A Democratic partisan in Indiana e-mailed to alert me to the Obama campaign's organizaing efforts in the Hoosier State. Obama presently has 14 field offices open in Indiana, and according to both my source and an article in the Indianapolis Star, has plans to open about a dozen more. The head of Obama's field operations in Indiana is Emily Parcell, who was Obama's political director in the Iowa caucuses.
The McCain campaign, meanwhile, has no offices in Indiana, and doesn't have plans to open any. From the Indianapolis Star article:
McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is taking a different approach to Indiana.Some might call it confident; some might call it laid-back at best.
I have suggested before that there is a certain arrogance in the way that the McCain campaign conceives of the electoral map. While they have come around on states like Virginia, they have been slow to acknowledge that Obama has any chance in states like Montana, Indiana, and North Dakota, where polling has indicated a tight race. There have been seven Indiana polls conducted since April; McCain led in four of those polls, while Obama led in the other three.
Asked whether the campaign has any plans to open an office in Indiana, campaign spokeswoman Leah Yoon -- who is based in Michigan, not Indiana -- had a one-word answer: "No."
Our demographic model thinks that Obama is somewhat defying gravity in Indiana and that McCain remains the slight favorite. Nevertheless, it thinks that Indiana will play a more central role in determining the outcome of the election than other ostensible swing states like Missouri, Wisconsin, Oregon or North Carolina. And one needn't go back very far to remember what happens when one campaign competes in a state and the other doesn't. Think of Obama's half-hearted efforts to compete in Kentucky, West Virginia and South Dakota in the Democratic primaries, and what happened to his results there. Likewise, consider the way that the Clinton campaign tried to hedge its bets in South Carolina and Wisconsin, and how voters in those states reacted. Or, consider the entire strategy of the Rudy Giuliani campaign outside the state of Florida.
Obama will spend nearly 24 consecutive hours in South Bend, Indiana on Tuesday and Wednesday, leading to speculation that he could name Evan Bayh as his Vice Presidential nominee. Should Obama take advantage of the opportunity in Indiana and pick Bayh? Perhaps; Bayh is exceptionally popular in Indiana, including with independents and many Republicans. But that might also give the McCain campaign an excuse to wake up and invest some resources in that state, which it is presently either too cocky or too afraid to betray weakness to do. It might be better to let the McCain campaign think it is calling a bluff, and instead show him a good hand.
8.03.2008
McCain Just Says No to Indiana
@ 6:37 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
155 comments
Who's running McCain's campaign? The staff from the Jerry Lewis Telethon?
McCain should open up in every state that borders Illinois. The IL border seems to work well for Obama*, whether in the primary or general election polling.
*Exception: Kentucky
Bayh ids the pick, he has the executive experience Obama lacks, and the PUMA Clintonites will like it.
He also helps immensely in IN where he is majorly popular, and might actually be the guy that can bring his state.
Stop delaying entering polls you don't like Nate. It's getting pretty transparent now.
3rd time I've posted this over multiple days:
McCain up 45-40 in FL.
http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2008/08/new-florida-pol.html
and apparently Obama has no events planned during his stay in IN
Who's running McCain's campaign? The staff from the Jerry Lewis Telethon?
No, probably the staff working for Miss Cleo. He went abroad and was campaigning in the Deep South (including Kentucky) for months whi Obama and Clinton were shifting voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana.
I am in fact incredibly thankful that Karl Rove has been invited to work for the campaign; I've been calling for it for months. Maybe he can clean up this mess.
Ursula,
That poll was commissioned by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, which meets the FEC definition of a Political Action Committee. We do not include internal polls from PAC's or from candidates.
Miss Cleo was indicted for fraud.
Since when has Rove been invited to work for McCain? McCain doesn't want someone as politically radioactive as Rove working anywhere near him.
I missed that Rove was now on the campaign. Two points:
1) No wonder they went negative with Karl "lets use Justice to throw my opponents in jail" Rove
2) Has Fos or the WSJ noted this as they still accept him ontheir airwaves/in print?
The Florida poll is noted and it isnt that bog of a lead.
On the Rove/McCain connection: apparently my source may have not been reliable: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8911.html but the claim is still clearly made.
@Patrick
"informal advisor" isn't much. Everyone involved with a national party could be called that with their nominee. McCain just can't have Rove officially involved with the campaign. He's too much a symbol of Bush, and bringing him on board would be linking McCain to Bush so much that it would hurt him. McCain has to keep distancing himself from Bush to win.
Thanks for the update, Nate. I seriously believe of the close ones in the polls the 2nd state McCain has to win after Florida is Indiana.
For Obama the first is MI and the second is CO.
I know your tipping point analysis is different but for both candidates the road to victory becomes exceedingly difficult if they lose one of those 2 competitive states I listed.
BTW do you think the Rays will continue to exceed their pythag or will my beloved Sox catch them in the end?
Nate,
Why are the MOEs of individual states so high? Any one state poll probably has a MOE of 4%, and your projection for each state aggregates many polls.
For example, it's hard to see how the WY projection has a MOE of 8.3% based on 1 poll (with a .25 weight)and the regression, while PA has a MOE of 7.7% with lots of polls, including 3 in July with weights over 1.
Can you do an FAQ on your MOE methodology?
McCain understands if he's defending Indiana, he's a goner. I don't really understand the Obama strategy in Georgia, or Alaska. Maybe its part of laying the ground work for the future, but it ain't happening this year unless theres a landslide.
Nate, for the 3rd time in a row, I have to REDO the Google login in order to post.
Yes, I post pro-GOP.
PS--I hope you folks send Barrack Hussein to South Bend to chat with fellow pro-abortion Bayh.
That will be regarded as an attack on the Catholic Church.
The florida poll is not by a big pollster. There is no pint in including every poll done by a local paper.
"Think of Obama's half-hearted efforts to compete in Kentucky, West Virginia and South Dakota in the Democratic primaries"
Obama wouldn't have done much better in Kentucky or W.Virginia regardless. He didn't do much worse among the demographics compared to some other states in the region. According to the exit polls Obama's leaving his church was really bad news in S.Dakota.
McCain is gambling that Indiana stays red because he just can't beat the Democrats and Obama by playing it safe. If he allocated resources to Indiana he would harm his effort in Michigan and Ohio. His current strategy is basically turning Michigan blue and holding on to most Bush states.
If he wins Michigan and holds Ohio McCain can afford to lose in New Mexico, Colorado and in addition even Missouri OR Montana and both Dakotas OR in Nevada. The spoiler right now is Virginia which will have McCain worried a lot especially with a possible Obama-Kaine ticket. They would love to just add Romney otherwise to strengthen the Michigan effort.
TJB-
Since you a repub, I understand the lack of computer savvy. Google closes your account quickly on the browser to protect you, unless you click to remember you on the computer.
Don't blame Nate. A bit paranoid, hmmmm....
MATT J. H. said...
McCain understands if he's defending Indiana, he's a goner. I don't really understand the Obama strategy in Georgia, or Alaska. Maybe its part of laying the ground work for the future, but it ain't happening this year unless theres a landslide.
------------
I'm not sold on Georgia but AK makes some sense. It only has a population of 625K, is taken for granted by Republicans and the GOP is mired in scandals there.
A visit from Obama and a serious ground game could boost the voting ranks significantly and tip the scales to Obama with the influx of say only 10-20K new voters.
A minimal investment of campaign resources could pay off huge. I am sure that local ad time is pretty cheap too.
How dumb are people in MI? Romney got rich outsourcing jobs and laying off Americans - exactly what Michganders should hate!!!!
McCain can open offices in all the states bordering Il, but he's not going to win WI or IA. MO is a going to be close and IN McCain is going to lose b/c of arrogance. Obama is pumping alot of money and offcies into IN and MO. McCain is not going to see the hand writing on the wall till it's to late. He is still being arrogant about a bunch of other states also. We saw this scenario of underestimating the ground roots before with Clinton in the primaries. Obama was a community organizer he knows how to organize and get his people motivated for action.
What is the black population in GA? Is Obama counting on turning in that group to swing the state?
"Obama will spend nearly 24 consecutive hours in South Bend, Indiana on Tuesday and Wednesday"
How does one find out the location of his events? I live in Chicago, and would love to see Obama speak, but never seem to hear about events until they're over.
Hey Nate,
Uhm, Bayh is a tactical pick not a "change pick"
I would consider that to be the only negative side of him as a VP pick.
McCain simply doesn't have the USD to compete in Indiana.
Obama's choice is wise but also troublesome. Simply put,Kathleen Sebelius is by far more progressive than Bayh.
I'm somewhat disappointed if he is the VP pick, but I understand the merits of the decision.
If Bayh puts IN in play and unifies some Clinton people and motivates her donors then so be it.
HUH? Realstixxx, what?
What is the percentage of blacks in the voting and non-voting population in GA? If that group is big enough to swing the state by actually turning out, then maybe that is what Obama is counting on. I can see other way to win GA. Even the youngers down there are pretty red, at least outsdie Atlanta.
Nate, what an arbitrary distinction. You readily include polls commissioned by the Daily Kos, etc. Makes perfect sense. FL Chamber of Commerce, no but Daily Kos, yes.
I'm done with this biased website.
MCCAIN '08, CLINTON '12
Brad said...
What is the black population in GA? Is Obama counting on turning in that group to swing the state?
----------------
It is nearly 30% of the 9.3MM based on the 2006 census estimates.
There are around 500K un-registered AA's to boot.
Realisitxx-
I thought I remembered something like that, thanks for the info. That is why GA is in play.
