Although Barack Obama remains a slight favorite in this election, his position is more vulnerable than at any point since the primaries concluded, and he no longer appears to have a built-in strength in the electoral college that we had attributed to him before.
The reason is a new poll out of Ohio, where Public Policy Polling now shows the race dead-even at 45-45. In a PPP poll conducted in July, Obama had led by 8; that poll had been largely responsible for propping up Obama's Ohio numbers. Our simulation model operates quite literally in shades of color, rather than a simple red:blue duality. However, with this poll figured in, we now figure McCain to be a very slight favorite in Ohio.
Furthermore, with Ohio now trailing behind Obama's numbers nationally -- we regard Obama as a 1.0-point favorite in the national popular vote, but McCain an 0.6-point favorite in Ohio -- McCain now rates as slightly more likely to win the electoral college than the popular vote, a reversal of the trend apparent for most of the past couple of months.
If there's a silver lining for Obama in this poll, it's that his lost ground has come mostly from Democrats (he performed quite well among independents in this poll) -- a group that he will have a chance to rally next week in Denver.
8.18.2008
Late Nite Polls, 8/17
@ 4:23 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
141 comments
Definitely bad news - I'm still shocked that it's even close much less THIS close. But... I don't know why I would be after 2004.
I think the NY Times article about how McCain's negatives aren't known by many voters is on point. Somehow the Obama team has to get those negatives out there, because the media isn't doing their job on McCain. They're basically giving him a free ride.
"I think the NY Times article "
It's a Frank Rich editorial, not a "NY Times article". The inability of people understand such simple distinctions is part of the problem.
It is only mid-August and a regression in red OH is not to be unexpected people. check the trends.
PPP OH 45% [tie]
in the spring it was:
PPP 03/15 - 03/17 629 LV 49 41 McCain +8
so, big deal... McCain is still way below his high point, but Obama has not lost all his support.
PPP did not release any OH polls in April or May, but:
Quinnipiac 04/23 - 04/29 1127 RV 43 42 McCain +1
SurveyUSA 04/11 - 04/13 527 RV 47 45 McCain +2
Rasmussen 04/08 - 04/08 500 LV 47 40 McCain +7
so McCain had a big lead in the spring, lost it to Obama, and now they are back in a virtual tie @ 45%...
since neither is trending & holding over 50% all this means is that there are 10% UN that are still equally in play.
Obama should be able to recapture the 'soft' support or 'leaners' that are missing this month.
Especially if he does take HRC ? IMO
see what happens in mid-September when the #'s count for real.
NATE,
your updated Scenario Analysis lists 269 EV tie as .99% - but by the EV Distribution red peak at 269 =/- it sures looks like a higher probability than that 1%, no ?
maybe it is time to lay money on the probability of the TIE...
as you showed yesterday, there are quite a few realistic scenarios that could produce the 269 EV tie.
just what the USA needs, another close election.
So Obama doing well with Independents, under-performing with Democrats, consequently level with McCain - this is pretty much where he was before the Unity Bounce, right?
Couple this with the Rasmussen polling last week showing that a big chunk of Democrats still think Hillary Clinton might win the nomination, and it looks like a few % of the electorate are pro-Hillary Democrats who think if they tell pollsters they won't vote for Obama she might still be able to grab the nomination.
Assuming nobody upsets anybody else at the convention, expect a Re-Unity Re-Bounce...
If the Obama campaign wants to win this election, its time to start hitting back. They need to stop acting like they are well ahead and start throwing some punches.
You've got to hand it to the McCain campaign. They managed to define Senator Obama negatively before the Obama campaign had a chance to push their own narrative at the convention.
@DCM in FL: The red lines are where McCain wins and the blue lines are where Obama wins. The purple line in the middle, at a height of 99, is where they tie.
IT seems that there is a real possibility Obama will win the popular vote and McCain will somehow win the electoral college.
The thought of McCain as president is scary,his cheating the other night is a prime example of how slimy he is.
STill way to early to worry, things could be a lot different in 2 weeks.
IT seems that there is a real possibility Obama will win the popular vote and McCain will somehow win the electoral college.
The thought of McCain as president is scary,his cheating the other night is a prime example of how slimy he is.
STill way to early to worry, things could be a lot different in 2 weeks.
IT seems that there is a real possibility Obama will win the popular vote and McCain will somehow win the electoral college.
The thought of McCain as president is scary,his cheating the other night is a prime example of how slimy he is.
STill way to early to worry, things could be a lot different in 2 weeks.
Obama has been surprisingly disorganized in getting the narrative out of McCain = Bush. The general rule is that 'he' who defines the opponent first wins and by the RCP average, McCain is ahead in ALL swing states listed save MI which he will not need in this scenario. Bill Clinton was able to define Bob Dole in '96 and coasted to victory, Bush Jr. was able to do the same in '00 and '04 to surprisingly win both times.
The closeness of the Dem/Rep conventions will limit the bounce and Obama made a grave, strategic error in not picking the VP 1-2 months ago. If his campaign lacks the ability to throw an effective punch, at least the VP could have been doing the 'dirty work' all this time.
With the $84 million McCain is going to get plus the $96 million that McCain/RNC has on hand, they may be able to define Obama further since McCain will have money for once. Waiting until the convention to announce the VP (unless it is a pick that is WAY out in left field) will hurt as it gives the McCain another week to define the terrain and force Obama to respond.
At this point, VA is a more likely pickup than OH.
The collapse of Obama's support in OH (he has lost 4 - 9% in support over the past 6 weeks given the polls ... Quinnipiac +6% to +2%, PPP +8% to 0%, Rasmussen -1% to -10%) means that Bayh will probably not be the VP pick. In the absence of Bayh, IN will run about 6-7% behind OH instead of 2-3% with Bayh. I hope the VP isn't Biden as he plays well only where we don't need to (there is no chance that we lose any state north of the Mason/Dixon line and east of the Appalachians except NH).
My methodology is different, but as of now, the election hinges on Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. Obama holds slight advantages in the former three -- all three of which have had polls with him trailing or tied recently -- and the latter favors McCain. If you look at how the states are ranked (see the Electoral College Spectrum) McCain could swing Ohio and Nevada and still lose if Obama holds Colorado. Granted, it is by the slim margin of 273-265 in the electoral college.
OH and the heartland is inhospitable territory for Democrat liberals (excuse the redundancy). These voters have seen and will continue to see Obama as captive of the left wing of his party, not in the mold of a Gov. Rendell, Strickland or Sen. Bayh and will reject him and his candidacy for McCain who comes much closer to sharing their values and the kind of "country first" ideology that resonates with them.
The chances of many of these Democrats coming home to roost will become more and more remote as Obama is continued to be painted as an extremist on issues and not quite the sort of America First politician that the heartland typically supports.
McCain has tens of millions to spend between now and his convention in September. He will spend it, my friends, and define Obama in a way that is fundamentally unacceptable to the heartland.
Obama's response will be weak and impotent b/c most of what the Reps will be saying about him is true. He has spent his life among Marxist and fringe elements that want to tear down our nation, he spent 20 years in a Church that mocked and attacked this country and its values. How can he convincingly change his spots and counter the message of his extremism and out of touch views without lying about who he is?
He cannot, my friends, he cannot.
Oh, and did I mention that he doesn't exactly look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills?
We are in a period of McCain resurgency. It remains to be seen what Obama can do to turn that around. His message of "hope and change" now seems like last summer's hit song. No. 2 on the charts and dropping fast.
Josh Putnam's point is well taken. The model now shows a 273-265 race in Obama's favor. Under this circumstance, Colorado is definitely the swing state.
