

That's keeping the race close and may continue to keep the race close for another month. After that?. . .

Mule Rider said...

Thanks for the link....and if you're asking me, I'll defer to what Virginia Conservative said...it's literally true from a faith standpoint (I know that position may be hard to grapple), but I agree that from a science view, not everything is literal.

To be fair to any atheists/agnostics reading this, let's assume God did create the Earth....the Bible says it was done in seven days, but a crash course in hermeneutics shows the arabic word used for days just meant some undefined time period. Besides, most of creation was done to create the things "before" man was created...which creation, and God Himself, is not bound by time - hours, minutes, days, etc.

So one could easily reason God wasn't working on a 24-hour clock....and there are other examples....that's just one.

I respect your studies in economics and from a top school...I too have an economics degree...a master's degree at that...don't guess it was from a top school (whatever that is), but it was from a large SEC school.

Good enough for ya?

Ben said...


The dollar has weakened and may continue to weaken, but ultimately that will make America the source of industry and labor in a sort of reversal of some of the things that have taken place over the last 20 years.

Haven't you seen that some of the jobs that went to China are already coming back...and they're starting to buy more USA goods because they have a burgeoning middle class and our middle class-produced goods are becoming competitive again...

A weak dollar doesn't necessarily mean a weak economy.


I have NOT seen that we have started taking jobs from China instead of the other way around. Even with exceptions, it's still a large net outflow of jobs.

Do you realize how much further the dollar would have to drop for the Chinese to start buying our goods to the extent that the trade deficit would be balanced between the countries?

That would make us so much poorer than the EU countries as to be unimaginable. Every American asset would be bought by the Europeans, Japanese, and English.

It's just not realistic to think that we will become a manufacturing export country again, and if that did come to pass, it would be a very bad day as all of our major companies are merged into European ones. Our entire nation would just be a branch office for European companies and all those manufacturing jobs would be for European multinationals.

Virginia Conservative said...

To add to what Mule Rider said, the Bible was written in a way anyone could understand.

If it had started out "In the Beginning, God took huge amounts of energy into a dense ball, then exploded it, then the sun formed..and you know, the sun is a series of fusion--wait I guess this is the part where I explain nuclear fusion..."

Yeah, it wouldn't have caught on.

Ben said...

I respect your studies in economics and from a top school...I too have an economics degree...a master's degree at that...don't guess it was from a top school (whatever that is), but it was from a large SEC school.

I'd say any SEC school is large enough to have a good grad program. I think Va Conservative has a master's in Econ as well, unless I have him confused with the registration changes.

You 2 are going to drown me out, but that's probably the ratio of all people into Econ: a bit more than half of actual economists (I am not one) would probably agree with you.*

*That doesn't make you correct!

Ben said...

To add to what Mule Rider said, the Bible was written in a way anyone could understand.

Certainly there's nothing wrong with that. It was effective. At the same time, maybe there should be a warning label on each Bible for those less educated than yourself: "NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY."

Brad said...

Gallup showing Obama +3 this afternoon. Disagrees with Rasmussen.

Mule Rider said...

Thanks for being polite, Ben. Kudos on a good discussion. I talk a little more positively of free trade than I actually am...as I actually do have a couple of protectionist bones in my body.

While I think at times it's good for a gradual shift to occur to let some natural competitive advantages work themselves out to benefit two trading partners, I'm far from being in favor of anything that radically changes the industry situation in one country and may result in thousands of lost jobs and an urgent necessity for retraining people that are out of work.

I also favor protectionism when it's something vital to the country's survival...agriculture for example. While I agree that importing more sugar and bananas is okay or something that's not really crucial if we have a surplus or shortage; however, I don't agree on being reliant on having an adequate food supply from outside interests. That's a recipe for disaster and could plunge us into the chasms of destitution if someone had that advantage over us and then took advantage of us for whatever reason....

That's why you see countries get so testy when they are threatened with an embargo on food imports.

Marlon said...

First of all I don't (never did no matter who's up) believe the daily polls. They never have cross tabs.

That's why Obama has been up in every national poll (cross tabs), intrade, Rass% to win, Historical econmomic polls, and the new Lowincome-Washpo/Harvard poll (including +10 by the much discussed low income whites), etc.