Remember, the RNC is going to have plenty of offices in IN and it is basically a Republican state so the infrastructure is already there.
GA makes some sense since it is an expensive media market (Atlanta) so if McCain has to spend some of his precious $$ there, it will be painful.
It doesn't matter if Obama opens 20, 30, or 100 offices in Indiana, it will have no effect on the outcome. If Obama wins Indiana, he will have won OH, MI and PA so it will be icing on an over-frosted cake.
A word about Romney, his father was perhaps the best governor of Michigan in the past 50 years and Mitt has a fair-to-middling record as the governor or Massachusetts (especially when compared to Deval Patrick). He also has the exceptional turnaround story of the Salt Lake City Olympics.
Since there is a large Mormon population in AZ, UT, NM, CO and NV, immediately each of these states would move 2-3 points to the right potentially locking them up or moving them to true toss-ups. I would expect that give the excellent record of Mitt's father as governor of Michigan, he could move the state 2% towards McCain just based on the nostalgia factor (plus Granholm's underwhelming 6 years and the Detroit fiasco).
Simply put, IN to McCain is equivalent to PA for Obama.
If McCain picks Ridge, PA would definitely be in play as Ridge is the equivalent to Mark Warner for VA.
Frankly, if Obama were smart he would go ALL out to make Warner his VP, it would lock VA and the presidency (the presidency is more important than a mere Senate seat).
MCCAIN '08, CLINTON '12
What political party would nominate Clinton in 2012?
Love the site. I have been lurking for a while but this is my first post.
Not sure if this has been posted but Insider Advantage had a new Georgia poll out a couple days ago.
http://www.insideradvantagegeorgia.com/
McCain 45
Obama 41
Barr 5
Undecided 9
I still say Sebelius is the better choce but I do like Bayh as well. Chanting "Tampa Bay for Obama/Bayh!!" would be pretty cool.
"How does one find out the location of his events? I live in Chicago, and would love to see Obama speak, but never seem to hear about events until they're over."
go to barackobama.com and scroll down to the bottom of the page. they always put his schedule up there. You can also sign on with them, prolly take 30 sec. or a min, depending on how fast you type, and then you can get involved in events near you organized by supporters. it works wonders. you just type your zipcode and it lists all the events near you and you get to specify how wide the search need be, whether 1 mile or 3 or 100...you get the picture.
Oh please "nj moderate" take your unsourced preaching somewhere else. Michigan is a blue state and the fact that the specter of father of SIXTY year old Mitt Romney is going to flip the state. Tell us another good one.
Romney might win McCain MI but it could lose him other states, like VA, IN, MO, NC, WV...
Give McCain a break. He's got limited resources and needs to concentrate on holding on the Bush states. He has to prioritize them .. So states like OH, FL, VA, CO get his resources. IN is moot if he can't hold the above.
Romney:
"But this position seems to be at odds with the Republican contender's one-time role as chief executive officer of Bain Capital, a large private equity firm.
• In 1992, the firm acquired American Pad & Paper. By 1999, the year Romney left Bain, two American plants were closed, 385 jobs had been cut and the company was $392 million in debt.
The next year, Ampad was forced into bankruptcy.
• Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs bought Dade International for about $450 million in 1994.
The firm quickly fired or relocated at least 900 workers. Over the next several years, it sunk increasingly into debt and laid off 1,000 workers.
In 2002 — after Romney had left Bain — it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
• A 1997 buyout of LIVE Entertainment for $150 million resulted in 40 layoffs, roughly one in four of the company's 166 workers.
The job cuts affected all aspects of the company, from production and acquisition to legal and public relations.
• In 1997, Bain bought a stake in DDI Corp., a maker of electronic circuit boards.
Three years later, Bain took the company public and collected a $36 million payout.
But by August 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, laying off more than 2,100 workers. "
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=8D9BFB7C-3048-5C12-00CCFBA73E2825DE
@nick:
yeah, the romney effect is bizarre. He helps Mccain a bit in Michigan, but none of the other states around there. Smells like just name recognition, and not substantive help.
---"What is the percentage of blacks in the voting and non-voting population in GA? If that group is big enough to swing the state by actually turning out, then maybe that is what Obama is counting on."
The number of registered black voters in Ga in 2004 was 1.1 million they voted at a 54% rate. Obama is expected t oraise black voter turnout 25-30%. He doubled black voter turnout in the primary. Obama has 22 staffers in Ga as of june and they have a massive voter registration drive that has been continuous. The goal is t oregister 500,000 new voters.
Bush won GA by 500,000 votes in 2004. So say obama raises black voter turnout by 25% from the registered 1.1 and 54% that voted in 2004 ...that's 240,000 votes. If they register 500,000 which is the goal and just a lack luster 50% of them vote that's 250,000 votes. Add those together and Obama gains 490,000 votes and GA is probably pretty close on election day.
NJ Moderate:
It may be true that Obama wins OH, MI, and PA if he takes IN, but you're forgetting that MI and PA are already in the blue column, so it's taken for granted in most calculations that he keeps them. Of course, Ohio would be enough to flip him the electoral college. But we all know how well that "Bank everything on Ohio" strategy worked for Kerry.
I think Indiana and Missouri will be the closest races of the night.
"Since there is a large Mormon population in AZ, UT, NM, CO and NV..."
Utah is the reddest state in America, and is one of about five states that Obama couldn't win if McCain ate a baby on TV. Arizona is McCain's home state, and if he's in trouble there he's F'ed nationwide. You're wrong on Colorado. The Mormon percentage there is only about 2%, and increased enthusiasm among the state's Mormons would probably be offset by increasing suspicious towards McCain by the states evangelical Protestants, who are much more numerous.
I couldn't find LDS numbers for New Mexico, but I suspect that whatever Romney would bring in terms of Mormons would be offset by Latinos who might have voted for McCain being turned off by the strong anti-immigration rhetoric of Romney.
Basically, the only western state where Romney could actually change the outcome is Nevada.
jakam:
You're right on. I don't know if Romney would lose those states, but he would definitely hurt. Evangelicals tend to be very suspicious of Mormons. I used to go to a Pentecostal church, and they taught they Mormonism was quite literally Satanic.
Nick:
The Romney name in Michigan is somewhat like the Kennedy name in Massachusetts. For all of the Bain capital issues, he will still be a help in Michigan and may swing the state (and lock up most of the western 5). I agree that he won't help in the South but the only state that would be put at risk is VA which is already at risk.
Let's not forget that Romney sailed to victory in the Michigan primary, with a crushing... 39% of the vote.
Survey USA did one of those VP polls for Michigan, which seemed to show that Romney helped. Some caveats:
-- they didn't poll any other Republicans for VP
-- the poll was published May 28, at the height of the Rules and Bylaws debate for the Democrats
-- the poll was a poor showing overall, with McCain beating Obama 41-37 without named VP choices
--the results suggest name recognition was a factor: McCain-Obama was +4 with no VP; +3 with McCain/Romney vs. Obama/Edwards, +5 with Obama/Clinton or Obama/Gore.
--All the other pairings (Obama with Richardson/Clark/Sebelius/Rendell/Biden/Kaine/Webb) came in at McCain +14 to +19. Granted, Webb might not help Obama much in Michigan -- but it's a pretty extraordinary VP nom who leads to a 15-point swing AWAY from the presidential candidate!
My take would be that Romney might be worth a point or two in MI once Obama's VP was known, too (roughly the effect he had against Edwards, Clinton or Gore).
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=52d98ca6-6c14-4f4a-9180-4e7f1fce8a1a
PS--I hope you folks send Barrack Hussein to South Bend to chat with fellow pro-abortion Bayh.
That will be regarded as an attack on the Catholic Church.
OMG, TJB! Not a Pro-Choice VP! Wait, TJB... I think you missed the part where the majority of states with 450 electoral votes are Pro-Choice and the majority of states with 88 electoral votes are Pro-Life. Even Georgia doesn't have a Pro-Life majority... and Florida sure as hell does not.
And you mentioned Catholic Church specifically when a majority of Catholics are Pro-Choice! Interesting.
Dear Stubborn Ursula,
They have discussed in great length in the past about what polls get included and what doesn't. And just because other sites list them, doesn't mean this includes them in their model.
Nate: As in the original post on the topic of the 5 polls to include, perhaps it does make sense to have a weekly run down of polls you didn't include. The more educated readers of this site would know (1) why they aren't included and (2) can make some educated guesses about why one party or candidate or PAC would choose to release the results.
Just my 2 cents.
Keep it up!
If he allocated resources to Indiana he would harm his effort in Michigan and Ohio. His current strategy is basically turning Michigan blue and holding on to most Bush states.
If that is McCain's strategy, he will lose. With the Bush economy blowing in his face, Michigan is a Big Blue Trap for John McCain.
Nate, what an arbitrary distinction. You readily include polls commissioned by the Daily Kos, etc. Makes perfect sense. FL Chamber of Commerce, no but Daily Kos, yes.
I'm done with this biased website.
MCCAIN '08, CLINTON '12
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
As for Indiana, I think McCain's move here may turn out to be wise. Obama is trying to bait him into investing in what should be 'safe' states, and he's not biting. I can't really fault him for this given the disadvantages he already faces, but we'll in a month or two which campaign was foolish.
ben, you are making a serious error.
Thee only swing votes in the Catholic population will be those towards the pro-life side of the scale. The ardent pro-choice (essentially abortion on-demand) Catholics like Kerry, Kennedy and Pelosi are not swing voters, they will vote Democratic anyway.
About 55% of Catholics are pro-life or pro-choice with significant restrictions which does correspond to the 52% of the Catholic vote that W got in 2004.