This may actually bode well for picking Kaine, as tipping Virginia (if that is possible) would make a big difference for Obama.
Still, it's way too premature for either side to popping champagne corks. Neither candidate has selected a running mate, the conventions are still a week away, and the first debate is five weeks away. There's a lot of campaign to come.
In the meantime, consider amusing yourself with the latest faux controversy (likely to be the last of the "silly season"), that McCain somehow successfully conspired to get the questions for the Saddleback forum before they were asked. At a minimum, such claims are worth a laugh, as those promoting them probably consider tin foil hats to be an appropriate fashion statement.
Nothing will happen before the convention. McCain is burning money because he has to. That shows in polls.
Campaigning and really cash spent between now and election day are only peripheral to the outcome in November. It comes down simply to the youth demographic. If they turn out to vote in numbers comparable to the rest of the age groups, Obama will win the election. If they don't, McCain will.
""I think the NY Times article "
It's a Frank Rich editorial, not a "NY Times article". The inability of people understand such simple distinctions is part of the problem."
good point. and im certain you understand quite well that senator mccain used the same fallacious argument to argue that "obama's tax plans would be a disaster." That piece was a hit job by a purely conservative editorial board. not the actual newspaper. hope you're just as outraged.
responding to the actual post, im not sure whether i should be happy or worried about the polls at this point. it is indicative of a certain inefficiency in his communications team (not his entire media team, which is nothing short of brilliant). I understand that we have a pretty good ground game, but it should be the engine of the obama organization. not having perhaps a more robust comm. team reduces the effect the ground game would have.
But i actually am kinda glad he's not up 10-15 points.
If that were to happen, the election would inevitably be a referendum on all of his shortcomings, and every mccain smear would be given a free pass because he'd be the underdog. mccain would get lesser coverage, but the entirety of it positive. Obama, like anyone before him, including clinton couldn't possibly win in such an environment. As long as he works on these debates, he'll do well if his national comm. team can become more effective.
It is amazing how the GOP trolls on this board bark with glee every time a poll is close. Of course, when you are paid troll is expected. There will be ups and downs in this election cycle of course, and the GOP trolls want to ignore that fact.
McCain flip flops and martial infidelity will gain traction as McCain (and the GOP) will be exposed for the hypocrites they are. The crisis in Georgia is a classic example. Bush scolds Russia saying "countries do not invade countries in the 21st century" while he was happy to invade Iraq on false pretenses.
When Americans go to pull the level in November, the nagging doubts about McCain will come to the forefront. The voters will ask themselves "Why should should I vote for a guy who gives people making $18,000 a year a tax break of only $19 while people making over $2.87 million get a quarter million dollar tax break?"
Further, voters will wonder how many more wars McCain will plunge the US into. His simplistic answers of "win" do not answer any questions.
I'd actually be more worried if Obama were up by 10 now. People begin to pay more attention with the convention.
A big lead in late summer leads to complacency. The Hillary Democrats will come home after her Convention speech, Obama's address to a full Invesco Field will be stirring, and Democrats will come out of Denver united.
An essentially tied race in late August with Obama the slight leader? I'll take it. Things looked much bleaker in 1992...
And as usual when look into the specifics, the PPP poll shows McCain winning 18% of the AA vote in OH.
Bull.
Cut that in half and Obama is up 5.
I found this poll to be quite telling
Cable News Viewers
Fox News: 39% Republican
33% Democrat
22% Independant
CNN: 18% Republican
51% Democrat
23% Independant
MSNBC: 18% Republican
45% Democrat
26% Independant
Source: Pew Research Center
Fair and Balanced!
Ben, you are right on. The AA vote est. is the issue in all these polls. Last month in this OH PPP poll it was 91/6. NC has the same issues.
The other issue - and the PPP write up addresses it - is the Dem Base - esp the Hillary folks - older white women. Again in this and other polls the base is 75% vs. McCain in the high 80's.
The "base" bounce and solidification that should come out of Denver should get a lot of this on track.
Nate - can you create a chart to track these states on the AA% and base comparisons???
>> And as usual when look into the specifics, the PPP poll shows McCain winning 18% of the AA vote in OH.
Bull.
Cut that in half and Obama is up 5.
You do realize that in a poll of 950, the AA sample is only going to be 100 or 200, right? So we're talking a double digit margin of error here. 18 percent is probably out of reach for McCain with this group, but it's not enough to change the result five points. George Bush got 16 percent of AA in 2004 in Ohio after all, so perhaps 10 percent is not unreasonable for McCain,
A story for the trolls who've been arguing that McCain will rely on the RNC for ground game support. Seems the Obama ticket is already ahead of them there, too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/us/politics/18dems.html
The impact of Obama's "stirring speech" at Invesco field will have been thoroughly blunted by the celebrity meme that the Republicans have tagged Obama with. Folks will look at it and dismiss the cheering crowds as they have been taught to do all August.
Obama has an empty message of "change and hope" without meaning or substance, full of platitudes and anecdotes about hard working people who are suffering. Most Americans are secure in their own lives and will wonder who these unfortunates are. While some may worry that they will slip into that underclass, most will want to see us adopt policies that will maintain and enhance our prosperity and standing and not diminish it.
Obama offers dangerous prescriptions of high taxes and a novel approach to social welfare. This has historically been rebuffed by the people.
On the contrary, McCain's Convention theme of "Country First" will resonate with voters who fundamentally believe in US moral superiority and who will see in McCain and his record the embodiment of that ethos. This is especially true for voters in the so-called battleground states.
Obama will remain strange and other, curious and risky.
Obama's not going to win Ohio. He never was going to win Ohio (nor Florida) where he WILL, however, spend a lot of money and people to force McC to play D all the way to November. He's also not going to win NC, nor GA, nor MT nor any of the other states that can only emerge from some serious pipe smoking. He should invest money but not a lot of time or people in those states, to keep McCain honest.
Obama's going to win this election by holding the Kerry states, especially NH, MI and PA, and winning CO, IA and NM. He cannot afford to lose that focus, especially if McC picks Ridge or Romney. If he's seriously worried about that strategy we will hear the words "Kaine" and "Vice President" coming out of Sen. Obama's lips sometime this week (lose MI, win CO, IA, NM and VA = 269 EV's). If he's "seriously worried to the second or third power," we'll hear "Hillary" in that sentence, but I doubt it.
There were/are two big outlier polls in Ohio: one giving Obama an 8% lead and the other giving McCain a 10% lead. Obama's outlier has been wiped out now, so it'll be interesting to see what the next Rasmussen poll says, since they had McCain 10% ahead in their last poll.
Mule Rider,
McCain lied. You might want to read the articles from this am and statements by the McCain campaign. The yadmit he was not in the pod of silence.
Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren.
Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”
Mr. McCain said, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”
He was never in the pod, but insinuated he was and was trying to hear through the wall. He was supposed to but wasn't. He knew he wasn't purposely tried to make it appear as though he was. IHe nust be been trying to hear through that imaginary wall kind of like that imaginary Pakistan/Iraq border.
The straight talk express blew another bearing.
The outlier was always the PPP that had Obama at +8 and it's still an outlier at a tie.
PPP is a polling orginization paid for by Democrats, which in my view places it in the "internal" category because it always over-polls for Democrats.
The real story will come with the next Rasmussen poll but I believe it will be very close to the same or better for McCain.
The McCain cheating fabrication is just what it is. It's a hail mary for humiliated and disgruntled Obama fanatics trying to spin his dismal performance to seem like it was not his fault. It was Obama's fault people.