That low income white votes interesting because, if Obama has 90% of the black, and 67% of the latino vote. Then Obama, conservatively speaking, starts off the bat with 18-20% of the overall electorate. That would mean that Obama would just need 33%of the white vote, to win with breathing room. At the moment Obama is polling between 38-40% of the white vote. If he maintains those numbers, he'll win with 56-58% of the vote.

Remember folks. If you wanna believe those daily tracking polls. Remember. When Clinton & Obama were still in the race, neither was no more than 1-3 points ahead of McCain in the tracking polls. So it's not Obama. Nate's right. It's the perception of McCain as a moderate republican.

But that still doesn't mean, after the vote, that he won't lose by 8+pts.

Mason said...

Marlon said:
"But that still doesn't mean, after the vote, that he won't lose by 8+pts."

It's just not what the data is saying now.

GoldenAh said...

Al Gore and John Kerry were vilified daily by the GOP, and their media buddies (Rush, Hannity and Fox, etc) from the moment they won the Dem. nomination. That scenario has not and will not change.

Unless Obama is holding his fire until after the nomination, he should start airing the very long and dirty history of McCain into his ad buys right now. He doesn't have to lie like they do either. The truth is sufficient to awaken folks to how "honorable", and mentally unstable, McCain really is.

Obama simply needs to slap back much harder.

Marlon said...

Yes. Mason. That's what the data shows (McCain will lose by 6-10 points). I agree (if that's what you were saying).

Also. I have a prediction. Once the olympics start and/if the campaign takes a back seat, Obama will take the comfortable lead again (default position).

This is also what happened during the democratic primary. When their was antagonism, Clinton kept it close. But when there was silence, Obama crept out to a 3-10 point lead. So Obama was basically, the default candidate (despite Clinton's swings).

I feel the same is what's going to happen with McCain (Obama's still the default candidate). Right now; too many people (on both sides) are getting crazy with 4 worth of these tracking polls.

I still think Obama's ahead (he's the default person when things settle down). But I do think, that McCain has a litany of political, personal and intellectual shortcomings that Obama (at this point) hasn't hit hard with a substained chorus.

Marlon said...

Sorry!

I meant to say 4 days worth of these tracking polls.

Brad said...

OOPS! McCain ousts only black reporter present, and when the female reporter asks why - she GETS OUSTED TOO!!!

http://floridacapitalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/CAPITOLNEWS/808020312

ajbeecroft said...

Cugel said,
Did 6% of voters really change their minds in a week where essentially NOTHING happened? Because of a few ads most people never saw or media coverage most are completely unaware of?

A thought occurs to me. It's actually more-or-less in the interests of Gallup and Rasmussen to have results which change from day to day. If their tracking polls remained stable for extended periods, they'd attract less attention (and presumably therefore be less useful as a loss-leader for more lucrative kinds of polling). So it might be rational for both companies to adopt methodologies which increase the volatility of results (i.e. polling likely voters in July).
The overriding incentive is to be right in the end -- after all, election-eve polls are one of the few ways in which polling companies can prove their worth to commercial clients. And if the trackers were crazily volatile, their reputation would probably take a beating. But a certain amount of daily up-and-down is good for business.

MATT J. H. said...

Obama through poor media communications has allowed this election to be all about him. In this context, there are two foreseeable games changing events left in this process. The first is Obama's acceptance speech in Denver. The second is the first debate.

Barring a game changing unforeseen event, how the public reacts to these two moments will probably decide the election. Obama must deliver, and must not allow the McCain camp to drive the media narrative as he has the last month.

There will be much reduced coverage during the Olympics, barring a VP selection, then the action will be fast and furious through the conventions, and debates to Nov. 4.

If Obama's new attack ad shows he's going to get in the game, I welcome the change in strategy. Lets play some offense.

moondancer said...

Marlon

I agree. It is exasperating that a surrogate hasn't forced a "dialogue" on the obvious diminished capacity of McCain. He had some sort of medical event in Fla this weekend, and is obviously unfit for the presidency. This needs to be resolved. His inability to get through an hour of campaign without a major gaff is likely early stage dementia. His three hour workday is taboo by the press, but a serious issue. The WH cant run with a president that takes 2-3 naps a day.
And then there's the issues...

Brad said...

ASgree on the analysis of game changing moments, but I don't think he can screw up in Denver so that leaves one moment for McCain - the debate. But if Obama plays it right, McCain will look like the angry old man.

PeteKent said...

Obama as Anti-Christ: It's that whole Devil Wears Prada thing, isn't it?