As an aside, PA is not a dark blue state ... Kerry won it by 2.5% in 2004 (MI was a 3.5% victory for Kerry).
This election is about 4 states, we all know them:
MI
OH
VA
CO
Obama needs 2 of the 4. If we give Obama Michigan, he needs 1 of the remaining 3. There are other routes, but these are by far the easiest, and most likely.
A point on Catholics. I'm Catholic and pro-life. But I do not believe in pushing my beliefs on others. So I tend to vote on other issues.
Nate,
You are aware of the math of national polls that show that you cannot lose the popular vote by more that .5% and still win the Electora College.
If you have some confidence in the National polls, then little sense in spending much time at all on state polls, especially with the small sample sizes and MOE.
As for the economy, Granholm's fecklessness over thye past 6 years has been a major reason for the long recession that MI has been in (probably the only state where the Dem's are viewed as negatively or more so on the economy). For this state, the economic issue will not be a boon for Obama
MAtt-
Obama is up in all four. If he also tuns some close states like GA, MT, ND, MI this thing is a giant landslide.
It looks like he will survive to the Olympic break, then about 70 days to go.
TJB, Ben & NJ_Moderate:
Please, please, please apologize for discussing abortion and promise us never, ever to do it again.
A discussion of abortion is cancer on a thread! We all have opinions on the matter, and we can all find 'sites that specialize in propagating those opinions.
Meantime, let's talk about the different strategies McCain and Obama are employing in Indiana.
About 55% of Catholics are pro-life or pro-choice with significant restrictions which does correspond to the 52% of the Catholic vote that W got in 2004.
What is your source for the Catholic percentages? What is the Pro-Life percentage by itself? Pro-Choice with restrictions is: Pro-Choice, not Pro-Life. Don't combine them.
Nationwide, 56% of voters are Pro-Choice with a mere 38% in the Pro-Life column.
The majority of voters in Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Georgia are Pro-Choice.
There are 0 swing states that are Pro-Life. (And Paul, I won't apologize for discussing any political issue.)
I forgot to mention that a solid majority in Virginia, also a swing state, is Pro-Choice.
"You are aware of the math of national polls that show that you cannot lose the popular vote by more that .5% and still win the Electora College."
NATE HAS ACTUALLY STUDIED THIS AND DID A POST ON IT A WEEK OR TWO AGO.
My point was Obama's going to the city that is synonomous with the Roman Catholic Church (South Bend).
Notre Dame, the university named after The Blessed Virgin Mary, is going to be where Obama (MR PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION) decides to get together with a protestant pro-abortion candidate?
Could Obama not choose South Bend?
Could he go to Bloomington or Terre Haute or to Indianapolis or Gary?
No, arrogant Obama will choose South Bend.
You are aware of the math of national polls that show that you cannot lose the popular vote by more that .5% and still win the Electora College.
Yes you can, and John Kerry almost did.
TJB-
Glad you figured out how to log in.
As for your post - that is nuts. Why wouldn't he pick a big college town? I guess he could go to IU or Purdue, but youth is his strength, even the youngsters at Notre Dame.
Matt said:
This election is about 4 states, we all know them:
MI
OH
VA
CO
----------
That's playing largely defense from Obama's perspective (except for maybe VA).
He has the luxury of the lead, financing and the ground game to play offense.
If McCain is struggling in IN or FL in late September/early October the McCain camp will have no choice but to abandon places like OH, NH, CO, NM etc, putting those swing states more likely in the Obama column.
I'm tired of Dems playing for 269+1. That leaves no room for error and the state-to-state quirkiness that may come into play this election.
Take note of the Dem primary results. IMHO there were alot of surprises. I expect the GE will have some as well.
Better to set up multiple paths to victory as long as Obama has this luxury.
themarvelousape:
I am assuming you will be back to read responses to your post, if nothing else. Had you put any effort into understanding the criteria by which Nate includes, or excludes polls, you would have found the implied question in your last post answered. The issue is not who paid for the poll (we are frequently in the dark on that) but who did it. If it is done by a recognized polling company, it is included. And a poll sponsored by DailyKos is no differnt than one sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, except that you like one and don't like the other.
If it done for a campaign, or for a PAC, it is excluded. You don't have to like the policy (and I think it is an excellent one) but it has been the policy for quite a while, so to suggest that Nate picks and chooses according to the results is totally off base.
And if you think a professional polling company will distort its published results for the sake of a client then you are more disturbed that I think you are.
You maya think the world is dominated by people who have no sense of integrity. If so, it speaks volumes for the circles you move in. But no campaign or sponsor can pay a large polling company enough for it to commit business suicide.
Good-bye. You are a weak link.
Polls underwritten by campaigns and PACs, however, will release data only if they think it benefits them,, and they will select views of the results which make thiier "guy" look good.
I used to me a pollster on a small sclae. Our media polls we called absolutely straight, as we did the polls done for candidates. But we relesed polls for candiates only if the campaign thought it was a good idea and we made sure we relesed a version that made ouor candidate look good. (We had, for example, several different mesures relating to likelihood of voting. Which one we released for a candidate was selected to stress the candidate's perspective.)
For media polls we had one likely voter screen for high turnout elections and another for low, and we did not change it.
TJB,
You are HILARIOUS!
First of all, while Notre Dame is Catholic institution, it is a place of higher learning and liberal overtones. I am sure the student population heavily favors the Democratic candidate. Obama picking South Bend is not an insult, get over yourself and your neo-con ideologies.
TJB-
Chuck Todd might have the reason to pick that location:
"Bayh's home town is near Terre Haute, Ind. -- about four-hour drive from South Bend. But South Bend is a nice geographical point between Illinois and Ohio, and just south of the Michigan line."
judas_priest,
themarvelousape was quoting ursula's comments from further upthread. Ursula was the poster complaining about Nate's criteria for including polls.
TJB:
Reading between the lines in your post (since the main part is so off the wall that my be the only way to read it) you appear to be personally offended by Obama's comng to South Bend. I hate to break it to you but you do not have a constitutional right not to be offended.
Now it may be that Obama is making a tactical mistake comong there, but what you wrote does not sound like that's what's getting at you. You sound only slightly less offended that the Muslims who objected to the caricature of Mohammed.
TBJ:
You are a classic rightwing RepubliCon religious right wacko.
Btw, there is no such thing as partial birth abortion.(capatalizing doesn't make it real) Being a MD I can tell you it is not in a single text book or medical reference book. It's a creation of the rightwingers such as yourself.
The second thing that points to your reliogious right nutcase is that you say pro-abortion. It's pro choice as getting a medical procedure is a choice. But, two can play that game as you are anti-choice. Against the choice of a person to get a legal medical procedure performed safely.
Obama chose South Bend for a number of reasons. First most Catholics aren't rightwingers that vote on a single issue such as abortion and majority of American Catholics are pro choice, especially the younger ones that would be in a college town. Besides abortion Catholics agree with the Dem party platform concern for social issues. Second, South Bend is not far from his Chicago base and close to the MI border. He can get people from south MI to possibly come too. Also, he obviously pre-planned the visits and would not go somewhere he would not get a positive campaign stop and a goof number of supporters. I;m sure they polled South Bend ahead of time.
The only arrogance is displayed by you and your type that feel they can tell people where to have campaign stops.
You are aware of the math of national polls that show that you cannot lose the popular vote by more that .5% and still win the Electora College.
Jack, please show us this "math."
Fun IN statistic:
Primary votes in St Joseph County (South Bend):
Obama 33,000 (about 5% of his 600,000 IN votes)
Hillary 30,000 (also about 5% of her 600,000)
McCain 6,000 (about 2% of his 300,000)
So, votes in the D primary: 63K; votes in the R primary: 8K
Jake-
Here is Nate's view of the popular vote v electoral college (there is a second one out there too):
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/popular-vote-v-electoral-vote.html
judas,
The italicized part of my comment was a quote from Ursula. I agree 100% with your comment, and I would further add that it is absolutely absurd to get upset about 'bias' on a prediction site. If McCain wins, then McCain wins, and if Nate guesses otherwise, then all the hype and work that went into this site will have been a waste. This notion that he would fudge the numbers to create the false appearance of an Obama lead is absurd and paranoid. It seems people like Ursula want to take their frustrations about McCain's troubles out on the web site.
McCain is arrogant as he continues to ignore "flyover country" states like Indiana, Montana, and North Dakota.
Indiana and Montana being ignored by McCain in 2008 is the same as Tennessee and West Va. being ignored by Gore in 2000.
McCain is arrogant and over-confident while Obama continues to work hard. It's going to hurt the old man in these states come November.
To return more to the subject of Indiana, and whether Obama can win it. Here are the 2004 presidential results from Indiana:
Bush: 1 479 438
Kerry: 969 011
and the 2008 primary results:
Obama: 630 399
Clinton: 644 594
McCain: 319 610
Huckabee: 41 164
Paul: 31 628
(Obama+Clinton)/Kerry: 131.5%
(Obama+Clinton)/Bush: 86.2%
(McCain+Huckabee+Paul)/Bush: 26.5%
Of course that last piece of information isn't very meaningful, given that McCain had long since tied up the nomination.
But it's pretty astounding that the Democratic vote in the 2008 PRIMARY was almost a third higher than the Democratic vote in the 2004 general election.
For that matter, Bayh received 1 496 976 votes in his Senate re-election campaign (or more votes than Bush received on the same day).
I offer these numbers to anyone who's bored of the abortion debate.
Bayh would definitely put IN in play
Amazing that Bush got 50% more votes, AND this state is in play. That is amazing. If this holds true, the thing is a landslide. No wonder Obama is focused on turnout.
I cant believe how close Arizona is right now.
Sorry to wonder off topic but i just looked at the pollls at pollster.com and McCain is up an avg of only 5 there.
I live in Indiana and let me tell you this:
PEOPLE NOTICE THAT MCCAIN IS IGNORING OUR STATE!
nobush3, that includes the (probably useless) Zogby Interactive poll. Without that, McCain's up by around 10 points. That's the same as Bush's margin in 2004. I'm not sure if that means McCain's doing badly (failing to improve on his predecessor's margin in his own state) or well (not to have fallen further behind in a rough year for Republicans).
BTW, Public Policy Polling mention on their blog that they'll have a new Arizona poll up this week:
We'll have new numbers in Arizona. There's been a lot of speculation this week that the race could be tight there but I don't know about that.
Read that how you will.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/
Wow...
ursula said...
I'm done with this biased website.
MCCAIN '08, CLINTON '12
...Ursula is a PUMA! Until this actual sighting, I always thought the rare and exotic PUMA was just another urban myth.
Calling David Attenborough...
For The Record: Colorado Is 2.5% Mormon! They are already nearly ALL Republicans!
I keep seeing this and I don't know where people get the idea that "Colorado has a lot of Mormons!" No, it doesn't.
Romney probably won't help McCain there at all, more likely the reverse. McCain by himself could win Colorado if he weren't running a Swift-Boat campaign.
Right now Obama ads ripping McCain's negative ad blitz are running all over Colorado. They attack McCain for claiming Obama is responsible for higher gas prices. It's that kind of WHOPPER that undermines McCain's entire smear efforts.
Rove chose ONE theme for his attacks "flip-flopper." Everything fit into that theme. Only problem: McCain flip-flops more than a Raggedy-Andy doll.
Example: McCain is all ready to accuse Obama of flipping over to support drilling on the continential shelf, only McCain just flipped on this issue, so he has ZERO credibility to make the attack.
About the only issue McCain HASN'T flipped on is the surge. He's even flipped on his "100 years" occupation of Iraq, calling Maliki's demand for a 2-year timetable for withdrawal "a good timetable" shortly after attacking Obama for calling for a "timetable."
Bush was an idiot who never changed his mind even when he was DISASTROUSLY wrong, which he was almost every single time. That gave him the "credibility" to attack Kerry for "flip-flopping."
But, Republicans are stuck with McCain who flip-flops more often than a wind-sock. So, that's just not a line of attack they can successfully use this year.
Not that they aren't trying, it just has no resonance when you're trying to attack Obama for changing his mind, and your candidate changes even more often.
That doesn't leave much. About the only thing they can do is make racist attacks.
Even Republican strategist and pundit David Gergen has attacked McCain for using "racial code words" to attack Obama:
""I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'he's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, 'I'm against quotas,' we get what that's about."
McCain's own mother, Roberta McCain called his ads "stupid" and "Mike Murphy, McCain's campaign manager during the 2000 Republican primary, was describing the Senator's recent spot comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton as 'clumsy, juvenile, and a mistake.'"
It's not good when your own mother is dissing your advertising and your former campaign manager is attacking your campaign as "a mistake."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/03/gergen-mccain
-is-using-co_n_116605.html
McCain is being an idiot ignoring Indiana.
And if Obama picks Bayh as his VP, he's an idiot too.
"You are aware of the math of national polls that show that you cannot lose the popular vote by more that .5% and still win the Electora College."
So, Jack, you're predicting an Obama victory, I take it? Because he's ahead by more than 0.5% in both National tracking polls today.
In light of this comment, I also find it interesting that as I write this, Nate's predicting a 2.6% popular victory for Obama and RCP's national poll average has Obama up by 2.7%.
Cugel said:
"...Even Republican strategist and pundit David Gergen has attacked McCain for using "racial code words" to attack Obama:"
Gergen is far from a Republican strategist. He has worked for both Rep and Dem administrations (e.g. Clinton). He actually has a brain and found his conscience years ago. He is probably my favorite pundit because he is the most thoughtful and balanced around.
Other than that I think your post is spot on.
Mark said...
And if Obama picks Bayh as his VP, he's an idiot too.
-------------
Bayh is a very safe VP choice with geographic upside and some HRC reconciliation points to boot.
The only safer choice would be Biden but without the upside of Bayh.
I think Bayh would be a solid VP selection. Not inspiring but very low risk with potential upside.
You can't win unless you turn them out. I think McBush believes if he loses states like IN and MT that it will probably be in a landslide anyway so he is banking on getting MI and holding on to OH and eeking out a victory that way. We must keep in mind that IN is usually the FIRST state to start and finish counting ballots (or electronically whatever they finish first, lol) so if you hear, "we can now confirm that Barack Obama has won Indiana" It is going to be a LONG NIGHT for John McCain.
If Obama picks Bayh and wins Indiana, McCain is in trouble. The Kerry states plus Iowa and Indiana equals 270. Obama could lose NH and win NM and have 271. McCain would have to hold Ohio, Florida, Colorado and Virginia, NM and flip NH. That said, McCain is probably thinking that if he wins Ohio, he cannot lose Indiana and if he loses Ohio, it is over (which is correct).
We must keep in mind that IN is usually the FIRST state to start and finish counting ballots
Is Indiana even in the Eastern Time Zone? I always thought that Virginia and a handful of other Eastern Seaboard states finished counting first. Virginia I know closes its polls at 7 ET.
As I said, go to South Bend and let B Hussein Obama perform his latest dervish.
One more layer of "clinging to God and their guns" icing by Barrack the Baker.
Obama campaigns like a gangstah. He looks where he can disrespect the most.
Clue time kiddees---this will play very poorly for Obama in the Hispanic community.
St Mary of Guadalupe is the Patron Saint of Mexico.
There will be Hispanic voters making the Sign of the Cross when they see Obama (who has gone to great lengths to shed the Muslim rumor and portray himself as a Christian) and Bayh (another pro-abortionist) having their cabal near Notre Dame.
BUT, Barrack is THE ONE.
What do I or some Mexican immigrants know?
I am pretty sure in 92 and 96 IN was the first state to come out, I know it is one of the first but even if VA finished first and the words "Barack Obama has won VA" it is going to be ONE LONG NIGHT for McCain.
I just looked it up and the first 6 states to close their polls will be Virginia, Indiana, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Vermont at 7 ET.
Of those, Vermont will go to Obama by 30, Kentucky will go to McCain by 15-20, and South Carolina will go to McCain by 10-15. Georgia will probably go to McCain by less than 5, and then you have Virginia and Indiana, which are more up for grabs.
I think I just stumbled on an Obama strategy: do well in Indiana, Georgia, and Virginia to make a lot of noise early on. The fact that he is even contesting Georgia, tells me that he really wants to make noise in the early-closing states. If Obama can make Georgia close enough that it won't be called right away at 7 PM, it could be a psychological victory that will fire up Democrats and depress the GOP turnout in western states like Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, and Montana. So maybe contesting Georgia isn't such a bad idea after all.
McCain would also like to do well in Virginia to show that he is viable for the rest of the night... though he will continue to ignore Indiana and Georgia, taking them completely for granted... much to his peril.
@TJB
Nevermind the rest of your nonsensical rantings, but Obama is destroying McCain in the hispanic community.
Mule Rider Said:
However, for those defenders of Barack Obama that say he has become more malleable because he is trying to show pragmatic flexibility, don't they have to concede that McCain's movement around on the positions is similar as he's adapting to the political climate and showing a willingness to compromise?
-------------
I'll take this on because it is easy.
McCain is tacking towards Bush and the right. Obama is tacking to the center. Moving from less extreme to more extreme is not looking for compromise. The converse is.
"Bayh is a very safe VP choice with geographic upside and some HRC reconciliation points to boot.
The only safer choice would be Biden but without the upside of Bayh.
I think Bayh would be a solid VP selection. Not inspiring but very low risk with potential upside."
My problem with Bayh is that he's far too hawkish. The only reason I back Obama over McCain is that Obama hasn't supported the war in Iraq and wants to concentrate on finding bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Bayh has supported the war since before Day 0. I don't like that at all.
When you add the pro-war aspect of Bayh to the fact that his election means the Democrats lose a Senate seat, he seems like a pretty unattractive pick. I think Biden and Sebelius are much safer options, and I'd back them (or Kaine [though he's pro-life, which may be problematic] or Schweitzer [I actually really like him]) over Bayh any day and twice on Sunday.
Why does Obama put offices in Indiana, Montana and Alaska, when he can pour even more money in Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Virginia?
realistxxx said...
Gergen is far from a Republican strategist. He has worked for both Rep and Dem administrations (e.g. Clinton). He actually has a brain and found his conscience years ago. He is probably my favorite pundit because he is the most thoughtful and balanced around.
Other than that I think your post is spot on.
Gergen has been a Republican for a lot longer than I've been following politics. He served in the Clinton administration because Clinton wanted to reach out to a Republican to give his adninistration some "bi-partisanship" and not because Gergen was anything but a died-in-the-wool Republican operative.
If you remember his coverage of the 2000 election recount fiasco as well as I do you would remember his intense partisanship on behalf of Bush.
Oh, and Mule-lover: I'll just quote your friend McCain "Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it." That applies to you. I see no point in responding to personal attacks by idiot trolls.
You can continue to make endless personal attacks on me for every single post I make, but I really don't care what you think.
de Monfort:
Certain things are sacred.
http://www.sancta.org/intro.html:link
Plus, there is the possibility it may upset her Son.
Why does Obama put offices in Indiana, Montana and Alaska, when he can pour even more money in Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Virginia?
Diminishing returns.
Also: the two latest polls actually show Obama ahead by 1 in Indiana and Obama ahead by 2.5 in Montana. So it would be crazy not to put offices in those states (particularly when McCain won't even visit them and they are starting to notice that in both the Hoosier State and Big Sky Country).
Like others, Bayh seems like a pretty boring (not to say pro-war) choice. But I can see the appeal if internal polling made it look like he could flip IN.
Let's say that Obama continues to be ahead in (Kerry States)+(IA+NM), as he as pretty consistently so far. With Bayh on the ticket, and Indiana a realistic possibility, then Obama would just need to win one of (CO+VA+OH+IN+MO+NC+FL), while McCain would have to win all of those states.
Actually, with many of those states (including IN), he could even afford to lose NM! So to be sure of winning, McCain would really HAVE to win MI or PA.
Of course, this is Obama's basic strategy with or without Bayh. But adding IN to the mix makes it that much easier, and he may be the only VP who can add a state in that way (Sebelius probably doesn't give him KS, and he could win VA without Kaine). McKaskill could do the same in MO, but she's less popular there than Bayh is in IN, so the effect may be smaller.
@TJB
Well, tell that to the 60-65% of the hispanic community that are backing Obama currently.
Scott said...
Why does Obama put offices in Indiana, Montana and Alaska, when he can pour even more money in Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Virginia?
----------
Law of diminishing returns and swing state voter fatigue. Open up the map and provide multiple victory scenarios.
This election is quite quirky. People will enter the booth and decide between a geriatric war monger basically driving for Bush's 3rd term and a black newcomer, left of center candidate with a muslim name and some dubious associates (e.g. Wright et al.).
Who knows how each American will ultimately vote given these choices. To wit, Obama won WI primary by a landslide, tied in IN yet got crushed in PA and OH.
I know open primaries etc. etc., but the state to state quirkiness should not be under estimated given the extreme choices and problems facing the electorate.
TBJ:
As stated in my previous post, you prove yourself as far rightwing religious wacko bible thumper.
Could you please make a fact based post. Ofcourse you are incapable of thinking, you are waiting for one of your wingnuts like Falwell to tell you what to think.
"Ben said...
I just looked it up and the first 6 states to close their polls will be Virginia, Indiana, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Vermont at 7 ET.
Of those, Vermont will go to Obama by 30, Kentucky will go to McCain by 15-20, and South Carolina will go to McCain by 10-15. Georgia will probably go to McCain by less than 5, and then you have Virginia and Indiana, which are more up for grabs.
I think I just stumbled on an Obama strategy: do well in Indiana, Georgia, and Virginia to make a lot of noise early on. The fact that he is even contesting Georgia, tells me that he really wants to make noise in the early-closing states. If Obama can make Georgia close enough that it won't be called right away at 7 PM, it could be a psychological victory that will fire up Democrats and depress the GOP turnout in western states like Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, and Montana. So maybe contesting Georgia isn't such a bad idea after all.
McCain would also like to do well in Virginia to show that he is viable for the rest of the night... though he will continue to ignore Indiana and Georgia, taking them completely for granted... much to his peril.
August 3, 2008 9:32 PM "
Nice post, Ben. States such as Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Oregon (not that Oregon is in much doubt), plus mountain states like Montana and the Dakotas could well be influenced by early Obama success, esp. since Obama should be rolling up a huge early lead on the Eastern seaboard.
Some thoughts:
If we consider how long it took IN to count the votes the night of the primary it could be a long wait.
It is interesting that when a Dem changes his mind or position he is flip flopping. When a REP does it it is the result of nuanced thought.
Choice is and always will be a political issue, as well as Gay rights, lest we forget the 11 ballot initiatives in 04 from Rove that cost Kerry the election because of the bigot vote on that issue.
Looking at other polls, McCain appears to have a range between 39% and 45.5%. Obama has a range of 44% to a recent spike to 51%. Can't win with 45.5%.
The larger mistake McCain is making in the states he is not contesting is screwing the down ticket candidates. Even if he loses, Obama will bequeath state legislatures and state wide offices to the Dems.
If Obama can turn out the ground troops as Nate has mentioned he will win. Used to be part of the get out the vote team in Brooklyn NY and ringing doorbells works. And Brooklyn politics makes all of this look like a day in the sandbox.
For McCain OH is the key. Win it and he has a chance, lose it and he is toast. Considering that the DEMS noe hold all of the levers of power,(no Blackwell disallowing registrations because the paper was not thick enough) it will be closer than 04.
And finally, all of this micro polling means NOTHING. Neither do Obama or McCain. It is this simple: If you like the war, like the direction of the country, think the economy is great, millions losing their homes, another 51K jobs down the tubes this past month, then vote for McCain, if you want a different direction the vote Obama, as Carville said, "it is the economy, stupid" and that is what will determine the winner.
You know, we ought to stop saying that McCain flipflops. It's much more like a sustained whirling around in midair, while giving off quantities smoke and a slight grinding noise ( presumably from over-stressed mental gears). Flipflopping at least suggests some sort of coherent pattern.
As for the debate over Indiana and other states where polling is close, I suspect that a lack of deep enthusiasm for McCain, plus Bush as the albatross, plus energized Democratic turnout will put Obama over the top. I doubt that the VP pick will decide any state - and there's no evidence that it has for many years past.
Equally, if the hardcore Hillnuts didn't get their first choice, picking a male supporter isn't going to placate them. They'll just say that Bayh sold out, that the DNC betrayed Womanhood, and that they intend to sulk in their tents or else discover that McCain has hitherto unsuspected feminine qualities.
Mule Rider,
Very honest assessment on Flip Flops and I appreciate it, given the flotsam and jetsam of message boards.
Here is one for my man, Obama. He needs to admit a mistake soon. Maybe the surge or drilling would be good opportunities.
For the surge he could say, "hey, our military is the best in the world and they did alot and I was wrong about increasing unrest in Iraq." On drilling he could say, a comprehensive energy plan should have more fossil fuel exploration on the table." etc. etc.
He could then get back into his best self deprecating style and then move on to issues really important for the future of our country.
Regarding <0.5%
That's utterly ridiculous. Just because Gore one the popular vote by that amount does not mean it's a ceiling.
The largest margin of defeat popular vote defeat was 1860, where Lincoln won with <40% of the vote. The fact that he had three opponents is irrelevant, even if all their votes had been combined he still would have won. 1888 was also a >0.5% popular victory for Grover Cleavland, though an electoral defeat.
I'm hardly a McCain supporter but I don't think it's 'arrogance' as you so deftly put it. He plain doesn't have the resources and so has to put a front on to hide that fact.
anonymous weatherchicken said...
I'm hardly a McCain supporter but I don't think it's 'arrogance' as you so deftly put it. He plain doesn't have the resources and so has to put a front on to hide that fact.
-----------------
Arrogance and presumptuousness comes from all of the resources he is putting into PA at the expense of red state strongholds... a lost cause.
Actually, I kind of think McCain has to advertise in PA, though his odds of winning aren't good. He needs, at the very least, to keep up the appearance of competing in blue states (and in more than one or two of them), or he might as well just pack up and go home.
With the tracking polls tied in the mid 40s, y'all are licking your chops over IN?
It makes no sense. States like IN, MT. etc. will turn only if there is a landslide brewing.
I am not sure why Obama is opening all those offices and what good he thinks they will do him 90 or more days before the election, unless his plan is to garner votes by reducing local unemployment.
A little of what is going on may be Democratic GOTV catch up, as another poster has noted; in Indiana (as no doubt in other of these states) there already exists a substantial Republican apparatus.
It would be a mistake to simply chalk this expanded Obama ground presence off to arrogance, but I do think it is misplaced.
Obama's campaign benefited from an excellent ground game in the caucus states; I think impressed with that success they are trying to translate that effort to the general election.
In close states it can make the difference, but Obama would be wise in placing his bets elsewhere now. His campaign is faltering from a message point of view and he is having trouble gaining traction on the issues.
With the race so apparently close nationally and with Obama having presumptively big leads in the big coastal stakes it would be a mistake to assume that he is near tipping any of these traditional Republican states, including IN. It defies logic to think that a state that gave Bush 20 pt margins is that competitive for Obama.
At least before the Bayh pick is made.
PeteKent, given your er... vision of the election, how do you explain Obama being so consistently close in the polls in Indiana and Montana? Frequently he's been ahead of McCain. Doesn't that leave your argument looking rather shaky?
Mule Rider,
A speech I'd recommend is a balanced one on the positives and negatives of affirmative action.
He might be the only politician that could tackle this knotty and divisive issue.
"States like IN, MT. etc. will turn only if there is a landslide brewing."
Current polling would seem to suggest otherwise. You seem to believe that 2004 Red States will, for whatever reason, stay Red, while traditional Blue states such as PA and NJ will turn Red.
2008 is not 2004 "Pete Kent"
With the tracking polls tied in the mid 40s, y'all are licking your chops over IN?
It makes no sense. States like IN, MT. etc. will turn only if there is a landslide brewing.
Pete Kent, you don't seem to have access to current polls. Obama is ahead by 1% in Indiana and by 2% in Montana according to the latest couple of polls. You can't understand why he would contest states that he is already tied or slightly ahead in? Particularly when McCain has already stated flatly that he will ignore the Hoosier State and Big Sky Country on through Election Day?
mule rider, i think we had a little toss up yesterday, and i got a little rough on you because a previous poster went on a completely illogical rant (his/her name was mule, hence the potential confusion). what you must be aware of is that you aren't as important as to assume that everyone is reading all of your posts and try to peg you down on an ideological aisle. they're not reading your previous post and then come across your next post one hour later and still remember what you said previously. now, i think you can acknowledge that there are some trolls in here. plenty of them. like this dude who went on a rant about abortion on a site about "process politics". and who thinks that obama doesn't have a right to visit southbend, and who willfully smears bayh. and you know (probably) that the discussion about abortion isn't gonna be solved within the next hour. nor within the next decade or 20 years. so this makes people really uncomfortable and apprehensive and defensive. and there you go with a quite provocative reference keenly similar to the mccain language "the one". and yet you are getting mad that he's defensive. i think that if there were less people in here, he prolly would recognize you and therefore your snarkiness, or cynicism would be a little less off-putting, but the problem isn't entirely with him, or with me (yesterday), for that matter. don't get mad if someone gets mad when you provoke them. that being said, you engage in constructive conversations after your initial snark.
The term flip flopper is a "Rovian" term used to diminish a candidates character. It's redickulous, a word for the small minded. Akin to "Elitist". I don't know when intelligence stopped becoming a prerequisite for President, but after the last eight years, we had better put a stop to that. No offense to McCain, I liked him before he sold out to the republican right, but he's not near as sharp as Obama. McCain can't remember half the bills he's voted on.
I've heard figures like the black vote will go up 25% and the youth vote will go up like 25%. Is the increased turnout baked in the polls, or do pollsters have no idea what turnout will be. Reagan had a 3 point lead in the polls the day before the 80 primary and he won huge. In 04 turnout was up huge again but the polls were pretty accurate. I have heard some say pollsters have no idea how Obama can effect turnout. Any good information from anyone?
To be frank, I don't believe those polls. If the trackers are right, then McCain has to be running better somewhere! Given that Bush got over 50% in 2004 and won the lion's share of the elctoral votes, and if Obama is making republ pick ups, where is McCain banking his votes? It's goota be somewhere!
PeteKent, if you don't believe the trackers, what evidence is there that McCain must be doing better? Or are you simply whistling in the dark as McCain dodders towards the blade?
Give it time. McCain will open an office in Indiana. Besides, we should all know not to take the word of a mid-level campaign spokesperson. She's not making the decision.
matt j.h.,
You ask a good question about turnout. i do not know the answer, but I am concerned about two scenarios. If Obama is up 2-5% on Nov.3, many Obama voters may stay home thinking the election is won, and cause tight states-and the election-to go to McCain.
Conversely, if Obama is down 2-3% people may stay home thinking "oh we can't win." Thoughts?.
@"Pete Kent"
"To be frank, I don't believe those polls"
Then why are you here?
@mule rider
"Regardless, on Nov 4th, someone wil be elected POTUS."
I hope so. I do not want another election like the one in 2000.
McCain's decision to not open field offices in Indiana is not one of arrogance. Although his campaign and the RNC have the financial clout to keep up with Obama, McCain does not have the manpower. Unlike Bush, who had the Christian right behind him, McCain does not have a motivated base behind. Well, he does have a base but it's more anti-Obama than pro-McCain and that doesn't translate into volunteers.
Despite what the media and right-wing trolls here say, McCain is currently behind in the swing states and he has to divert all his resources into offense. If he is going to lose Indiana, then he's probably going to lose the election anyway. So why waste manpower resources (volunteers and such) on a piddling ground game in a historically red state?
"To be frank, I don't believe those polls. If the trackers are right, then McCain has to be running better somewhere! Given that Bush got over 50% in 2004 and won the lion's share of the elctoral votes, and if Obama is making republ pick ups, where is McCain banking his votes? It's goota be somewhere!"
If you just take Rasmussen's latest poll of every state (w/ leaners) and apply it to 2004 voters (I used Nate's regression for the 8 states + DC that Rasmussen hasn't polled), you get an Obama lead of 47.6 - 45.0, which is well within the margin of error for their latest tracking poll (47-46 if I remember correctly). This would translate to an EV victory for Obama of 305 - 233 (giving ties to McCain).
Is that really so hard to believe?
@mule rider
"Go back and read the thread an you'll see."
I think you are right. Let me say mea culpa which is latin for "my bad."
Group C, "Those wanting to be a part of a historic election, the chance to put a (partial) minority in the white house" overlaps a lot with groups A) and B).
I would add a group D) of people who never thought the chance would be possible to throw out the neocons who have held the White House and who tried to make dissent equal to disloyalty.
BTW, I am in group D :)
There are parts of this country I do not understand. 80% of people believe we are on the wrong track, and we have a very close election. I can't rationalize that. The democrats should be able to put any democrat in the country up there and win by 20 points. I like Obama, but theres no telling what kind of president he will be. surely after the last 8 years we would give the opposition 4 years to try and figure it out.
I don't get it. Torture, Gitmo, 2 recessions, 2 wars, gas prices, pissed on constitution. Is it The whole, black, Indonesia, Chicago, Liberal, Rev. Right, Flager, don't share your values stuff? I really don't get it. Can someone please enlighten me without the sarcastic crap. Whats wrong with Obama. He'll probably still win, but why don't they like him?
The dearth of available data on the state of the race in Indiana is frustrating. For whatever reason, none of the polling outfits that do state polls at regular intervals seem to be bothering with it, so there's been no results at all out of the state since way back in June. In the same time period, Rasmussen has managed to survey such "battlegrounds" as NY and CA a full four times.
I would add a group D) of people who never thought the chance would be possible to throw out the neocons who have held the White House and who tried to make dissent equal to disloyalty.
---------------
I would add E. Those that actually believe Obama is a once in a generation leader. He has this knack for "putting his hands on your shoulders, looking you in the eye" and talking to you like you're an intelligent adult who understands the complexity of the problems we face together.
Count me in this group and even though he has gotten away from this style in the GE, I believe he will eventually get back to it.
This group of potential E group voters are the ones that will eventually put him over the top. They are the former cynics (D, R and I) who have been most inspired by his improbable candidacy.
hey it's alright mule rider. i myself have always insisted on being as nonpartisan as possible, and i am quite disappointed in how most issues are framed in politics. but i now consider myself firmly anchored in the democratic party just because first of all the long primary, and then because of certain tactics and impressions i got from talk show hosts and sean hannities. no need to elaborate on that. of all people, i think mccain and obama have always been the dream campaign i always wanted. i actually did believe in the myth of the 2000 campaign. i frankly was excited about him until i got the impression that he's really vindictive and despises his opponents (romney, obama), isn't a straight talker, routinely takes the opposite position of his paper policies in town halls, but the media isn't even aware of that. im quite versed in democratic policies. read every policy papers, but i have little interest in discussing them because then everyone just digs in their trenches and shout across the aisle. that aspect of politics really puts me off. i have little tolerance for it, and i get aggravated when people start using talking points to engage in conversations. i mean, even here we're picking up on that. you have code words: uppity, arrogant, presumptuous to describe every decision. it's just the dumbing down of intelligent discussion, and i suppose if someone is really here to have a real conversation about the process aspect of campaigns and elections, you frankly are put off by the other aspect of it as well. you prolly are looking for something a little more concrete and constructive. but hey we just gotta be careful not to fall into those shoutouts matches otherwise with the volume of people commenting here, it'll be virtually impossible to have any sort of meaningful conversation.
Nate, I want you to consider something about the trend in the Gallup poll. I think what Obama's 9 point lead was last Sunday was just his being in the news and getting major media attention and nothing more. Obama's trip was meant to plant the seeds that he can lead. We see in elections past that Conventions and trips only lead to small bumps that gradually go down to pre-convention or pre-trip levels. It's important to note that the Gallup poll of Obama now is almost exactly what it was pre-trip. He got a bounce as expected but now it's going back to pre-trip. Only now he has given people security, or seeds of belief, that he can lead.
McCain's political team understood that and it's why his attacks came at the end of Obama's trip and during the last week. They want the media perception and the perception of the American people to be that McCain's attacks actually work and caused Obama to drop from 49-40 to 44-44. In actuality, thats nonsense. This is a tight election and it will be that way. They aren't tied or we would definitely have seen McCain up in half the polls by a couple points and we haven't. It's all been Obama up since Hillary conceded. I expect Obama in the next few days to be back up in the Gallup poll to about 2 or 3 points ahead like he has been for awhile now.
In a sense, McCain's attacks did nothing and the media was wrong. Bumps aren't sustainable, they are just timed to big events. People saw Obama more and getting big coverage and so they picked him more on the survey.
You might already have known all that but it's an interesting note to point out to people about the poll volatility lately. What we should be noting is that McCain has a 44% ceiling which he cannot seem to break.
This is off-topic, but I need to vent. I'm a regular CNN.com reader, and I just found the most idiotic piece of crap article that I've ever seen in print.
Go check it out...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/dems.senate/index.html
61 votes can over-ride a veto? The senate only has 1 independent?
Someone edited that POS and let it go to print?
Matt j.h.,
The trick to American Presidential elections is that each candidate essentially starts with 45% of the vote. Another 5-7% will bleed off to 3rd party candidates in 2008.
The greatest landslide was in '64, and LBJ got "just" 61% of the vote.
The trick now is appealing to "moderate voters" and convincing "core party voters" to vote. Not voting is the same as voting for the other guy. Candidates have to throw out red meat to the core party voters, without alienating moderate voters, and throw out enticements to moderate voters without alienating core party voters. This is the trick to winning.
This balancing act will hard for McCain as the hard-core GOP evangelicals will stay home without a VP for them. Look at Dan Quayle in 1988.
Mule Rider: It´s the US political system. Because of it´s winner-take-all mentality it tends to polarize everything. Then partisanship trumps everything else as the voters don´t see any other viable option.
McCain isn't worried about Indiana because there are about 16 liberal democrats that live there... and they are all related in some way to John Cougarcamp Mellonhead.
Has anyone noticed this picture of Obama down here? You know the one about his plan for Social Security? I think that picture was snapped right at the very moment that Hillary asked the debate moderators if they wanted to get Obammy another pillow.
"I don't get it. Torture, Gitmo, 2 recessions, 2 wars, gas prices, pissed on constitution. Is it The whole, black, Indonesia, Chicago, Liberal, Rev. Right, Flager, don't share your values stuff? I really don't get it. Can someone please enlighten me without the sarcastic crap. Whats wrong with Obama. He'll probably still win, but why don't they like him?"
a couple of reasons.
1.) he's african american.
2.) he's been on the national scene for 4 years.
3.) Clinton clobbered him with the experience charge, and created a ceiling for him with her.
4.) he's been in hardcore, dirty campaigning for at least 8 months. No breaks to reconstitute himself, or give voters a break to start liking him again like mccain and possibly romney and clinton. and because of campaign for 18 months, people have set opinions of him by now and it will only get worse if he doesn't shift the spotlight to mccain's shortcomings and he lets mccain make up his character.
5.) he and mccain share some of the same strengths: mccain has no interest for anything other than foreign policy (although i don't see what he's got to show for it except making gaffes that would end any other candidate's career if the media was paying attention). Obama feels most confident about his foreign policy grasp. If it were up to him, he'd riff off foreign policy all the way to nov. 4th. They both speak of generalities of the economy. mccain has one answer to everything thing economic, whether it be mortgage crisis, wall street, or loss of jobs: stop gov. spending. Obama has a better grasp and has an economic vision of transforming the economy from a corporate, supply driven economy to a consumer economy, middle class tax cuts but he's more of a visionary and he has been reluctant to really be a wonky policy doctor a la hillary clinton.
6. the spotlight's on him, but he's not piercing through all the mccain cacophony, and he pays the price whenever mccain makes a mistake, because the media will want to find something similar from obama to appear balanced.
7. unless he makes the case more forcefully that given the enormous challenges that we face, it's really irresponsible of mccain to not put any meaningful policy papers foward, and unless he revamps his communication team to be more forceful and sharper in their surrogate work, it's still gonna be close no matter how vastly superior he is to mccain. unless he can put mccain on the spotlight, he's gonna a though time. whomever is under the microscope is gonna suffer.
realistxxx: English I see is not your strong point. The behaviour you describe is not 'arrogance'. It may be 'foolishness', certainly. Arrogance would be if he went around boasting that he would win Pennsylvania and not campaigning anywhere, sitting on a sun lounger(with parasol of course), supping from a mug of kool-aid. Campaigning per se is not arrogance. In fact it shows you want people's votes and aren't taking them for granted, which is arrogance. Capisce?
anonymous weatherchicken said...
realistxxx: English I see is not your strong point. The behaviour you describe is not 'arrogance'. It may be 'foolishness', certainly. Arrogance would be if he went around boasting that he would win Pennsylvania and not campaigning anywhere, sitting on a sun lounger(with parasol of course), supping from a mug of kool-aid. Campaigning per se is not arrogance. In fact it shows you want people's votes and aren't taking them for granted, which is arrogance. Capisce?
---------
Actually, English is a strong suit of mine... anche sono forte in italiano quindi capisco benissimo.
I was being sarcastic, because Republicans are saying Obama was being arrogant and presumptuous about campaigning in red states like MT, IN, AK etc.
To me McCain campaigning hard in blue PA, where he is 7 points behind is the same thing.
Chiaro?
Someone is editing posts that have no profanity or any name calling at all.
I made a long post listing all the objections that Hispanic Americans would have in Obama and Bayh doing the "we're pro-abortionist and we're doing this here", in the city that has the most Catholic university on the planet, and WHOOPS, that post just went SEE YA!
Which is what people are complaining about on the web right now--the Obamabloggers.
Bill O'Reilly can read cut and pastes.
61 votes can over-ride a veto? The senate only has 1 independent?
Someone edited that POS and let it go to print?
Dood, you need to read the article a little better before you vent.
First, 2/3 is required to override a veto, but the article was referencing a filibusters, which require 3/5 majority. Hence, the "Magic 61."
Second, technically, there are two independents in the Senator, but Joe Lieberman is a member of the Democratic Caucus, thus leaving Bernie Sanders as the lone true independent.
rdweber,
This is off-topic, but I need to vent. I'm a regular CNN.com reader, and I just found the most idiotic piece of crap article that I've ever seen in print.
Don't get me going on cable news. Especially CNN. They are supposed to be the standard by which other networks are measured and they disappoint repeatedly.
They use Political analyst A to argue with political analyst B for 5 minutes about the political merits of X,without educating voters on X. So at the end of discussing X(Oil drilling for example) we've learned nothing except campaign talking points. Its all a bunch of bullshit. Charlie Rose usually has 1-2 good guests per week, and thats the extent of my knowledge intake.
Further, Fix had Pennylvania as No.9 on his top ten list of battleground statios that were likely to flip (posted Thursday -I don't think much has changed since then). Indiana wasn't on that list. Obama fans mustn't get too greedy. Look after the pennies, etc.
weatherchicken said...
Further, Fix had Pennylvania as No.9 on his top ten list of battleground statios that were likely to flip (posted Thursday -I don't think much has changed since then). Indiana wasn't on that list.
Ah, then it must be true.
Obama had a pretty steady 5 point lead until Steve Schmidt took over McCain's campaign. Since then the McCain camp has pushed the media coverage with attack after attack and spin and fake outrage, all the usual crap like we saw from the Clinton camp in the primary.
Obama doesn't play the media spin game and he's getting torched because of it. You cannot let the republicans completely push their message. As much as Obama hates the nonsense of spin campaigning, you have to employ it because of the 24h news cycle. They got space to fill and if your not filling it, the other side is. Right now McCain is filling it and Obama has been doing pretty much nothing.
Maybe Barack has some post convention plan but besides the GOTV stuff, I see no other co-ordinated attack plan. It is borderline criminal to not attack McCain's economic plan substantively, but super aggressively every minute of every day.
I can't even imagine the Hillary response to the Phil Graham "Mental recession" comments. She'd of had commercials and pamphlets and mailers sent out for weeks. That one comment would be her campaign, and rightly so. She'd of lit such a storm over McCain's ass he'd still be recovering. You know what barack said:
"We don't need another Dr. Phil"
Thats it. Phil Graham just handed you the election and thats all you said. No fake outrage or commercial, or anything. Thats negligence of such a degree, that you had better make sure you win this election or you will go down as the most incompetent clown in US political history. And I'm an ardent supporter.
"Thats it. Phil Graham just handed you the election and thats all you said. No fake outrage or commercial, or anything. Thats negligence of such a degree, that you had better make sure you win this election or you will go down as the most incompetent clown in US political history. And I'm an ardent supporter."
agreed. so far im quite satisfied with the ground game. but that's not all. methinks they might be committing campaign malpractice with their communication team. but that's me. i mean, they've got so much to work with that mccain shouldn't have a moment to rest. i don't know if the plan is to have blitz after the convention or what. but im frankly worried.
A few weeks ago, Nate added a new element to the Super Tracker, an adjustment for the seemingly inevitable closing of a race as the election nears. Hence, the yellow line, which is the projected electoral outcome, is a couple of points lower than the blue line, which is the predicted outcome if the election were today.
So, here was my question: what does that look like on a state-by-state basis, especially for the swing states in this election? I don't have decades of data, but it's pretty easy to look at 2004, especially on electoral-vote.com, which has each state 2008 and 2004 on the same page.
What I did was create a spreadsheet of data, with six columns initially: (1) Bush's average poll result in 13 states (WI, MN, IA, OH, MI, FL, VA, NM, CO, PA, MO, NH, NV) averaged over June and July 2004; (2) Kerry's comparable average poll numbers for the same states; (3) Bush's final vote percentage in each state; (4) Kerry's final vote percentage in each state; (5) McCain's average polling result for each state over June and July; and (6) Obama's average polling result for each state over June and July.
From this data, you can begin to compute certain variables. For me, the key variable was: how much ground did Bush gain between June/July and the election in each state?
In the five states the Kerry won (NH, MN, WI, PA, MI), Bush made up 2% or less from June/July to the election (including losing 1% in Michigan). Note that this period includes both conventions, the Swift Boat ads, and all three debates. Thus, although the polls seemed to suggest a rather dynamic race, even in these states, the results were actually much more stable.
The data also indicate that, in those five states, Obama is either ahead of or even with where Kerry was in June/July in these states (beating Kerry by 6 in WI, 7 in MN, 1 in MI, and even with Kerry in PA and NH).
Together, these two data sets suggest that, unless McCain can do better than Bush in moving voters in these states between now and the election, he will not win in these states.
So, what about states that Bush ended up winning.
In Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio, Bush and Kerry were essentially tied in June/July 2004. Currently, Obama is doing slightly better than Kerry in OH and slightly worse in NV, but the race in both states is essentially still tied. In Iowa, Obama is 6 points ahead of where Kerry was and well in the lead. In all three states, Bush was able to advance over Kerry only 2% between June/July and the election. As a result, he won all three states. This year, that outcome would not be enough in IA, but it would probably be enough in OH and NV to secure a very narrow victory in OH and to win a bit more handily in NV. In other words, Obama needs to hold McCain to less gain than Bush got if he is to win OH and NV in the fall.
At this point, Obama has all Kerry states plus IA, for 259 EV, according to this analysis.
In VA and MO, Bush started in June/July with a comfortable lead of 5% and 3% respectively. He ultimately added to both these leads substantially, bringing his election victory in both states to 8%. This year, in June/July, McCain trailed Obama by 1% in VA and led by 2% in MO. In both states, if he can duplicate Bush's feat of changing the margins by 3-5%, he will win easily.
In CO, Bush also led by 5% in June/July, but his upside was only 2% by the election, giving him a 7% victory. This is significant, because Obama had a 3% lead over McCain in CO in June/July, so if he can hold McCain to the 2% gain that Bush got, he will win.
In NM, Bush trailed by 4% in June/July but was able to make up 5% by the election and win narrowly. McCain was behind by 5% in June/July. Can he duplicate Bush's feat? Seems unlikely. Hispanics gave Bush a lot of credit and votes for his Mexico policy, his Spanish language skills, and his values. McCain gets none of the above and has to deal with the fallout from the Republicans' immigration policies. Add in a general shift toward democrats, and there would seem to be a lot less upside for McCain. My guess is that NM gives Obama 264 electoral votes.
In FL, Bush led by 1% in June/July and won the state going away, adding another 4% to win by 5%. Recall that this was the year of the hurricanes, and Jeb Bush was governor, perfectly playing the state for his brother in September and October. This may account for the 2% gain he got vs. the other states that were close in June/July (NV, OH, IA, each of which Bush gained only 2%). Not likely to happen that way for McCain this year, although of course he could pick Charlie Crist as VP.
So what have we learned? Obama probably has locked up IA and NM, as well as the Kerry states. Unless this election is radically different from 2004 in terms of its dynamics (and it hasn't shown any evidence that it will be yet), McCain just can't make up enough ground in these states. Of course, we probably new this already, but confirmation is always nice.
We've also learned that CO and VA are probably ripe for picking. CO is won unless McCain can do better than Bush at picking up new votes before the election. Obama is already +8 from where Kerry was at this point, and he's about to hold his convention in Denver. VA isn't lost to McCain, yet, but Bush only picked up 3% between June/July and the election, even though Kerry didn't contest the state at all.
Obama also has a pretty good shot at OH. Saturation ad coverage in 2004 led to a 3% Bush victory. Bush gained 4 after July but Kerry gained 2 for a net Bush gain of +2. Was this 2% Republican GOTV? If so, and Obama can match GOTV in 2008, he will win the state, since he's already up by a point or two.
Two completely unrelated things:
1. I love that Paris Hilton's mother, who is a huge donor for McCain, has lambasted McCain for wasting her money and the nation's time by pulling a stupid stunt (the Britney/Paris ad) while people are losing their jobs. Maybe she'll agree to be in an ad for Obama. See the CNN Political Ticker. At any rate, I hope People and Oprah pick the story up and run with it.
2. The point about following state polls and not just the national "tracking" data is this: What if McCain's tracking numbers are on the rise because a lot more people in deep red and deep blue states have decided to back him? Then, his national numbers would go up a lot, but his numbers in battleground states might not change at all, or might even go down. Because political advertising and news coverage is often highly local, polling results in two adjacent states can change in opposite directions.
3. The exact same point could be made in the discussion about Indiana and Montana. There seems to be a lot of assuming going on that the states are lined up from Deep Blue to Deep Red and then shift up and down together as the national mood shifts towards a candidate. Why should we believe this? WV used to be a reliably Blue state, but now it's being won by Republicans in national elections. At the same time, NH, which used to be reliably Red, has become much more Blue. Is there any evidence that Indiana can't become Bluer in a year when other states don't change much? I certainly haven't seen any presented. On the contrary, three democrats won House seats in Indiana in 2006 that had been held by Republicans for a long time. Add a little ground game and, who knows, something might happen. Be a bitch if McCain holds OH and VA but loses the Presidency because he overlooked Indiana. Too bad Gore forgot to pay attention to WV wasn't it.
Gotta give it up for the night.
Good post, Clark.
The other point about assuming some kind of correlation between the national polls and the state polls:
a small difference in the national polls can make a big difference in who's ahead in which state. In 2004, for example, the following states were within 3 points:
NV, OH, NM, IA, WI, NH, PA.
A total of 37 electoral votes, within range of a gain of 1.5% in the national popular vote for one candidate, and the same loss for the other.
Looking at the polls, there are even more states that close this year, it seems.
As a result, the "margin of error" in national polls covers quite a lot of possibilities. If Obama is ahead by 1 point in national polls, then we can say with some confidence that he's between 0-2 points ahead. Which is fine as an estimate of the national margin, but makes a bloody enormous difference to how likely he is to be ahead in the electoral vote.
Not to mention that comparing national tracking polls conducted every day by one company to periodic state polls (often but not always conducted by the same company) introduces more error in the process.
So it's actually kind of ridiculous to look at the national polls and make too many inferences about who's winning in which states. Which is why that's not Nate's methodology...
The McCain camp believes they have an avenue of attack with the celebrity charge.
"Sure he's a celebrity, but can he lead? Is he ready?
I may be wrong but i do not believe this has any down side for Barack. Reagan was a celebrity and so was Clinton. JFK was a huge celebrity and people love him to this day. Americans have no problem with celebrities. They have a problem with Britney and Paris' celebrity because they're morally bankrupt. Obama is nothing like those two.
There has been a lot of buzz over this add, but not because the add works, because the add doesn't work. It's so frivolous that its laughable. It may backlash too.
Now, I could be completely wrong. I've misjudged Americans before and it could happen again. Some McCain accusations really piss me off, but this one doesn't. I guess we'll wait and see.
McCain to Indiana Republicans:
I don't need you.
Don't bother volunteering.
If its cold or raining or you can't find a parking spot, you probably shouldn't even bother to vote.
This goes beyond arrogance. This is pure and total sheer stupidity.
I love it John. You're doing great. Keep up the good work.
John McCain had better have food tasters and others watching his back. The Fascists that control the Repuke Party will not allow him to be "Dear Leader".
He is a flawed man, and would make an awful president; but he is not the total sociopath as required by the bushite/neocon axis.
Watch your back, John McCain! Your Fascist friends will put you in an early grave!
SunnyD,
this is from the text of the article...
" Not since the 95th Congress of 1977-79, when Democrats had 61 seats, has either party had a veto-proof majority.
Democrats now hold a 50-49 advantage in the Senate, and one seat is held by an independent."
So, the article pretty clearly states that the magic 61 applies to a veto (incorrectly) and not a filibuster.
Oh, and Sanders also caucuses with the Dems...
"Thats it. Phil Graham just handed you the election and thats all you said. No fake outrage or commercial, or anything. Thats negligence of such a degree, that you had better make sure you win this election or you will go down as the most incompetent clown in US political history. And I'm an ardent supporter."
"agreed. so far im quite satisfied with the ground game. but that's not all. methinks they might be committing campaign malpractice with their communication team. but that's me. i mean, they've got so much to work with that mccain shouldn't have a moment to rest. i don't know if the plan is to have blitz after the convention or what. but im frankly worried."
Same here. What are they waiting for? Quite frankly, I don't trust David Axelrod and his communications team. McFlip-Flop has presented both he and Obama with half-a-dozen campaign-ending gaffes, but they've yet to pounce on any of them. Obama failed to capitalise on the world tour (6-9 pts ahead in Gallup and Rasmussen) and lost a week to nonsense and trivia when he should have been hitting McFlip-Flop hard on the economy in key swing states. If he'd done so he'd be up by double digits by now. Maybe not...Afterall, he hasn't broken 50% so far, and McCain is struggling to break 45%.
The optimist in me says that Axelrod and Obama are keeping their powder dry until after the Denver Convention. But the realist in me says they're playing it too safe and that they have no intention of running attacks ads on television and the internet defining McCain in the minds of voters as a flip-flopping gaffe machine who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, whether it's the econony or foreign affairs.
Obama and Axelrod better pulls their fingers out...they can't rely on MoveOn to do their job for them, they need to do it themselves.
Agree wit hthe thought that Obama campaign is asleep atteh wheel in regards to pouncing on McCain gaffs. All during the primary McCain was saying that teh economic downturn is "psychological"...then we all heard what Gramm had to so about it. Where's the ad showing McCain referring to the mess as psychological. Obama can't run the general election like he ran the primary. He has to hit harder now.
Having said all that, i read there's , Obama ad out today that hits McCain on the economy.
> "How does one find out the location of his events?
lupercal sez:
> go to barackobama.com and scroll
> down to the bottom of the page.
> they always put his schedule up
> there.
I've tried that, but the search doesn't work. For example, consider the first three events (speech in Lansing, MI on Aug 4, town hall in Youngstown, OH on Aug 5, and town hall in Berea, OH on Aug) listed at the Washington Post event feed for Obama. Nothing shows up when one does an advanced search at barackobama.com for "Official Events with Barack Obama" doing a 25 mile radius search around a zip code for those cities (48933, 44501, 44017). Doing a basic search for 25 miles around these zip codes brings up dozens of volunteer events, but none of the above-mentioned Obama appearances.
So maybe the washingtonpost site is the best one can do, but it seems like most events only show up at best two days before they occur. I find it hard to believe they aren't planned farther in advance than that.
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, 徵信, 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,
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