The explanation you want to give is just a different spelling for the word "nuance". What you really mean is "annoyance".
I've just been looking at the details of that PPP Ohio poll, and once again Obama is only winning black voters by 80%-18%. He should really be doing better than that. If he was leading 90%-8% he might have been 1% ahead in the poll as a whole. I don't know, but maybe some older black voters have a few doubts about him.
Josh Putnam, I agree with most of your assessment of the race coming down to CO, NV, OH, and VA. However, I believe that OH is heads and tails more important and realistic than the other 3.
If I were Obama, I would be pouring at least half of my money into OH and hoping that I keep MI in blue. Bottom line is that if Obama wins OH, he wins the election because IA seems to have flipped.
Well, a tied Ohio is a success for Nate´s model at least. There was a bit of dissent within the Black Community. Supposedly Obama didn´t care enough about them, but honestly, Obama´s message "output" was a bit low in the last month. These black voters will come back back.
It's going to be close, but in the end OH is going for Obama.
Ken Blackwell isn't there any longer to screw up the works.
If the people of Ohio are given the chance to vote in a fair and free election, Obama will win.
Darien Crow,
The only body that cared about the Saddleback charade were the same people in the audience. The same people who jang on the word of Falwell and Roberts and the rest of these "agents of intilerance." (to use McCain's own words)
Evangelicals were going to vote for McCain anyway. It changed or influenced nobody. Giving any credibility to the religious right is ridiculous. They are dangerous people who wish to push their views on everyone else and believe the seperation of church in state is a nuisance to them in this endeavor. Remember these are the people who fight against teaching evolution in school and promote the farce of intelligent design, they want to impose mandatory school prayer. These people want governemnt fundings for programs they run, but also don't want to be hindered by anti-discrimination rules of EOC in their practices. These people want to push a theocracy into governemnt while they are overt religious and social bigots.
Obama lost nothing. These people weren't going to vote for him anyway b/c they don't agree with him on issues.
Obama did get something out of this though, McCain is caught in dishonesty behavior and he shoed how out of touvh he is on his $5mil annual income to be rich.
Great post MVRED.
Tough to argue logic.
I'm not going to even try to argue the libs here today...just laugh at their rationalizations. They keep altering the lens to make the wrong view seem right.
The same people who are killing McCain's "hear thru the wall" metaphor/joke, are perfectly willing to give Obama a pass on his "above my paygrade" metaphor on the abortion question.
Mule Rider,
Have you not read the articles on the statements the McCain campign has given. They will not say theat he didn't hear the questions. They are saying he was in the motorcade without a broadcast feed. This 2008 you don't need a broadcast feed. They have not said unequivically that he didn't hear the questions. The yattacked Andrea Mitchell when all they had to say was he didn't hear the questions unequivocally. Instead they are playing nuance and McCain intimated hiself he was in the pod when he knew he wasn't. He should have gave no reference, if his was honest, that he was in the pod if he knew that wasn't the case. This is almost rising to Bill Clinton of not saying you did, but not saying you didn't.
Sedi,
I hope that post was facetious..
At 10-12 point swing in voter ID in four years is very huge, and that is what MVRED described.
GOP +5 to Dem +5-7 is enormous...and probably very accurate.
On this date in history, August 18, 2004, in the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, Jon Kerry led President George Bush 50% to 47%.
For fianl results, please see Presidential Inauguration January 2005.
Jack black,
You ost the same garbage everyday. Please take something for your OCD--clomipramine should do.
The state of play is as follows. Obama continues to lead in national polls by somewhere between 2 and 4 points on average. The state by state polls have narrowed considerably such that the key tipping point states of Ohio, Colorado and Virginia are absolute toss ups. That represents progress for McCain given that he was behind in Ohio and Colorado by 3-4 points on average a month ago.
Big deal. The next three weeks are going to be huge. They could send the race decisively one way or the other and all of these polls don't count for shit save only that they tell us it's close (like we didn't know already).
Obama's VP choice is the interesting decision. I don't think McCain's makes much difference either way. I still think it will be Bayh with the other possibility being Hillary.
As for all this Rick Warren cone of silence crap, I see it like this. It was against the spirit of the event for McCain to be in a position to cheat if he had wanted to do so rather than in an independently verifiable safe location. That said, I doubt McCain actually cheated. He didn't need to as all he had to do was regurgitate evangelical talking points. I could have done that. The debate changed absolutely nothing. If anything, it produced one down side for McCain because he has now firmly committed publicly and without exception to a pro life position including with respect to any Supreme Court nominations, thereby sending all disenchanted Hillary supporters and female moderates back to the arms of Obama.
I'm happy to see the GOP faithful here get so presumptuous about victory. I can't wait for the bit where they get all angry (just like their candidate) when it all starts to go wrong in approximately two week's time.
Okay OTF you asked for it. Just please keep in mind I am a pro-choice agnostic Republican.
"Evangelicals were going to vote for McCain anyway. It changed or influenced nobody."
I believe the American people as a whole will not support anyone for president that answers any tough question with "It's above my pay grade".
"Giving any credibility to the religious right is ridiculous. They are dangerous people who wish to push their views on everyone else and believe the seperation of church in state is a nuisance to them in this endeavor."
They probably feel the exact same thing about you, and they have a pretty good case. All of our founding fathers, pretty much anyone and everyone of any significance in our history that created and shaped the great country we have today was part of that ideology. They are good traditional people that do not want our country harmed. You can't blame them for that.
"Remember these are the people who fight against teaching evolution in school and promote the farce of intelligent design, they want to impose mandatory school prayer."
You have it backwards my friend. You guys are the one's forcing them out. You have to have patience with positive change because there are people that are passionate about what they believe. Patience in 1860 would have saved a lot of American lives.
"These people want governemnt fundings for programs they run, but also don't want to be hindered by anti-discrimination rules of EOC in their practices."
So does Obama and he's right because these people do good work. If I sold Bibles for a living I would not hire someone that did not properly represent the product I sell. Grow a brain.
"These people want to push a theocracy into governemnt while they are overt religious and social bigots."
Well that statement is wrong on so many levels I don't have the time to type that much. You sound like you have a lot of issues. Try Dr. Phil you probably watch that crap.
trying something
Nate,
My Nate Clone Model is getting 1.9%269-269 outcomes (an Obama victory) with the most common being McCain defending OH and CO but losing IA, NM and NV (vs Kerry-Bush 2004). Is your .99% 269-269 correct? I'm also getting more cases of McCain losing the popular vote and winning the EV (this happens most frequently in sims where I have him taking Ridge and picking up indies and losing evangelicals, although I do not rate a pro-choice VP as a straight swap of evangels for indies). In these scenarios he wins the south (often minus Virginia) by about 4 points across the board lower than you've got him projected and he wins combos of the big MW three (OH, MI, PA, with an occasional IA or MN as well a blip or two in OR) by small margins along with CO and NV defended.
Cheers
Obama is losing support because he has lost his brand - either he or his "people" have choosen to redefine him and that is losing big time with likely voters that were his hands down - I for one am very disenchanted by his lost identity - i wish i could get my money back because he is not the same guy who i started supporting
Hi All
Does anyone keep records of the numbers from previous weeks?
I'm interested in the nation summary numbers posted here anytime around July 10. That's the first 3 pie charts top left. EV, WP & PV
You can email me by clicking on my profile above.