I got one of those viral emails some months back suggesting and making a factual case for Obama being the AC all right.

The email had a persusive cast to it, although I do not believe it to be true. Of course, Obama is arrogant enough to portray himself as the Anti-Christ and not just a mere sinner!

ajbeecroft said...

"that whole Devil Wears Prada thing"
Hey, I thought he was wearing $520 Salvatore Ferragamo loafers!
McCain, that is. :)

PeteKent said...

Ajeebeecroft:

So you were forced to admit that McCain is not offering SPECIAL tax breaks to the oil comapnies, just across the board tax relief to all US companies. As you may know US companies are second only to their counterparts in Japan as bearing the HIGHEST tax burden in the World.

On another topic:

Obama overnighted in a Chicago Hospital last Sunday. Said it was cause of his hip. What was that all about?

NC moderate said...

"Pete Kent"

By "arrogant" you mean uppity, right?

But McCain wears the $500 shoes of the common man.

Also, the Gallup poll gap between Obama and McCain expanded again as I was predicting to you a day or two ago. You do not reason well.

Marlon said...

Hey Moondancer.

I agree. Even though Obama coudn't talk about McCain's skin cancer. I wouldn't be suprised, if we heard months/weeks later, that it was cancerous. You see how McCain scurried away from that interview in California, by the oil field.

Also. I find it funny, while at the same time he's calling Obama a celebrity, he's meeting with country music stars on stage, and reggaeton rapper, Daddy Yankee. I know things like this aren't issues. But Obama needs to hit much harder on stuff like this. My prediction is, he's recovering from his European Trip (different message), he's gearing up for the fall, afraid to peak early, or the media has let him know certain things are off limits (McCain's gaffes, unintelligence, scandals and privledged/under-achiever background).

tomthress said...

"Obama through poor media communications has allowed this election to be all about him."

You say this like it's a bad thing. I think (and I suspect Obama thinks - he is rather arrogant and presumptuous after all) that having the election be a referendum on Obama will ultimately work in Obama's favor.

The only movement of any significance in the daily trackers for the last two months, for example, was a huge pro-Obama spike following his Berlin speech. People love it when Obama gives big speeches. If I was him, I'd plan to try to give a big speech on Monday, November 3rd and see if he can get a Berlin-style bounce that translates into real votes.

Kid G said...

I completely agree with Jaka 8:08's comments. It is in the media's best interest to keep this race as close as possible. IMO, they are intentionally ignoring the rampant lying and inanity of McCain's rhetoric. They hit Obama on every little point he makes; after all, this election is all about "Obama". Well, maybe it's time to have Obama make news by calling McCain out on his "stances" on the issues. The worst McCain can do in response to attack ads is complain that his opponent is hypocritical, which would obviously be the pot calling the kettle black. It's time for some Schumer-style politics.

PeteKent said...

Hey, NC Moderate. I'll take your word for it that you predicted the move in the Gallup tracker. Even a broken watch is right twice a day, huh?

What do you predict for Friday?

And I love the whole ARROGANT = UPPITY notion. Next thing you know you'll be throwing the race card and your boy, err . . . I mean candidate . . . will drop another five points in the polls!

satiradical said...

Everyone, take a break and realize that both Obama and McCain are their party's "presumptive" nominee. Elector's can still change their minds and vote for someone else. On the Democratic side, because it was close, Obama is in a no-fault zone...no mistakes. The gloves come off after the convention. McCain did not have anyone near for opposition, so he can go negative .
Another thing restraning the Democrats attacking McCain is he is not officially the candidate yet. Wait until after the Repuke convention for the history of the USS Forrestal disaster that killed 132 sailors that John McCain was directly responsible for to be disseminated to the public.
McCain is a dangerous hothead that reacts poorly in tense situations. TALK ABOUT RISKY!

jeremy said...

If this election is all about Obama he has a good chance of losing and I'm sure he knows it. This election needs to be all about George Bush and the GOPs failures at governing.

Brad said...

Obama gives a big speech Sunday Nov. 2 to energize his base, in somewhere like the Hossier Dome in IN.

Starting planning....

clarkejeffrey said...

Wait until after the Repuke convention for the history of the USS Forrestal disaster that killed 132 sailors that John McCain was directly responsible for to be disseminated to the public.

I disagree with this. I don't think bringing up the Forrestal is a good idea and I doubt Obama will do it.