Many thanks
Max
Thanks MVRed for the correction. I had forgotten that its a delegation vote where each state is equal. Has anyone got a good run on the likely state splits in the House? What happens when a state is divided say 2-2? Do they cast no vote? Is it then possible for no single candidate to reach 26? Do the DC delegates vote? Can Pelosi have the PR, Samoa, Guam and VI delegates vote by rule change? How weird could a 269-269 get? What happens if someone in the college mismarks their ballot or votes say Hillary or Barr and we get 269-268?
Thanks
McCain is running ahead of Dumbya in the state polls at the same point in the 2004 election year -- and we know how that election turned out.
On August 18, 2004 Kerry had states worth 317 on electoral-vote.com and new polls showed Bush tied in CO, up 1 in NV, and ahead 5in GA.
On August 18, 2008 Obama has states worth 275 electoral votes on electoral-vote.com and the latest polls show McCain ahead by 3in CO, up 3 in NV, and ahead by 11 in Georgia (with a new Rasmussen poll there to come out later today).
Obama is looking weaker by the day.
Might as well summarize the rationalization points and beat the rush:
1. Obama's been on vacation last week.
2. McCain has been running attack ads on the Olympics.
3. Rasmussen's biased. PPP, well..., never mind PPP.
4. Whoever else showed Obama erosion is biased.
5. It wasn't due to the Russian invasion of Georgia.
6. Obama should choose Clark for VP in case it was.
7. The youth vote is underrepresented in the polls.
8. Somebody better be on call to wake those suckers up and drag them to the polls.
9. Just shows how dumb the population is to believe the attacks, errr, smears, yeah, smears.
10. We're smarter than all them, really. Maybe too smart.
11. Wait until the Colorado polling counts the water treaty issue.
12. What if it rains on Obama's speech?
13. Let's put Mule Rider under the Cone of Silence.
OTF,
Thank you for worrying about my health. I appreciate your concern. You don't know how much it means to me.
I hope my daily post brings an inner calm to you and the other left wing bloggers.
TTFN-Remember, It was above my pay grade before it was below my pay grade!
Mule, do any of those things sound like positions I'd take?
I always said this thing would be close, and now its being borne out by facts.
I don't think either party gets landslides anymore. Whoever wins it will be by 1-2%, and we may not know for a week after the election.
Some thoughts . . .
To Alex S. who said...
“Well, a tied Ohio is a success for Nate´s model at least. There was a bit of dissent within the Black Community. Supposedly Obama didn´t care enough about them, but honestly, Obama´s message ‘output’ was a bit low in the last month. These black voters will come back.”
I find it very interesting to hear this acknowledgement of lack of unanimity in the black community; I have been alleging this for weeks and getting pissed on here like I was some sort of crazy to suggest that AA support for BO was anything less than monolithic. In fact, I think Obama’s whole campaign, his persona and his message are really out of step with what black America prefers to hear and that while the color of skin should inspire enthusiasm for him, I don't think his polices and platform will.
OTF: Nice try at dismissing the forum at Saddleback as meaningless. In fact it had billed as a high stakes game for both candidates with many in the punditry suggesting that Obama had the chance to peel off enough Evangelical support to turn a state like OH into his column. He failed miserably at that task (evidence: your dismissal of the whole affair!). Instead McC did himself wonders with this group by reassuring them on both the values issues and the security issues (domestic and international) that he offers what they want and need. Be worried too that this was not the Jerry Falwell crowd or the Pastor Hagee bunch; this was the congregation of the apolitical Rick Warren whose book, the Purpose Driven Life has sold more copies than any other non-fiction book except the Bible. People were listening, my friends, and they liked what they heard from McCain!
The cheating allegations make you all sound like spoil sports. Keep it up it will better assure that McCain’s clear and direct and resonate message is replayed and replayed while the media focuses on Obama’s “umm” and pauses and his musings over his “pay grade”.
MVRed.com said "It is impossible right now to say who would win in a 269-269 tie because we do not know what states could go back to the GOP and what states could go DEM."
MVRed,
You need to read up as well. Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House votes immediately after the Electoral College tally is announced by the President of the Senate. That means it is the lame-duck Congress that votes.
If we look to the current Congress, which would vote in the event of an Electoral College tie, there are 28 delegations with Democratic majorities, 20 with Republican majorities, and two which are tied (AZ and KS - both almost certain McCain states in any electoral tie).
While there may be pressure on Democratic majority delegations to vote for McCain where he wins their state (and the opposite for Republican controlled delegations where Obama wins), it is hard to conceive of a state's delegation voting against their own party's candidate. Possible, but unlikely, though the likely driver will be how a particular Representative's district voted, because the Representative can claim to be representing the will of his/her constituents by selecting the candidate who got the most votes in his/her district, even if the other candidate got the most votes in the state.
It would be a mess, regardless.
As an attorney, I will assure you that it is the new Congress seated on or about January 2, 2009 that would select the President if there is a 269-269 EV tie. Each state delegation in the house gets one vote. In the event a tied delegation for a state cannot reach a decision it will not cast a vote but a 26 delegation majority is still required for a President to be chosen.
The new VP is selected by a regular vote of the new Seante. If the House remains deadlocked on January 20, the new VP would be acting President.
Hey Nate,
Have you looked at numbers for the "post-convention bounce" among just Democrats/Republicans? I wonder if it has a higher latency among party members than among the general public.
Obama never win a poll from Rasmussen in Ohio.
DarienCrow,
The only issues that person has, that I can see, are thinking for him/herself and challenging what you've been blindly taught since birth by people who are so heavily invested in you truly believing what they teach you.
Yes... every American President has been Christian. No... that fact doesn't make it less likely that people 2000 years ago could've made up a story that served their best interest (if I was creating a religion, it would have an all-powerful, invisible, infallible diety who channels all power and authority through me, the leader... well, isn't that exactly how the Bible reads?) and has been passed down by the people who have been best served by it over the years. You have to truly have faith to believe that someone like the Pope (just an example... I have nothing against Catholics and was baptized and confirmed into the church, so I know a decent amount regarding the theology) is really inspired by God to spread the "message" and not by the money, power, and control he has as a result of people believing it, because the money, power, and control are factual and can easily be shown to exist, while the intentions of spreading the "message" is just something we have to take a guy's word on. Ironically, it's things that you can't see, feelings inside the heart and thoughts inside the brain, that are the main accusations against Obama. You cannot question the character of a man of God... candidate for President? Fair game, I guess. I just don't see how you know enough about either to decide, but one gives you reasons to believe him and the other just demands it (and the consequences of course... again just like I would make it... infinity in the fiery pits of hell).
Obama: I will not raise taxes on 95% of Americans.
Conclusion: I'm not sure I believe or trust him, despite the fact that doing what's in the best interests of 95% of Americans is a very smart thing to do as a public servant.
Pope: A man literally died and came back to life 3 days later. He literally walked on top of water. He literally brought other people back from the dead. He literally turned water into wine. He literally is the result of a divine conception. The only evidence I present of this is a book written and maintained only by those most interested and invested in having people believe it. If you do not believe all of these things and worship this man from 2000 years ago, you get eternity in a fiery hell.
Conclusion: This guy speaks the truth and could not possibly be trying to deceive me, despite his being the strongest beneficiary of my belief on the planet.
I think you'll know God truly exists once a religion springs up that dares you to try the others. If I knew my religion was right (and I think we can safely say that voters who use religion to affect their votes do believe they are correct), I would encourage people to see the others for the frauds they are. This kind of curiosity is actually a sin!!
Man... who we all agree is fallible... is the source of 100% of our information regarding religion. How could you assume that the info you get is not then, by definition, fallible? Well... for me, it was because I was afraid of the consequences and most of us have been our entire lives. Unfortunately, I'm not going to believe something that I don't think is even possible just because someone tells me to. Certainly not if there's a simple explanation to the contrary (making it up for power and control) which falls perfectly in line with everyone's view of human nature.
If God were perfect, would he require worship?
PeteKent.
Are you th best the McCain campaign could afford as paid blogger?
They worse off then I even thought.
Saddleback means nothing. McCain was playing to people that weren't going to vote for Obama anyway. But keep thinking that it was important, as they pay you minimum wage to spout this line.
I love the Repub thought that Obama is running Gore or Kerry campaign where OH is make or break. Oh is gravy. Obama will flip IA, NM, NV and likely CO in the west. VA iin the east not to mention IN is in play since McCain is not campigning their in a 1pt race by every poll taken.
Just like the old saying the military is always fighting the last war, the Repubs are fighting the last 2 elections and don't even realize it.
The McCain campaign got caught being deceitful, but ofcourse that's okay with to you. They will not deny the reports, just attack the reporter b/c they know they are true. McCain referenced that he was in the pod when he knew he wasn't. McCain got caught in an unnecessary deceit. Can;t wait till this runs on the 6pm National news. McCain is going to have play Clintonian polotics of not saying he didn't but not denying he did or he can come with thr truth and then explain why he was misleading from the beginning. Straight talk express busting all the tires and losing all his bearings. Maybe he can right it off as a Sr. moment.
Harrison, you may have missed Nate's really cool graph superimposing the normal Dem convention bounce and fade over the same Repub version. He should be bring that one on TV, because it's fine statistical work and pithy to boot.
Bottom line shows that Obama should get around a 6-point bounce, followed almost immediately in the next week by a 8-point McCain bounce, all gravitating back to zero by late September.
It's in the post near the bottom, entitled, "What a convention bounce looks like."
I think it deserves more prominent placement, perhaps with a daily live tracker versus projections as it plays out for real.
"What happens when a state is divided say 2-2? Do they cast no vote? Is it then possible for no single candidate to reach 26? Do the DC delegates vote? Can Pelosi have the PR, Samoa, Guam and VI delegates vote by rule change? How weird could a 269-269 get? What happens if someone in the college mismarks their ballot or votes say Hillary or Barr and we get 269-268?"
To answer some (most?) of these questions:
DC, PR, et al. do not get votes and this is not at the discretion of the Speaker. The procedure for House elections of the President are in the Constitution.
The President must be elected by a majority, not a plurality, of either the Electoral College or the House of Reps. So a 269-268 EC vote would still go to the House to be resolved and 26 state delegations are required to elect a President (so, if some state delegations do not vote, such that neither Obama nor McCain get 26 votes, the race would go to a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th ...) ballot - the election of 1800 was finally decided on the 36th House ballot).
Sedi wrote: Why do people make these types of blanket statements in the face of strong evidence to contrary? Seven out of the last eleven polls show Obama leading in OH. He might or might not win the state, but claiming that he definitely WON'T win it is silly. If people feel completely compelled to make these type of declarations, isn't it reasonable to expect that they at least offer a rationale?
Fair enough. I was in a hurry earlier this morning, but have made this point out here before.
Some of my statement is based on my gut, having watched many of these states closely for nearly 30 years, both from within and outside General Election campaigns. Ohio breaks late for the Republican candidate in the General, so for a Democrat to win there has to be evidence early on that "this year is going to be different." If you go back to the 2004 polls, you will see that Kerry actually led in the first two weeks of August by an average of .75 points. That's not very different, on average, from where Obama is today if you look at Nates average this morning, where, as he points out, the trend isn't very good. So, Obama effectively has no greater advantage than did Kerry in the "horse race" as of today. [BTW, Kerry did well in some October polls in Ohio up until the second or third week (though most of those were polls with small samples and very high Standard Errors), but the state broke back to form and Bush at the end of the month.] It's my view that Obama would have to be doing a lot better than he is/has been doing to suggest that things will be different this year and for him to have a realistic hope of carrying this state.
More specifically, I believe that Obama will not get the plurality he needs in his critical counties to offset McCain's advantage eleswhere in the state.
Bush won the state by 120,000 votes mas or menos in 2004.
Kerry won Cuyahoga by 227,000 and Summit by 38,000. He took Mahoning by 34,000, Lucas by 45,000 and Lorain by 17,000. Bush offset this, winning Hamilton by 23,000 votes and by cleaning up in the Cincinnati Suburbs by well over 100,000 votes. It was, therefore, almost impossible for Kerry to do well enough in the rest of the state, heavily Republican (especially Central and Southern Ohio) to win the state. (His cumulative advantage in Belmont, Jefferson and Monroe counties was less than 10,000 votes.) Parts of Southeastern Ohio vote a lot like West Virgina.
The CW is that Obama will overcome this by a massive turnout in Cuyahoga and along the lake, and by mobilizing younger and University voters, as well as disenchanted middle class and blue collar voters. This didn't happen during the primary, though the weather was bad in Cleveland that day. There's no indication yet in the polling that it's happening this year.
So, based on the way the vote trends historically at the end in the state, based on what I regard as Obama's undifferentiated Ohio performance in the polls to date, based on his performance in the Primary and based on my "gut," I argue that he isn't going to carry Ohio, though he should invest heavily in the state and force McCain to defend it.
Clinton only won the state by 90,000 votes in 1992, despite the fact that over a million votes went to Perot. He won by 259,000 votes in 1996 against Bob "Bridge to the Past" Dole, but again with help from nearly half a million Perot votes. Bush won by 173,000 in 2000 (50--46), though, in fairness, this was a state in which Nader definitely hurt Gore by taking 114,000 or so votes.
What's your view?
Is it becoming clear to anyone besides me that Bob Barr my very well hold the balance of power in this election?
John,
Very well-reasoned explanation of Ohio. My own gut says that you're right for two reasons. First, Obama only won Cuyahoga county by 8 points in the primary against Clinton. This is his base. This is where there is a disproportionate number of black votes. If he can't get a commanding lead here, where can he?
Also, Appalachia will not vote for Obama. No way and no how. Obama just isn't resonating with voters he'll need to win in the southeast of the state. These are places where he lost 75-25 or greater. And these conservative Democrats have a history of defecting to the Republicans when Democrats nominate an egghead candidate (sorry...) like Dukakis, Kerry or Obama. They voted voted for Clinton, as did their counterparts in KY and WV - but they show zero enthusiasm for Obama.
When Democrats win in Ohio they need to color the map of the state blue in an inverted C from the Lake Erie Shore ward to Cleveland, then along the Appalachians to the south, and zigzagging southwest. Obama has shown weakness in Cuyahoga and Appalachia. Unless he improves in these regions there just aren't going to be enough college kids to bail him out.
That's just the way I see it.
Virginia Conservative - I agree.
Johnnyc- What I think you're missing is just how corrupt the RNC was in Ohio. Not only will the Secretary of State and Governor (were Republican, now Democrat) make sure the election is honest (or at least, if it's dishonest it'll be in a way that favors Democrats), not only does the new law about same day registration massively favor Democrats, but it's just a fact that Ohio is more Democratic than it was four years ago.
As for polls, you won't see it. A person who plans to show up with a driver's license and a utility bill to vote in November isn't a Registered Voter. Same Day Registration will throw these polls off.
As for what's happening with the polls, I blame it all on Clinton rising from the grave again. Should be an interesting convention. But the polls would have to show McCain favored by 5 points before I thought he even had a serious shot in Ohio. The polls just aren't designed for same day registration.