It was McCain's plane but I don't think there is any evidence that it wasn't entirely an accident. Blaming somebody for something that isn't their fault will not play well with the electorate.

Part of Obama's appeal is that he has pledged to change the system and get us away from Rovian politics. That doesn't mean he can't criticize McCain. I think he should criticize him and criticize him hard. One of the things he can throw at him is his seeming embrace of Rovian politics.

Its a fair question to ask "why does the Republican party always want to bring up stupid culture war stuff like windsurfing and arugula when the country is facing real difficulties."

Jeremy is right. This election is all about Obama and it can't be.

I feel like Obama is talking about himself and McCain is talking about Obama.

What else will it be about?

The focus needs to be turned onto McCain but we need to be fair. No cheap shots. They'll only come back to haunt us.

PorridgeGun said...

Brad said...

"Gallup showing Obama +3 this afternoon. Disagrees with Rasmussen."


Both Gallup and Rasmussen national polls don't mean all that much at the moment, but it's still significant that Obama has taken a 3 point lead when it was trending towards McCain for most of last week. I fully expected McCain to have that kind of lead in the same poll at some point this week. Doesn't look that's gonna happen, does it?

Of course, conservatives will comfort themselves with a statistical tie in the Rasmussen poll. But everyone knows it leans Republican, even when other polls are trending Obama.


I've just seen Obams'a new ad tieing McFlip-Flop to Bush and Big Oil. Not bad. Hopefully Obama will now start hammering the old fart.

Mason said...

An attack on McCain over the USS Forrestal fire would go over like a Comp B bomb. There is no way BHO touches that.

jack black said...

Let's see, an attack on McCain over a fire on an aircraft carrier. Obama attends a church where the preacher God Damns America.

Let me see here, one man is serving his country, and the other is God Damning it.

Nah, I don't think Barack ( The middle name that cannot be Mentioned) Obama wants to bring up McCain's Navy career.

Will said...

Hello, all. This is my first post on a site I've quietly admired. A few points:

The debates (principally the first Presidential offering) are going to be crucial for both candidates. I'm sure that Sen. McCain will be wary of a Nixon/Kennedy situation. Media control of those debates will probably not be able to frame an utter lack of preparedness by either candidate. From my perspective, Sen. Obama needs to push for even more of these formatted, theme-led debates, where he's less apt to stumble and more apt to show every "ahh" or "umm" as a potential senior moment for McCain.

Another raised topic: As has been noted, most non-wonks won't end up seeing McCain's "The One" internet ad (which is a shame, considering its sheer, gleeful audacity). Additionally, I don't necessarily think that Christians will associate the ad to Obama-as-Anti-Christ dialogue, but it couldn't hurt McCain's cause much when his opponent could be viewed as The Unholy Fullfillment Of End-Times Prophesy. The ridiculous facet is this: would Christians, if so convinced of Obama's hidden heads and crowns, actually believe that voting for McCain will prevent their own holy book's set-in-stone ending? If these Christians actually considered this, wouldn't it make sense that they should vote for Sen. Obama and thus hasten the return of their Christ? Makes sense to me.

An aside: Anyone seen McCain's Latino advertisement? This ad procedes to decontextualize all the place-names spoken in Sen. Obama's Berlin speech, and, as it didn't mention any Latin American countries or cities, asks (I'll paraphrase) "Did he forget Latin America?" Anyone catch this?

Jeff C said...

Hmmm. I thought his spokesman was kidding when he changed his "He hasn't been to Iraq recently" argument and just changed it into "He hasn't been to Mexico City". I guess he wasn't. I guess this also explains why McCain thought it was a good idea to go to Colombia.

I guess its a good idea for McCain. Its certainly a fair argument (unlike Brittany and Moses), even if it is a not particularly compelling one.

With the obvious exception of Cubans, I get the impression that most Latinos are more focused on economic and anti-discrimination issues in the US than they are about foreign policy relating to their homelands.

McCain needs to make some argument to Latinos. He is in a lot of trouble if Obama wins the Latino vote by 2006 margins.

He's got a really tightrope to walk in this category. He has to say to the Latinos, I'm not from the Tancredo minuteman wing of the party, while not saying anything that could cause the Tancredoites to all vote third party.

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,

平平 said...

^^ very nice

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作兼差打工假日兼職兼職工作酒店兼差兼差打工兼差日領工作晚上兼差工作酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工兼職兼差兼差工作酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領假日兼職兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領現領
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,