>> but it's just a fact that Ohio is more Democratic than it was four years ago.
Maybe. But it's not irreversible. And even if OH is more tilted Democrat, the voters are, by and large, the same people that went to the polls in 2004. Just because the state may be more Democrat-leaning does not mean it is more liberal.
McCain is not your typical Republican (to the chagrin of many Democrats) - but Obama is no Ted Strickland either.
MrInsight22 said "As an attorney, I will assure you that it is the new Congress seated on or about January 2, 2009 that would select the President if there is a 269-269 EV tie."
Grrrr. Saw that the Twelfth Amendment said the House will vote "immediately" after the EC votes, and did not move on to 3 USC § 15, where immediately means January 6, 2009, when the EC convened on December 15, 2008, an immediate 22 days earlier.
Well, I guess that is what you get when you cross Congress and "immediate."
VC, Barr indeed could be a meaningful figure, and could derail McCain, as Perot played kingmaker for Clinton in 1992, or as Nader did for GWB in 2000.
Should McCain go with a VP candidate not acceptable to the conservative and libertarian wings of the party, Barr benefits proportionately.
Thus, Ridge, Lieberman or any pro-choice VP would be suicidal. And he undoubtedly knows it now after floating those trial baloons last week.
If there is any state Barr is the most likely to throw to Obama, its New Hampshire. Very libertarianish state.
I think NH is to the point now where it belongs to the Democrats anyway. It's turning into one big suburb of Boston and GOP is doing less well in suburbs north of the Mason-Dixon line.
538 has a good discussion of an electoral vote tie process under the title "12th Amendment" on the left side of the screen toward the bottom.
One of the few items left out on that thread is a discussion of the "faithless elector." Electors are unbound so they could in fact vote for Clinton, Barr or someone else. If this were to happen the House would then consider them in deciding among the Top Three presidential candidates in the electoral vote count. Both parties attempt to carefully vet their electors to prevent this but is does sometimes happen (one Kerry delegate voted for Edwards in 2004).
Still, the outcome of such a legislative contest seems almost certain now. Polls show that the chances are very good that the democrats will increase their current advantage in the number of House delegations they control and that they will pick up 5 to 7 Senate seats so a tie will most likely go to Obama.
Adam, the people moving from Mass to NH are political exiles, not missionaries.
The Southern NH counties are MORE Republican!
New to trying to post here. So trial run.
More Republican than the rest of NH, that is. Look at the % that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 in those counties.
VA Con,
Well, regardless, it's pretty clear that the state is shifting - probably faster than any other state from red to blue. Even faster than Virginia.
Not really. Kerry won it by a hair in 2004, if he wasn't from New England (Boston media market) he would not have won it. He over performed there just like Obama will overperform in Indiana this time because of the Chicago media market.
Virginia has sea-sawed back and forth at the state level between Democrat control and Republican control for quite a while. During the Reagan era we sent Robb and Wilder to Richmond while giving big margins to Reagan and Bush. State politics != federal politics.
Virginia Conservative said...
Is it becoming clear to anyone besides me that Bob Barr my very well hold the balance of power in this election?
Very astute observation... even for VCon who is a pretty smart cookie.
Politics is SO much fun, isn't it? :-)
Whither Bob Barr?
At the moment I see Barr as a fringe figure of marginal importance. He is polling poorly, nowhere near the numbers that Perot got and his candidacy has not caught fire at all.
He was duped by Sasha Baron Cohen of Borat fame and made to look stupid in his movie. He is a bit of a buffoon. Ron Paul would have been a much more formidable Libertarian Party candidate, and he would have drawn from right and left.
I think Barr might surge some if McCain picked a VP unacceptable to the Right Wing. Like Lieberman. But McCain seems to have learned the lessons of his party heterodoxy from the primaries and is content consolidating his base and fighting on more or less traditional Republican principles of low taxes and pro growth economics coupled with an "America First” approach to foreign policy.
With the war won in Iraq and McCain’s Surge strategy credited for the victory, the country will trust him to turn our attention to Afghanistan and do what he did in Iraq there. The same can be said for other world conflicts like Georgia and Iran where we simply do not know what Obama’s intentions really are. The confusion of course has been caused by Obama’s won confusing rhetoric.
On the economy, McCain has grabbed the whip hand with drilling and can use his many millions over the next few weeks to stamp Obama as a pro-tax ideologue who is anxious to restore the welfare state and pick all of our pockets.
Such a campaign can win and it should.
Add to that the exotic nature of Obama's personal history and ancestry and you have a lot of people who are distrustful of him such that they will never want to see him in the White House. They will not risk a protest vote when the alternative is quite literally beyond the pale.
There is no place for Barr in the mix.
Ron Paul is a senile, bleeting old loon. Unless we count YouTube comments as EVs, he would be much weaker than Barr and hardly on the radar screen.
I am a black person voting for McCain. The fact that having the "1st black president" is something that doesn't appeal to me. I am too socially and economically conservative to vote for Obama. And though black Republicans are a very small number, it angers me to see other people of my kin sell out and vote for Obama just because he is black, even though Obama represents everything us black Republicans stand for. See: Denzel Washington, Colin Powell(if the rumors are true) and others.
Anyway, I don't know many other black people voting for McCain, but I do know some, and its the same way as me: Having a black president isn't as important as having a president that represents what we believe. Black conservatives do exist.
And I know there are black people not convinced by Obama because he "isn't a real black person". I know fellow black people that have called Obama a white elitist in black skin, and doesn't know what its like to be black, and is exploitinig his skin color to prop himself up. There are some black people who don't believe he is a real black person who knows what its like to be black.
I doubt McCain will win more than 10% of the AA vote, but 10% is very likely.
>> Not really. Kerry won it by a hair in 2004, if he wasn't from New England (Boston media market) he would not have won it.
I disagree - but I could be wrong. We'll find out soon enough though because Obama has no ties to Mass (unless he chooses Kerry as his running mate - wouldn't that be a sight to behold)
>> State politics != federal politics.
I appreciate that. But it's hard to argue about the trends.
1964: Johnson wins by 23 nationally, he wins VA by 7. So VA was 16 points to the right of the nation as a whole (R+16)
1968: R+10
1972: R+14
1976: R+4 (Carter was a southerner)
1980: R+4 (Same as '76)
1984: R+7
1988: R+13
1992: R+10
1996: R+11
2000: R+9
2004: R+6
We'll have to see what happens this year, but in 2004, Virginia was less Republican compared to the national average than at any time since a southerner led the ticket and did reasonably well in all southern states. Given the polls this year so far it's hard to see how McCain does much better than a handful of points better than the nation in VA. But time will tell.
"Given the polls this year so far it's hard to see how McCain does much better than a handful of points better than the nation in VA"
Naval/Marine vets in Hampton Roads and Quantico. These are transients that tend not to vote in state elections, and may be skipped in a likely voter screen as four years ago they could have been in California.
Webb won because certain vets will always vote for the vet. Thats probably your three point difference between Kerry and Gore right there. Its why Bob Dole was able to win here in '96.
It is true that Bob Barr isn't gaining any visible traction and that he is no Ross Perot. He is missing his fund raising targets and is almost invisible in both the MSM and nontraditional media.
Still, if the election is close, he could be a factor. Pollster.com now has him running at 2.4%, which may be significant in a race that might be decided by one or two points. When 3rd and 4th party candidates are mentioned by a pollster, McCain usually does worse than his showing in just a two man race.
BTW, theres a reason the only two Democrat Senators we've elected since the early 1970s have been ex-Marines.
On Obama’s Blackness
Powerful commentary, Tyrone. Worth thinking over seriously.
There was an article in the WaPo a couple of months back describing this very phenomenon among Black folks generally, especially those that tend to be conservative and among the intelligentsia.
I think the phenom must spread deeper into the Black community, even among those who live in urban areas who have to see Obama as someone who apes at being Black while having had none of the authentic Black experience until he joined Rev. Wright's church.
He grew up in a White household and his ethnicity was dominated at least in part by his Muslim stepfather who brought him to the Mosque and enrolled him in Muslim school. In this sense his upbringing was a great deal more Muslim that it was Black.
He wears his Blackness now like an actor does a costume, playing a part and using it to win sympathy from a gullible audience.
Tyrone, welcome. Didn't they used to call people like you're describing, "Oreos?" Or is that only if they're conservative?
VC,
Well I wished I could share your optimism - and I really hope I am wrong. It is a lot easier for the GOP to win if they can count on VA's 13 votes.
I've got to tell you though. I know it's anecdotal, but I've noticed a sharp change in NoVa over the last 8 or 10 years, and it's really accelerated since 2004. The DC burbs are growing ever more quickly. It's going to be tougher and tougher to overcome that.
I still think that for this year at least, McCain has the upper hand, because even when Obama was ahead by 6 or 7 points nationally he never claimed more than about a 1 or 2 point lead in VA. I would guess that R+4 or R+5 seems about right fot his year for VA.
Tyrone, of course there are black conservatives. Always have been. The same people who criticise Obama for being a coconut would criticise you for voting Republican.
Similarly, I'm sure there are some angry ageing white adulterers who will vote for Obama despite McCain representing their best prospects of having someone like them in the White House.
PeteKent. I see that the Gallup tracker shows Obama jumping from a tie to a 3 point lead. Is this is a consequence of the Saddleback debate and McCain's scripted stump speech style tanking with the public? Is this a consequence of McCain undermining the spirit of the cone of silence? Is this the true inflection point of this presidential election.
God, it must be fun being you!
NB The above was an example of irony.
Adam, Virginia isn't becoming "Blue", its Democrats have been winning elections at the state level because the RPVA seems determined to commit suicide. Republicans here are like Democrats on the national level--they always seem to be intent on TRYING to lose. See: George Allen.
>> its Democrats have been winning elections at the state level because the RPVA seems determined to commit suicide. Republicans here are like Democrats on the national level--they always seem to be intent on TRYING to lose. See: George Allen.
Well we are in 100 percent agreement there. Gilmore? Really? What the hell were they thinking?!
And another thing Pete. You do realise that declaring repeatedly that Obama is a Muslim doesn't make it so, don't you.
By way of example, if you keep telling yourself that you're not a virgin, it doesn't change the harsh reality of things.
"Well we are in 100 percent agreement there. Gilmore? Really? What the hell were they thinking?!"
If they had had a primary instead of party convention Tom Davis would be the nominee and have a great chance of upsetting M. Warner. But no, they decided to be morons and hold a state convention which was promptly hijacked by Paultards (I was there) and nominated Gilmore.
P Smith-
Obama could use an inflection point right about now. The curve in Nate's Super-Duper-Tracker looks ugly for him.
He wears his Blackness now like an actor does a costume, playing a part and using it to win sympathy from a gullible audience.
Good grief, Pete.
What do you suggest he do with his "blackness"? Take it off and put it away in a trunk in the attic?
Obama gets constantly accused of playing the race card, simply for Campaiging While Black.
Let's talk about McCain's excessive whiteness for a change, okay? I personlly find it creepy.
(He's also crepey, but I know how offended you are by age jokes. Maybe you're really old, too. :-)
Is Bolling goint to win in 2009? That would be great because we need a Republican governor at redistricting time.
If the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate the ultra-liberal and the only member of the General Assembly with a Boston accent (Brian Moran), then yes Bolling will win.
If the Democrats decide they'd like to win and nominate Creigh Deeds, a moderate from Appalachia, it would be a close fight.
Moran is an anti-semite kook. He won't play anywhere but NoVA. I doubt he can win statewide.
Adam-
As much as I'd like it even more to be Rep. Jim Moran, Brian Moran is his brother and the State Senator from Alexandria.
Did I mention he talks like hes from Boston? Yeah, he'd get beaten to pulp by Bolling.
Sorry - I take it back. I don't know Brian. I thought you mean Jim.
From wikipedia,
"Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq he told an antiwar audience in Reston, Virginia on March 3, 2003, that "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."[3][4]
Moran said that his comments were taken out of context, and he had said the same about the Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Convention at three antiwar forums.[5][6]
The National Jewish Democratic Council criticized Moran's comments.[7] Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said Moran's comments were "unfounded, baseless, and way out of line." House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said Moran's comments have "no place in the Democratic Party." Joe Lieberman called the comments "deeply offensive and morally wrong."
The new Rasmussen´s polls today are in Georgia and Illinois.
I want to see the result from IL, i think that Obama win for only one digit now.
Just to neutralize some of the squawking trolls (JB), I wanted to reiterate two major gaffes McCain made w/ Warren:
1. You're not rich, unless you make $5 million. McCain wants to help the middle class, which for him probably starts somewhere around $200k annually. Pooh on the rest of you!
2. The 'cross in the dirt' story. McCain never had this personal experience. Mark Salter, who wrote John McCain's book, lifted the idea for this from the Gulag Archipelago (by recently deceased Russian author Solzhenitsyn) and wrote it into McCain's biography (in 3rd person). McCain never mentioned this story prior to 1999, when the book was published.
Is John McCain being honest about his faith?
Shap-
Neither of those stories are getting any play in the MSM. Both are likely to be confined to Daily Kos and Keith Angrymann if you're lucky.
Speaking of McCain's "excessive whiteness"... I was noodling around the other day and discovered there are entire websites devoted to the belief that McCain is the dreaded "Pale Rider" prophesied in the Book of Revelations.
So take that, Obama Antichrist!
Can the country even survive this election?
Whoa - - McCain went from a tie to down 3 points in Gallup. As a Reagan Democrat and firm McCain supporter, this concerns me. Was this a result of his scary-sounding comments while pandering to the agents of intolerance? Or maybe the cheating and plagiarizing meme is starting to take hold.
Whatever, at least McCain is tied in OH and CO and marginally ahead in NV and VA, all four of which he has to win. Still, I can't help but be a little nervous.
Neoclown, now you are a McCain supporter.
A weeks ago you criticizes him and now you´re a supporter.
Not serious.
Dario, I believe neoclown is a savage parody of Pete Kent.
Dario, pay no attention to Neo's big shoes, orange fright wig and polka-dot pants.
All McCain supporters dress that way.
And he said that Rasmussen was a republican pollster too.
Now he´s a republican.
If it's a tie and the House of Representatives has to decide who's going to be President, is is based on the current composition of the House or the one elected on November 4th?
filistro, i don´t say pools.
VC-
That's why I brought them up here. There are several people who are repeating the far-right talking points on this board (i.e. Jack Black "It was above my pay grade before it was below my pay grade" and Pete Kent "Obama isn't really black but he exploits it to garner sympathy votes" and yourself "will Obama cave to the Clintons? what a wimp") that don't get reported anywhere else besides Fox News.
I wanted to make this message board a little more 'fair and balanced' (and by fair and balanced, I mean skewed towards the direction I favor)
I know you don't Dario, and I've been meaning to give you a big hug for that :-)
Shap, the Clintons having lasting influence in the party is a story that is repeated other places besides Fox News. Do you ever watch Hardball?
He don´t need the crazy HRC.
The Cintons likes politicans from the third world.
filistro, I don't know how you knew what I was wearing today. That's eerie!
Dammit! Looks like the MSM is picking up the cheating/plagiarizing ball and running with it. More of what we can expect from the liberal media, I guess. Andrea Mitchell first reported it; just more of the same from her, being in the tank for Democrats all these years. So annoying.
Andy, it's the newly elected House and Senate that select the President and VP, respectively. That's one of the reasons why Congress is sworn in about two weeks earlier.
I just wish McCain hadn't made that $5 million comment. That is going to hurt us. Man, this is nailbiter time.
Hey Neo... could a sitting VP be nominated to SCOTUS?
(I'm sure you know where I'm going with this... ;-)
PSmith:
I never say that Obama is a Muslim. He is a practicing Christian (although he never goes to church anymore). What I do point out is that he comes from a Muslin=m family and is of Muslim extraction abnd heritage. What is wrong with that?
As I noted over the weekend, we are all the product of our life experiences and they should be expolored and discussed in a civil, almost clinical way.
****
I am deeply sadened by the Gallup tracker not showing an uptick for Mccain today. I had hoped that the combination of Georgia and the HRC mess would have help vault him over Barack Obama. He did move a bit closer in Ras, so I guess I will take solace in that and chalk today's reslut off to "statistical noise"!
Hopefully the afternoon state polls will give me something to crow about.
Adam in NY:
RE Ohio. Yes, it's hard to win Cuyahoga by much more than a quarter of a million votes, which is what Kerry did. So, the question is can Obama register enough new voters who will (a) vote for Obama and (b) show up on Election Day to overcome a Republican Advantage in the center of the inverted C as you put it (though that C definitely is incomplete when stymied by Hamilton County!). I don't have him winning the state, but I have him taking a lot of money out of Johnny Mac's pocket to defend it.
Pete, good call! I am pretty worried, actually. Hopefully JohnnyMac is within a couple of points in Illinois to confirm all that momentum that I thought he had. Maybe he needs some Mitt-mentum?
filistro, a sitting VP certainly can be named to the Supreme Court. And of course I know where you're going with this; Dick Cheney would be a fantastic Supreme Court justice. He would slap down those libs for decades to come.
Mathew H:
Re Corruption in Ohio, registration advantages and "missing voters.
The state probably is more Democratic than it was four years ago and certainly should be ours this time, but it's not yet clear that this electorate is going to be friendly to Obama.
As to the structural issues that might or might not favor us on election day in the state, to quote a very old song, "It seems to me I've heard that song before...it's an old familiar score..." (ok maybe I don't have thw words exactly right). We democrats are perennially overly optimistic when it comes to who is going to turn out for us in General Elections in November. You might be right and I'll be out here on 11/4 to eat crow if you are, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Sedi: re Ohio
You were right to call me out and I'm glad you found my second post more reasonable.
I'm going to stick to my guns that Obama is just not showing enough strength in Ohio to make me feel that he can pull it off. It's hard to win Cuyahoga county by much more than a quarter of a million votes, which is what Kerry did. I also think that we're making too much of the Evangelicals' "un-enthusiasm" for McCain and believe that they will be sufficiently motivated by November. I am also skeptical, as i remarked to another poster, about relying on unenumerated structural changes to put us over the top.
Pete Kent: re Bob Barr
I have seldom been as disappointed in an organization with which I disagree but which I admire as I was in the Libertarian Party for giving its nomination to that highly partisan social-conservative and right wing idealogue, Bob Barr. While I'll still read the Cato Institutes papers and listen to its articulate voices, I just can't admire the Party for doing this. Clearly, it was a pragmatic decision based on what they perceived as Barr's ability to keep them on the ballots in as many states as possible next time around.
The Libertarian candidate got, I believe. 0.32% of the vote in 2004 and, agreeing with you, I don't think that Barr will do much better this year. He might cost McCain a bit in the size of his majority in a few states, but I doubt very, very much that he'll cost him a state.
In 2000, Ralph Nader taught the electorate an important lesson; votes for third party candidates can backfire. No one doubts that the Ralph's voters in Florida and New Hampshire had no intention of handing the election to Bush (and almost giving him victories in NM and OR as well), but there is no doubt that they did.
I've been reading occaisionally lately when I need a laugh.
The silly season went on a lot later (Clinton persisted long after hope was gone so I'm not sure if it's also been longer) this year because the party out of power went the limit in waiting to formally nominate.
There's little reason right now to think Obama won't be an easy winner come November.
Upon reflection, Clinton's persistence was nothing if not silly. It's also been longer.
Another "McGain" poll.
I notice very few of the hardcore Obama fans have posted in the "mid August 538 update" thread.
I sum that up to hard evidence is best ignored by the Senator from IL fan base.
It will be most interesting to see the Ras Rep polls from GA and IL, which are due out at 5PM eastern time.
Also of note is the daily tracking by issues at Ras Rep daily tracking update.
Those aforementioned numbers are the real reason behind all of the "McGains" that we are seeing in the polls.
Finally in re: to Ras Rep polls...538 still has this pollster ranked number 3 in the pollster ratings tab.
Till Later...Mike.
DarienCrow said...
I found this poll to be quite telling
Cable News Viewers
Fox News: 39% Republican
33% Democrat
22% Independant
CNN: 18% Republican
51% Democrat
23% Independant
MSNBC: 18% Republican
45% Democrat
26% Independant
Source: Pew Research Center
Fair and Balanced!
Mike adds:
Fair and Balanced...indeed.
The breakdown in FOX News viewership might also explain their lead in the ratings!!!
See my preceding post in this thread.
The Obama Fan Base seems to conviently ignore both whole threads and comments within them that place holes in the bucket that they use to carry about their water.
Ras-GA-Sen: Chambliss 50, Martin 44. 48-43 without leaners, cf. 51-40 last month. Take it with a grain of salt, since this is the only poll thus far showing Martin within single digits of Chambliss, and Martin won his primary only a couple of weeks ago.
Is it significant that the most common simulated electoral result is a McCain win?
What is the scenario that comes out on top most often?
Mike-
Odd that you and Darrien would try to use that poll as evidence of the Fox's F&Bness. That poll tells me that GOPers won't watch a news source unless said source is catering to their world-view. They're the ones whose viewership numbers change the most from source to source. Inds stay relatively constant, and Dems fall off on fox in proportion to the republican gain.
Furthermore, you're not being ignored because you have conservative things to say, but rather because you have so little of consequence to say at all.
Two questions. Why do so many 'commenters' not have a blog page? Makes you suspicious.
We are all partisan, but some try to analize trend while others just engage in vitriol? I thought 538 was primarily for analysis not 'talking points' and worse.
To make every vote in every state politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, support the National Popular Vote bill.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
susan
It is painfully clear that Obama's campaign is failing. This is John Kerry Redux. He is standing there and doing nothing while McCain and his surrogates kick the living shit out of him. What is it about the Democratic Party and its candidates that makes them afraid to fight?
Obama should learn to speak a laymans language. someone has just explained his 'above my paygrade' comment at Saddleback. "It showed at the same time that he highly respects the opinions of both scientists and theologians, and that it isn't his job to play God". The question of when a foetus is entitled to 'human right' is an unsettled question among theologians but the press are not telling us that. What I initially thought was a dodging of the question was indeed a very thoughful answer.
Finally, please someone should teach Obama how to engage in political fisticuffs!
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,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 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, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ 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,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment