Although we think that John McCain may still be in the midst of some sort of convention bump, so far there has been no real letting up of his improved performance in state-level polling:
Ignore, for a moment, the series of Internet-based polls that John Zogby released today. What else do we see?
We see John McCain continue to consolidate his advantage in red states like Utah and South Dakota.
We see Nevada polling pretty close to the national averages, as it has all year. Right now, our model forecasts a 2.2-point victory for John McCain in Nevada, versus a 2.4-point victory nationwide. Just as was the case when Barack Obama was leading in the national polls, the key metric for determining resource allocation is not a state's standing in the absolute sense, but where it stands relative to the national numbers. Nevada remains an important state because it's polling so close to the national averages. Conversely, something like Wisconsin, though certainly winnable for John McCain, is polling about 7 points better for the Democrats than their national estimate, which means that it is unlikely to be a decisive state. New Jersey is also a good example. We see some evidence that it has tightened (Marist has him 7 points ahead among registered voters -- the version we will use until the first debate -- but just 3 points ahead among likely voters). But it is still polling at a considerable enough distance from Obama's national averages that it is unlikely to serve as any sort of tipping point.
We do see a couple of polls showing Obama's numbers holding up reasonably well in the Pacific Northwest, though the Elway poll in Washington is a bit weird. They split their sample into two, using different phrasings for each group; half the sample was asked a question that included the names of the VP candidates (e.g. "Barack Obama and Joe Biden") and half got the top of the ticket only. Obama led by 9 points with the veeps included and 6 points without. Each of these are perfectly valid ways to ask the horse race question, so we simply average the two numbers and combine the samples.
...As for the Zogby Interactive polls, I tend to prefer to let them speak for themselves. Obama ahead in North Carolina but 6-7 points down in Virginia? I don't find that especially credible. Anyway, they're in our model, but given a very low weight.
I've also made one methodological fix. Alaska, because of the selection of Sarah Palin, was having some weird effects on our various sorts of regression analysis that we use throughout our model. Alaska has a lot of young voters, for instance, and so when the model sees that McCain has picked up 20 points or so in Alaska, it says "Gee Whiz! Obama must be tanking among young voters!". So in other states with a lot of young voters, like Colorado, Obama was getting harmed by this, whereas the opposite might have been true in a state without many young voters like Florida. But really this pattern had nothing to do with young voters, and everything to do with the fact that Alaska is Sarah Palin's home base; it hadn't manifested itself in other states with substantial youth populations. To correct for this, I have simply pulled Alaska (and Delaware) from the sample whenever we're calculating a regression, which produces what I find to be somewhat more intuitive-looking results.
9.13.2008
Today's Polls, 9/13
by Nate Silver @ 7:00 PM...see also georgia, methodology, nevada, new jersey, oklahoma, oregon, south dakota, today's polls, utah, washington, zogby
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

576 comments
I was Unaware that Seattle Stole Elections
Obama 273, McCain 265
Polls look good for McCain today, but i am very confused by the Zogby polls...
It seems that the Gallup is tightening and the state polls are showing a bigger McCain lead. Is it possible that there is a delay built in between the two? It doesn't seem logical, but as you look at it seems like that is the case.
I suspect we're going to see a swing back toward Obama in the next week or so as the McCain is a liar theme continues. The media is solidly promoting this now, and it probably is going to take some toll on his numbers.
How is McCain losing in North Carolina but up by about 5 in PA?? If McCain wins PA, it won't be an election. According to Nate's Model, PA has a better chance of turning red than OH has turning blue!?!
I am not sure if those results are worth of any 2nd thought, but Zogby´s interactive polls are either created to catch attention or somehow manipulated, not by Zogby himself, but by "internet activists".
You just have to look at the poll column on this page, and look at the New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Arizona results. You can have outliers every once in a while, but not if they happen with regularity and if they are showing opposite developments (NC vs. VA).
Nate,
Why don't you just leave out the Zogby interactive polls completely?
They just muddy the water and are arguably misleading.
Bad information is worse than no information.
Wow...now over 12% of cases where the winner of the electoral vote doesn't win the popular vote. It would be interesting to see the results of an Intrade contract dealing with this possibility. (For what it's worth, they have apparently introduced a contract for electoral college tie, starting on Sept. 10th.)
McCain's convention bounce will disappear soon.
Come on Nate, your not giving any credit to Zogby? Thats ridiculous.
Why does Zogby even use the interactive polls. It simply makes it harder to see what really happened today. It looks like there are no real surprises here, though the deep-red states continued to be polled heavily. McCain clearly got a bounce in these states, and I'd guess that he might hold onto at least some of it for the remainder of the election.
Note, however, that several of the meaningful (non-ZI) polls were taken from calls made several days ago. It will be interesting to see if the results continue this way after some of the convention bounce subsides and Palin becomes less of a phenomenon and more of an actual politician, and the press starts to remember that this is primarily a presidential (not a VP) race.
Matt J.H.,
I hope you are joking about the Zogby Interactive polls. They are not the normal Zogby polls, but the online ones. They're worse than terrible and have produced crazy results all season long. I think Nate overvalues them as it is.
Online Zogby polls used to have Obama with heavy lead, but now everything has shifted to McCain. Obama is going down if he is losing among internet voters.
Hoffman is a Republican outfit and that poll may fit into the internal polling category, since we don't know if they release all of their polls. I'd like to see a Rasmussen or SUSA revisit Oregon to cross-check the WA trend.
I have to join with the people questioning the use of the Zogby Interactives...what is gained by adding them to the model? If the goal is some sort of logical, demonstrable result from the numbers, they are not helping.
Pete.... I heard from you folksl last week:
1. McCain won't get a bounce.
2. He'll get a small bounce that has him tied.
3. He'll get a bounce that will be gone by Friday.
4. Obama will be up by the weekend.
ALL FALSE.
This election is very reminiscent of 2004, when BUSH Surged ahead after the Conventions.
MCCAIN PALIN 2008!
I don't know why people think state polls lag behind national polls. That concept makes no sense. And we see no evidence in these state polls. In fact, the only state poll that is even a close battleground (not counting Zogby) is Nevada. And +3 sounds about right. In fact that is reassuring for Obama. Implying that if the popular vote ends up 50/50, Obama has a big advantage due to his multiple paths to victory (Ohio or NM/CO or NM/Nev )
Excuse me Nate, Quinnipiac has McCain +6 in VA,so please do not say that the +6 in VA is not viable. +6 in VA for McCain is more likely than Obama +1.5 in NC.
McCain will win FL, VA, and OH. NV is likely to be red. McCain now needs either CO or MI to win the election. PA will be nice too.
Zogby tries to be a cowboy. It failed him miserably in 2004 when he projected Kerry would win with over 300 EVs. He even went so far as to predict Kerry would shock Bush in Colorado and Virginia. Didn't happen -- then Zogby was left holding the stinking bag of dog crap he created.
Zogby made his bones in 2000 when he went against the grain (Mr. Cowboy) and was one of the very few pollsters who predicted a narrow Gore popular vote victory (almost every final poll had Bush winning by +3).
I really wish we could just rely on SurveyUSA, Gallup, Diego, Rasmussen, DemCorps (D), Research 2000, MasonDixon, InsiderAdvantage, Quinnipiac, StrategicVision (R), and then the MSM polls -- Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYTimes, LATimes, etc. These local newpaper polls, local tv station polls and Zogby just seem to muddy the water.
No way Obama is +1 in NC and losing VA (per Zogby). Obama +6 in MI but -5 in PA?? WTF Mr. Zogby?
UNDERSTANDING THE STRUCTURAL GAME OF THE 2008 ELECTION – 9/13/08
Glenn Scott, (former CO State Rep, HD-62, Republican), Boulder CO
All state projections are from quant guru Nate Silver’s model at fivethirtyeight.com as of 9/13/08, these projections are updated daily.
Obama's structural advantage is twofold. 30 days ago he HAD far fewer large electoral vote (EV) states at risk than McCain and, therefore, had a plethora of paths to 269. This has weakened considerably.
Secondly, his strength is more efficiently distributed. Ideally, you want to be up about 8-10 points in your base states and then have enough centrist appeal to use the rest of your popular votes (PVs) in the purples. 8-10 points give you enough strength to keep a state in your column if you have a glitch (a bad debate, for example, or you get outclassed by your opponent’s GOTV ground game). McCain is too red in the reds; such that a PV national poll lead does not correlate efficiently to an EV lead. This structural advantage for Obama has actually strengthened.
Currently, McCain is projected to lose the election while winning the popular vote 9.7% of the time. This is a huge probability for this scenario and demonstrates the magnitude of McCain’s PV inefficiency. (The reverse, McCain as the PV loser and EV winner occurs just 0.49% of the time).
Returning to the first structure advantage; the vulnerability of a state weighted by its EVs (more specifically by the probability that its EVs combine with other states to create combinations to an EV win) -
The #1 metric to keep an eye on is OH v MI. Nate has McCain in OH at +1.6 but Obama has faded in MI to +2.1. Such that this first pillar of Obama's old structural advantage now only has 0.5 of cushion left in it. Watch state polling in OH and compare it to polling in MI.
The second Achilles’ of McCain is FL. FL has strengthened to McCain +3.5, which is still vulnerable. But, its now just 1.2 shy of Obama's PA lead at +4.7. Watch FL polling as it compares to PA polling.
McCain's next weakness is VA at +3.3 but this is being offset by a host of Obama states that have weakened and come back into the game with significance - OR +4.9, MN +5.2, WA +5.5, and WI 5.7. As the gap between McCain’s VA lead and Obama’s leads in OR, MN, WA and/or WI closes, Obama’s structural advantage diminishes.
McCain's vulnerability in NV (McCain +2.1) is now being hedged by Obama's fading lead in NM (Obama +1.2) and NH (+3.6).
Which brings us to CO, where Nate's model’s projections favor McCain and recent polling favors Obama.
Nate’s model does a fantastic job of clarifying the marginal analysis of state polling in tight elections versus the median analysis of national polling in blow out elections. In other words, if an election concludes with roughly a 5% national PV spread or greater, the probability of a PV winner losing the EV election approaches zero and, therefore, national polling trumps state polling. In election inside of 5% PV, the analysis must focus on the probabilities of winning each state. That is, national polling is secondary to state by state polling in tight elections. If an election is really tight, the marginal analysis metric that trumps all is Tipping Percentage. Tipping Percentage is the percentage of times that a particular state determines the outcome of close elections. The US election is a battle for McCain to secure the highest probability he can of winning at least 270 electoral votes and for Obama to secure the highest probability he can of winning at least 269 EVs (Obama wins a 269-269 tie in Congress). Any other analysis which focuses on some other goal; measures and discusses some outcome that to some degree varies with this singular objective. For example, McCain’s goal IS NOT to receive the most votes, nor is it to win the most electoral votes! It is to secure the highest probability of earning at least 270 votes. That is, his goal is to win.
(Obama’s campaign several months ago put forth a 50 state strategy, which in my opinion, was a strategic blunder that squandered his vast organizational and funding advantages on an arrogant attempt for a blowout election – maximum EVs - rather than focusing on increasing his probability of winning at least 269 EVs and the election).
So, here's what to watch, “+” means McCain up, “-” means McCain down. The state groupings are listed in order of importance (the number attached to each state is its EVs):
The Midwest Main Match
OH-20 (+1.6) vs. MI-17 (-2.1) – Tipping; OH 46%, MI 14%
The Prized Western Purple
CO-9 (+0.7) straight up – Tipping; CO 39%
Tight Small States
NV-5 (+2.1) vs. NM-5 (-1.2) and NH-4 (-3.6) – Tipping NV 22%, NM 15%, NH 3%
Mid-sized States in the Game
VA-13 (+3.3) vs. OR-7 (-4.9), MN-10 (-5.2), WA-11 (-5.5), WI-10 (-5.7) – Tipping VA 18%, OR 5%, MN <1%, WA <1%, WI <1%
Two Big States Each Side Covets, in Play but Difficult to Flip
FL-27 (+3.5) v PA-21 (-4.7) – Tipping FL 19%, PA 2%
At the Edge of the Game
For McCain, recent gains in MO-11 (+6.6), NC-15 (+8.6), IN-11 (+7.5) are causing them to leave the game and they are about as far from Obama as IA-7 (-6.1), NJ-15 (-7.5) and CA-55 (-7.6) are from McCain. McCain now has a new emerging West Coast gambit beginning in OR, then WA and lastly the Big Kahuna, CA.
The Democrats’ Primary Game from the beginning of this election was to defend all the states won by John Kerry in 2004 which totaled 251 EVs and then flip any three of four vulnerable Bush states, in order of likelihood; IA-7, NM-5, CO-9 and MO-11. The likelihood of Obama winning MO-11 has dropped off, leaving the current Primary Game as Kerry-251 + IA-7 + NM-5 + CO-9 = a 273 EV win. Obama currently leads in Nate’s projects in all of the Kerry states as well as IA and NM, but trails slightly in CO by 0.7. This is why the Democrats, correctly, held their convention in Denver Colorado; a brilliant application of the marginal game. While MO has dropped out of this original formulation it has been replaced by NV-5 which could replace either CO or NM and deliver either a 273 win (replacing NM) or a 269 tie (replacing CO) with the Democrats’ delegation advantage in Congress delivering the win for Obama.
The Democrats’ Plan B was to defend the Kerry states and then deliver a knock out punch by flipping either OH-20 or FL-27. Kerry lost OH by 2.1 and FL by 5.0. Early polling indicated that Obama was inside of both of there Kerry loss margins going into the conventions. McCain’s vulnerability going into the conventions in OH and FL was a primary but not the only source of Obama’s structural advantage.
Lastly going into the conventions, VA-13 and NC-15 had tightened and gave Obama a third path, flipping either of these states along with IA and a Kerry defense wins. This 3rd Path remains intact for Obama through VA, as NC has faded.
The Republicans expected to face Hillary and with it her considerable strength in the Mississippi Valley and Midwest. The options for the Republicans were slim. They chose to hold their convention in MN-10 and try for a play for weak Kerry states to buffer a tough time they expected against Hillary in OH. An OH loss and maybe a WV-5 loss too, would require a difficult series of state battles to counter. MN (Kerry 2004 +3.5) would probably have to be flipped along with an attempt at flipping WI-10 (Kerry 2004 +0.4) as well as defending most if not all (without either WI-10 or MN-10) of the weak Bush states (IA-7, NM-5, CO-9) and NH-4 (Kerry 2004 +1.3) flip would be coveted too. Bottom line, the prospects against Hillary were bleak. The structural advantages of Hillary against McCain would have been formidable. Very likely the GOP would have had to counter Hillary with a pro-choice VP and a gambit that would sacrifice red state strength for plays at purple state independent voters.
When the Democrats changed the game and nominated Obama. The Republicans found themselves with a convention in the wrong place. Ideally, it would have been in PA or MI. IL based Obama is simply too strong in the old Northwest to make MN, WI and IA the core of your game plan.
Going into the conventions the GOP found itself with a -2 to -4 point hard margin in the national polling and a structural advantage for Obama. Both Hillary and McCain had been pounding Obama on his experience to the end result of a slight but hard deficit in polling. Something had to be done to change the game. The Democrats blundered with the selection of Biden, a DC insider from a small state, DE-3, out of play. The door was opened. McCain may have been inclined to go with his plan for Hillary and select a pro-choicer in Ridge, or even Independent for Democrat, Lieberman of CN-7. But the door wasn’t just open because Hillary was set aside, so too was the other short list woman, Gov. Sebelius of KS-6.
Someone put the idea in McCain’s head … I think it was Cindy McCain and former HP CEO and McCain insider Carly Fiorina … what about that Alaskan Governor, a telegenic, pro-life, conservative women with legit anti-establishment cred? Her experience, yes it’s thin, thinner than Obama’s. But so what? If Obama attacks it he’s merely a witness against himself … he can carry that ball for us. Instead, we can coop Obama’s central theme … change… with Maverick McCain and Anti-Corruption Fighter Palin. Decision made … and Game On!
Yes, Palin was a play for women. The media said it was for Hillary’s women but that was really off the mark, they, if a few come over, were icing on the cake. It was a play for Indie women, many of whom hadn’t been primary voters at all. Was it see through? Sure, but again, so what. Biden was an overt play for blue collar white men. Any charge that Palin was selected because she was a women could be simply ignored or countered with a point at the calculus of choosing Biden.
The gambit was a knockout. Palin performed beyond expectations with a dead teleprompter and incorrect notes never noticed. The media and Leftist blogs went nuts and only gave her more exposure and sympathy. Her ability to remain unphased and even counter-punching only bore witness to her toughness which indies love even more. Her Moose field stripping, hockey mom, pitbull with lipstick persona was dead on with an insight long ago foreseen and advised by libertarian feminist Camille Paglia … feminists seeking power should study military history and learn to hunt and shoot and forego at all costs whinny victimized feminist studies. Since Elizabeth I through Victoria, Thatcher, and Meir to today’s Elizabeth II and Merkel … women in power have come from the Right and are tough … pitbull bitches.
@ tibor, McCain has been polling stronger than Obama in OH and NV.
Were Illinois and Arizona previously pulled from the regressions? Wouldn't seem to make sense to pull the running mates' states only. But maybe that is already done and I missed it.
I didn't get a chance to post this earlier today because Blogger isn't perfect. But I'm going to address why Obama went down from 5-6 points to 0-2. I'm using Nate's SuperTracker numbers only to describe the state of the race.
Nate asked why Senator Obama went from a 5-6 point lead around June 19 to a 0-2 point lead on August 19. Senator Clinton conceded on June 5. From June 5 to June 19, the voters who supported Senator Clinton made their choice as to what they were going to do going forward. 70% of Clinton supporters shifted to Obama. 10% shifted to Senator McCain. The remaining 20% shifted to "undecided."
From June 19 to July 22 (the day before Obama went to Europe and the Middle East), the media coverage subsided away from Obama just enough to bring the race down to three points. This is attributed to former undecideds and independents who shifted to become Obama leaners switching back to undecided.
Obama made his trip from July 23 to the 28th. In the midst of this trip, as Obama had visited the Middle East, the Gallup tracker had Obama up by 9. When the trip shifted to Europe, it did turn off undecideds and Independents. Therefore, he lost about 1 to 1.5 points not to Senator McCain directly, but to "undecided." This took place over the first two weeks of August.
The Saddleback event took place on August 16. This was the first event that Senator McCain grabbed the attention of the race. It helped him tack on a point from the undecided pool, bringing the race down to 1 point.
Biden was announced on the 23rd. Since then, the polls have become noisy with the bubbles of VP selections, conventions, and speeches.
That's how Senator Obama has lost 4 points since June 19 and how the losses were calculated. What does it mean today? Because no candidate built any sort of long-term advantage from the pick or the convention (like Clinton did in 1992), the race will cycle back to a 1 point lead for Obama on the eve on the first debate.
Nate-
I'm just curious how these results are tracking with your original predictions from the convention bounces. Is McCain over-performing what you had originally anticipated? I seem to remember you having McCain's convention bounce lasting basically until October, but getting smaller until then.
MikeAipe,
Do you have a link on that VA poll? I haven't seen it reported anywhere yet. This would be the first poll from them in VA, and +6 would definitely show a strong swing towards McCain.
I went sailing today in a rigatta in Charleston. After the race we dropped anchor near the Ravanel Bridge. All of us got drunk in the sun and went for a swim. It was an awesome day.
After we docked, I rode my bike home and made dinner and looked at the latest numbers. It kinda bummed me out.
http://www.VoteRobot.org
McCain's doing better in the Super Tracker than at any time since January.
Wow, so Palin has been caught in another lie about having gone to Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26690739/
If McCain's numbers don't start to fall by next week, then it's proof that the American people just aren't paying attention.
WHOA!!
Look at all the RED in those new polls!!!
To: Continue to Spread the Word
That is exactly the point I'm trying to make.
Any of you D'kos libs really think that "liar, liar pants on fire" is going to do anything but flush Obama down the toilet?
This is all part of the Steve Schmidt strategy. Get Obama and the lib media to go negative big time (you know the real bigtime) and then have McCain rise above the fray while simultaneously outlining a positive agenda for the future including spending reform, keeping taxes low, yes to offshore to drilling, reforming entitlement programs while protecting those who most need them, a health care iniative that includes a big increase in research and finally earmark elimination.
While I am at it, I want to thank Governor Palin for stopping that dreaded bridge to nowhere.
By the way, what is the current Electoral projection for this site.
Those Zogby polls are obviously trash. Don't even use them.
@ Sedi,
Sorry I meant CNN. McCain +6 in VA
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1840327,00.html
I'm firmly in Obama's camp, and I'm also a (relatively) young voter. I'm also Alaskan by birth and rearing (currently residing in Arizona).
I think you're absolutely right that Palin's effect on young voters in Alaska is due to the Alaskan effect, because I will admit that her presence in the election excited me.
Alaska has historically been a red state, but I would not be surprised to see Alaska nearly overwhelmingly voting for Palin (and incidentally McCain).
As the bounce fades into the sunset and the MSM realizes that McCain is a serial liar . . . .
Nate, Nate, Nate, Nate, Nate.
I am starting to have some serious doubts about your model. Young voters in Alaska can throw off the regression??? Are you kidding? And did you previously take out Illinois and Arizona as well?
What caused today's jump in the EV numbers for McCain? He declined in Gallup and there was one real poll, in Nevada.
Please stop using ZI polls. Any polls featuring a self-selected population are self-evidently ridiculous.
Finally, could you kindly stop messing around with the left-side margin depictions of the states and just go back to how they looked back in June, July, and most of August, with the attractive blue, purple, and red coloring? They look awful.
Thanks.
Zogby?. Please........
More on registration drives, this time in Montana:
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/thousands_of_new_montana_voters_could_tip_state_to_obama/C37/L37/
If the previous trends continue the Obama campaign will have registered about 50000 new voters. If you assume that these are all likely voters we can expect a 10% turnout increase compared to 2004 (450000 -> 500000). However, even if all of these voters go for Obama he will only make up half of Bush´s advantage against Kerry. (from +20,5 Bush to about +9 McCain - http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html)
Still, I found the number of 15000 Obama volunteers in Montana downright incredible. It´s a state with less than a million people.
You'd be right to omit Zogby. I used to follow him closely, but after he was predicting Kerry winning the electoral college in a landslide in 04 on election day, I've had a hard time taking him serious. That doesn't mean I stopped taking his internet polls. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk
Wow, Glenn, that's great. Really well done! I especially like how every state's mention has the EVs right after it.
I remember Fred Barnes putting the bug in "official Washington's" ear about Sarah Palin. He was leading the charge in the "conservative movement" in Washington back in June.
But I respectfully disagree about the selection of Governor Palin as a game-changing event. Lady Thatcher was poaching Labor women from a broken political party (thanks to Jim Callahan), as did Chancellor Merkel poach Social Democrat women from a broken political party (thanks to Gerhard Schroder). The polling has not borne that out to date. It still might. But if it did, I'd argue that McCain/Palin would not have given back four points in four days.
But well done. A tip of the cap.
RCP no includes the Zogby Interactive polls. It´s obvious.
Brandon said...
Wow, so Palin has been caught in another lie about having gone to Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26690739/
If McCain's numbers don't start to fall by next week, then it's proof that the American people just aren't paying attention.
Brandon,
Americans aren't paying attention. Google rigged elections and ask yourselve why no impeachment has been tried.
Nate...Nate...Nate.....
from your OWN SITE:
"http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings"
Zogby Interactive - NEXT-TO-BOTTOM of the list of rated polls with a deviation over 5.5%.
Come ON Nate. Why are you even bothering to MENTION these polls, let alone use them in your formulas?
I have a question about polls. I've seen several people make reference to the fact that pollsters are missing newly registered voters based, I think, on an assumption that pollsters use registered voter rolls as their source for who they call (the assumption being they're relying on old RV rolls and are thereby missing newly registered voters).
I kind of always assumed that pollsters got their phone numbers from some sort of general database of the total population (like a phone book or just randomly dialing all possible 10-digit phone numbers) and they decided who were registered voters by asking people if they were registered to vote, in which case newly registered voters would be picked up as they registered.
Does anybody know how pollsters identify registered voters? And if possible, an online source would be great.
Thanks!
On Zogby, I'm not a big fan, but do you all remember last Sunday when i posted the Zogby internet numbers of McCAin plus 4 for the two days following the GOP convention and everyone derided me?
Well, that's what Gallup turned out to show for those days.
I think that should countenance against disregarding Zogby completely.
For instance, Obama's internal polls must be showing something like Zogby or he wouldnt be there for two days.
No lipstick for Obama from Zogby
tomthress, im afraid that question is beyond my pay grade :)
Also, to all, let's be thankful that the Hurricane didnt kill a ton of people and our energy infastructure survived. I know i was praying for those people in TX.
Atlanta is dry on gas, btw. 40 dollar limits on fillups, and most gas stations empty now.
re: new voters
There was no indication that the pollsters missed new voters during the primaries/caucuses.
As I posted in the other thread there is a SUSA poll out for Minnesota to.
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S578323.shtml?cat=1
Obama 49
McCain 47
Same 2 point margin SUSA had in their Aug poll. FWIW SUSA has had the race in Minnesota consistantly tighter than most polling outfits.
Lot of drag on CAiner tonight on intrade...down to 50.5.
I do believe we are at a turning point and the next few days strategy by the campaigns is very important for the narrative going into the first debate
I think if McCain wins it'll be only because he snatched Pennsylvania up. If McCain wins Penn. will be this year's Ohio and Florida. It'll be something for us to blame for another Dem. loss. It would be tough for McCain to win without it and it'll be impossible for Obama to win without it, I predict.
Nov 4 will be about 1 state:
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
Russert called it.
Zogby Interactive introduces more noise than data - I wold leave them out entirely if I were you. There is no way in hell Obama is up 1.5 in NC and down 6.3 in New Hampshire. It's totally bogus.
Howie, you are absolutely right - PA will be the key state if Obama can take CO.
If not PA, then MI. That really is the entire election:
If Cainer holds OH, then Obama can only win if he wins CO, NM and Iowa.
If the Obaminator wins CO NM and Iowa, then the only way Cainer can win is PA or MI - or perhaps NH and a tie....
I'm with ya matt - if cainer holds OH, then Colorado is it, period until Cainer can mount a true ground op in NM and steal it back.
How ironic would that be, if CO goes Obama but NM goes Cainer to win him the election?
I know Cainer is pushing field ops hard in NM right now....
It´s difficult to McCain wins PA.
I think he might win CO. Never poll except the Zogby joke McCain leads PA.
I think whoever wins this election is going to win Nevada, too. It seems Nevada is the perfect barometer for the state of the race but not a real factor of its own.
And call me crazy, but lately I have the suspicion that Obama is going to win Missouri. It is resisting the convention bounce in a way I had not expected, it is not a red state getting redder. Rasmussen even shows an Obama-improvement of 1 point at this state of the race. The Obama groundgame in Missouri is overwhelming. Senator McCaskill knows how to eek out a close win. Obama is a neighbor. I know, the polls are speaking a different language, but I think the campaign there is on track to get a very, very close victory.
Geoff, if McCainer wins CO he will win NM.
And if Obaminator win CO he will win NM.
NM is more blue than CO.
McCain is now being exposed for the liar that he is. The race is already starting to turn back to Obama and it's going to move even more quickly. I expect McCain to lose his temper soon now that he has been outed as the dishonest disgraceful cunt that he has become.
Nate, you are just getting silly now...
NC at 93-7 Mcshame and Illinois at 92-8 Obama!
Georgia at 98-2 McShame and California at 86-14 Obama - I'll take those odds with you right now...
Florida at 86-14 McShame and Delaware at 85-15 Obama...
Missouri at 89-11 McShame, the SAME as Massachusetts for Obama- I could continue, but I think you see the point here.
your numbers are starting to remind me of the guy who said "you think this view is good, you should see the picture."
A little common sense here, Nate. Some of your projections put the lu in ludicrous right now, are about as credible as the Zogby interactive and are starting to smell like the NY Times computer rankings for the BCS.
Like I said, I know you live and die by numbers, but I will bet you winner takes all on ALL those above states, and you won't take the bet.
I believe the state polling has lagged the national polling all the way along, has it not?
Dario, good points.
In rebuttal, i think that CO is artificially lifted by the DNC location. I dont think that will be gone by election day. Also, Cainer messed up big on water rights pissing off colorado people.
"Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting"
That's why NM might be the state to win it for McCain - if he loses CO.
I'm actually pleased with the talk on here and elsewhere as focusing the realistic election down to just a few states - gives us an idea of what is to come.
Enough with the "liar" charges. It doesn't paint a favorable picture of the people calling it either. Remember the Chinese Olympic torch relay? Remember the pro-Chinese students screaming "Liar! Liar!" at the pro-Tibetan protesters? Did that make you sympathize with the pro-Chinese students or the pro-Tibetans? Think about it.
The problem with Obama's campaign is that he's already played all his cards against Clinton ("Clinton = negative, not truthful"), and it's sounding old now.
Missouri will only go to Obama if he pulls ahead to a 3-4% popular vote win; it's in the exact same position relative to the rest of the country that it was the previous 3 elections.
I guess Zogby is includable, but its weight should be much lower than 0.35ish.
I'm surprised that there's that much movement downward in your three pie charts when everything except the Zogby polls show it basically steady, or at best a few EVs less for Obama than yesterday, and I'm surprised there aren't more people saying the election is over (it is almost identical to Bush-Kerry on Nov. 04 right now.)
"Howie, you are absolutely right - PA will be the key state if Obama can take CO.
If not PA, then MI. That really is the entire election:
If Cainer holds OH, then Obama can only win if he wins CO, NM and Iowa.
If the Obaminator wins CO NM and Iowa, then the only way Cainer can win is PA or MI - or perhaps NH and a tie...."
I think people tend to be forgetting Nevada, which has the same 5 EV as New Mexico, and are being a little quick to dismiss Virginia as a potential swing state.
Ignoring ZI, we've got 3 post-convention polls of VA. McCain's up an average of 3.3 points. If he's up 2-2.5 overall nationally that means that Virginia's within a point or so of the national margin which should put it pretty squarely in play in a close election. I also think there's still some opportunity for Florida to be a swing state.
Granted, it's not exactly 50 states, but FL/VA/NV/NM/NH/OH/PA/MI/CO is still 9 potential swing states. I also think that there's enough geographical/demographic diversity across those states that it might not be a simple case of all of these states moving together toward the same candidate.
OK this is driving me nuts. The NH CNN poll is wrong in the model. Nate has it 48-43 and it should be 51-45. I have been trying to bring this to his attention. Am I nuts? could somebody please check this out and let me know if I am wrong or have just lost it. I think I am right.
p smith - i know its a Dem talking point, but just because the media says mccain is a liar, it doesnt mean that he is.
Every one of mccains statement's, besides the view comment that palin did not lobby for earmarks as governor (and that one is partially defendable as palin only paid an earmark lobbyist as mayor, i think that the left is right on that at the end of the day), is backed up by a reasonable story of why the statement is true.
I know yall will howl and claim mcsame is a lying loser, but that is from your hard left point of view. School sex ed and palin lipstick have reasonable explanations and it is for the voters to decide, not for the media to anoint a winner by calling the other guy a liar.
THe problem for obama is that 70% of the public thinks the media lies for its candidate and 55% thinks that the media lies for obama.
PA could very well go for McCain. Doubters should study a little geography and the Democratic primary results on a county-by-county basis.
I want my happy numbers back and I want them NOW.
Yeah, it's sort of odd to think the model thinks NC is more winnable for McCain than Illinois is for Obama... I mean, what?
But this state of affairs shouldn't last for much longer. The bounce model gives McCain's bounce basically until the first debates. So the numbers should begin to start normalizing on state levels. It would be nice to learn if NC is actually +3 or +20 McCain... what the hell is up with half the pollsters having it one way and half the other, and no one in between? Weirdness.
Geoff,
You stand by his crowd figures and especially his cited sources for those figures even when those sources themselves do not?
If Obama loses PA, I think he can kiss his chances in OH goodbye. He would have to win FL or two of IN, MO, Virginia, North Carolina to make up for it, and that would be quite a feat. The thing with CO is that if Obama wins it he'll definitely win unless he also loses PA at the same time. It all comes back to PA. If Obama loses MI, my home state, I think it's also over. Now, I think the swingness of MI is overblown in this election, but anything's possible. I still think it's a lock for Obama. I'd be more worried about losing MN and WI first! I also think IA is pretty safe for Obama. In fact, Obama should have his election party there and if he wins the first words out of this mouth should be "Thank you, Iowa." I know I'm throwing a lot of assumptions out there about a lot of states, but here's another: all of my figures even include Obama losing NH and NM, which are traditionally Democratic but are very likely to swing the other way this year. Together, they equal CO and could easily be traded, or lost altogether, and Obama can still easily pull it off.
besides a major gaff or Palin controversy, Obama is gonna need a very good debate performance to move numbers much. He was much better at the 911 forum than the Warren forum, I think he has learned his lesson, you are always being judged.
Obama's campaign is definitely getting more negative, too bad its 3 months later than warranted. The election is almost certainly going to be less than 3 points either way, so its up to the vaunted Obama ground game. If its as good as advertised, he wins. If its not, he loses.
Mark it down. The winner of Colorado will be the next president of the United States.
This election is shaping up to be like 2004 with McCain SURGING after the conventions just like Bush did!
"Liar" is the new Dem talking point. No one will believe it, because its just a Daily Kostic talking point and nothing else. Just like how the "houses" BS blew over, and so did Palin's daughter having a baby.
Keep it up, Democrat hacks!
Geoff said...
p smith - i know its a Dem talking point, but just because the media says mccain is a liar, it doesnt mean that he is.
Every one of mccains statement's, besides the view comment that palin did not lobby for earmarks as governor (and that one is partially defendable as palin only paid an earmark lobbyist as mayor, i think that the left is right on that at the end of the day), is backed up by a reasonable story of why the statement is true.
I know yall will howl and claim mcsame is a lying loser, but that is from your hard left point of view. School sex ed and palin lipstick have reasonable explanations and it is for the voters to decide, not for the media to anoint a winner by calling the other guy a liar.
THe problem for obama is that 70% of the public thinks the media lies for its candidate and 55% thinks that the media lies for obama.
Don't insult my intelligence please. The man has decided to run a completely scumbag campaign. It may not hurt him politically, that just shows the moral malaise in our country.
Glenn in Colo's analysis is interesting but flawed at a few points.
First, Obama tried to run a national campaign because he wanted to be able to govern afterwards! The Bush legacy is two-fold:
1. It's possible to win a narrow electoral college win by demonizing and destroying your opponent and totally polarizing the electorate, as he did in 2000 and 2004.
But,
2. It's impossible to govern afterward because you have ABSOLUTELY NO reservoir of goodwill. You start out with 1/2 the country bitterly hating you so, if anything happens, a war goes badly, the economy sours, a major city gets washed away while you celebrate your birthday, everybody turns on you.
So, Obama might lose because he tried to run a purely national campaign that uplifted Americans and brought us together, concentrating on issues rather than personalities. But he almost had to do that if he was to be able to claim to be President of all America and not just the Northeast, the far West, and portions of the Upper-Midwest.
Bush was well on his way to being a 1-term President when 9-11 happened, giving Republicans a once-in-a-century chance to become the permanent governing majority by tacking to the middle.
They totally blew it by adhering to Karl Rove tactics of demean and destroy. Result? Bush has been almost totally ineffective in his second term and is now the most unpopular President in modern American History. If McCain wins, it will be by running away from Bush and convincing people he WON'T follow Bush's policies.
When it becomes clear that McCain really IS Bush Mark III, just as Democrats are saying, Independent voters who are being suckered into voting for him will suffer an instant severe "buyer's remorse" just as they did with Bush in 2005 (polls showed that if there had been a "do-over" in late 2005, Kerry would have won by +7%).
Winning at all costs might appeal to Republicans because they don't really care about governing and think Bush was right about everything instead of the total failure that he truly was.
But, a McCain victory, followed by more of the same crap that has utterly failed the last 8 years will not strengthen the Republican party. Far from it.
The numbers don't lie. Republicans are going to have to find a way to appeal to minority voters to continue to be a national party, regardless of the result in 2008.
But, by running a campaign of total personal destruction against Obama, they are doing far more to alienate them than ever before. You can't win if you're getting beaten better than 4 to 1 in an ever increasing segment of America that will become an absolute majority within 30 years.
McCain is trying to destroy Obama by saying "you aren't one of us." Well, if he isn't then 26% of the population isn't either. And that's not going to make them happy.
McCain didn't have to run this way. He could have run on the issues and picked Lieberman and appealed to his record and to conservative Democrats and Independents, hoping to re-create on the national stage what Lieberman did in CT.
It might not have worked, but in any case he'd have a position to govern on if he won.
And he might well have won. After all, Perot managed to actually lead the '92 race at one point. There's a total hunger for REAL bi-partisanship in Middle America, not the fake "bi-partisan" of McCain (talk "Maverick" but put out ads accusing your opponent of being the anti-Christ).
"Mark it down. The winner of Colorado will be the next president of the United States."
That seems to be a popular meme, and I don't totally disagree, but I somewhat disagree. My own figures (I know, I'm no Tim Russert) suggest that it's very, very possible for Obama to lose CO but win the election. It'll make it more difficult for McCain to win without it, but I believe PA is going to be the test state.
Nate -
I would suggest using a Dummy Variable (binary 1/0) to account for the skew that Illinois and Arizona might produce as well.
Home States always create noise in a regression like this.
I don't think you need to pull them from the regression if you create a dummy (binary 1/0) variable for each home state.
Just a thought.
If McCain win PA he win the election.
I think PA goes for Obama by 2 or 3 points, same Michigan.
And OH goes to McCain by 2 or 3.
If McCain win PA he win the election.
I think PA goes for Obama by 2 or 3 points, same Michigan.
And OH goes to McCain by 2 or 3.
I think Obama will take MI easily, but he might lose PA. Southwestern PA is Appalachia territory (think WV and Kentucky), where Clinton got over 70% in most of the counties.
Obama will need a VERY solid Philly (and suburbs) turnout to overcome the rest of PA.
Had Clinton been on the ticket, all these "battleground" states would have been solidly blue.
Sorry for the two posts.
I think the Nate model missed in CO right now.
Only this.
CO is for Obama now by 1.2 to.2.5 points.
Have republicans fallen so far that even facts are open to dispute. Every non-partisan organization and fact checking outlet in the country says McCain is lying, and doing it at an ever increasing rate.
Thats not a democratic talking point, its the truth. Bush lying us into iraq was a liberal talking point too before it became fact. Your entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
50% of the country believe the media is Liberal? Is that the same 50% who still believe Iraq had something to do with 911. Or the same 50% who believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be president? Or the same crowd who believe global warming is a phenomenon not caused by man.
Sorry, but that half of the country has lost credibility.
Good post William.
The key is the winning % in Philadelphia.
Kerry lost the majority of PA counties but won Philly by more than 60%.
The key is Philadelphia.
Zogby Interactive is only useful as a confirmation of an existing trend.
NC is way off. That is due to the oversampling of Research Triangle. Obviously.
NH would be more credible if another poll showed a similar shift.
CO might be close if it is LV's, if it is RV's it would need to be confirmed.
Matt, it doesn´t new.
Cugel-cogent analysis, but two times you veer into leftist koolaidism:
1. You say: When it becomes clear that McCain really IS Bush Mark III, just as Democrats are saying, Independent voters who are being suckered into voting for him will suffer an instant severe "buyer's remorse" just as they did with Bush in 2005
"When it becomes clear" is not comporting with reality. If you take an objective view, John McCain has done more to attack and hinder GWB since 2000 than any other politician alive. Yes, he pandered to win the primary, but didnt obama do the same thing, exactly? Cmon man.
I agree the GOP is screwed long term.
When you have already (and vehemently) voted against Obama in the primary, it's not too hard to vote against him in the general too.
This is why PA is at risk, though the polls may not reflect that yet.
Zogby proyected a landslide for Kerry.
No more words.
Yes, i agree John McCain isn´t GW Bush, but it´s true that this McCain isn´t the 2000 McCain.
Nate- Posting the ZI results just clogs things up and makes it harder to read. It's hard to believe that, with many at least mediocre pollsters in action now, there's anything to gain by including these polls at any weight. The same goes for the Columbus Dispatch, but at least it hardly ever shows up.
It's disappointing to see bloggers on our side cherry-pick the small statistical noise over the last 5 days to try to claim that McCain's bounce is eroding. I wouldn't be surprised if it does erode over the next couple of weeks, since it seems the MSM and other elite opinion has actually gotten alarmed at the possibility that Palin would be in office. Whether that view gradually trickles into public awareness, or whether the full-scale anti-media preemptive attack by (former media darling) McCain works, we shall see. It depends a lot on our efforts as volunteers, donors, etc./mbw
Howie-
You are confusing me. How is it coming down to Pennsylvania? In 2000 and 2004, Bush won without PA. He would not have won without Ohio or Colorado. The winner of the last two contests lost PA, yet won the election. It has not been in a winning coalition since 1996.
The same 50% that will elect McCain President and Palin Vice President, Matt ;). Live with it.
matt, you need part of that half to win. Denigrating them doesnt help.
The Iraq war was voted on by all the dems...biden, and clinton, on the same intelligence bush has. Quit being an extremist and ignoring the facts. I know its chic, but that doesnt make it true.
The mcain ads are hard hitting and in gray area, but they are only outright lies if you are of liberal persuasion. Thats why the public isnt buying this new meme of mccain is a liar, obama is a saint.
Jen - slam! - hehe
Michael - spot on analysis.
Palin is worrying the elite - but that may backfire as the heartland actually likes worrying the elite.
Geoff, Dario -
You miss an important distinction.
The 90% with Bush number is based on a voting record in 2007.
That is also the year that he is running for President and the nomination of his party AND it is a Democrat-controlled Congress trying to ram through a bunch of partisan stuff.
If you look at McCain's record in 2001-2006, he was one of the least likely Republicans to vote with Bush.
All of this "McSame" stuff is election year spin.
...and horribly non-factual spin.
Meanwhile Obama voted with the most unpopular Congress in history 97% of the time.
Take your pick. Obama is 70% more partisan than McCain by that measure.
Facts suck if are in the spin game.
Even the Euros get it:
"
Bye Bye Obama?
The Democratic presidential candidate's slump in the polls has sparked pointed private criticism that he is squandering a once-in-a-generation chance to win back the White House...
Party elders are also studying internal polling material which warns the Obama camp that his true standing is worse than it appears in polls because voters lie to polling companies about their reluctance to vote for a black candidate. The phenomenon is known in the US as the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley, a black candidate for governor of California who lost after leading comfortably in polls...
Other Democrats are openly mocking of Mr Obama's much vaunted "50-state strategy", in which he spends money campaigning throughout the US in the hope that it will force Mr McCain to divert funds to previously safe states. Critics say a utopian belief in bringing the nation together has trumped the cold electoral calculus that is necessary to triumph in November.
Doug Schoen, a former pollster for Bill Clinton, last week declared it insanity not to concentrate resources on the swing states.
The Democratic strategist said: "My Republican friends think its mad. Before Sarah Palin came along we were investing money in Alaska, for Christ's sake, that could have been spent in Ohio and Pennsylvania."
Read it here.
Cainer has to step up and make that his argument.
So far, the 90% number hangs out there as undisputed talking point.
Schmidt has a plan -- watch for sunday talking head douches for mccain to have a unified plan.
PA was one of the last states to vote in the primary, during Clinton's peak and at the coattails of all the Wright controversy. The other states like WV, KY will be solidly Republican anyway, so they don't matter. But I think lots of Democrats and Independents in PA formed an unfavorable impression of Obama in that primary, and this feeling will redevelop in the voting booth. Why? Because of pride. No one wants to be so strongly against someone and then go back to supporting him. It's just lame.
You've got to be kidding:
Zogby: Obama +1.5 in NC and -6.3 in NH??
Zogby polls are OK...they do not use the Internet.
Zogby Interactive polls are different.
Zogby Interactive could be useful in trend analysis. In a swing state, predicting the winner is not a good idea with those polls.
They can still be useful in measuring trends.
So he´s more Maverick than "McSame".
Geoff, EVERY major non-partisan fact-checking organization is showing that McCain is lying. Go to factcheck dot org. It's not just the major media saying these things. And it's obvious McCain/Palin have lied about much more than just earmarks.
For the first time the model gives McCain a non-trivial chance of winning without Ohio (3.25%). Before today the odds were virtually nil.
In fact, it gives McCain a 2% chance of winning without Ohio, Michigan or Pennsylvania. Presumably by winning one of the states where he's currently under 20% like Wisconsin, Iowa, or Washington.
Apparently the model thinks the chance of McCain picking off at least one of these "likely Dem" states is becoming significant.
The nexts Zogby Interactive polls are:
Vermont: McCain 49 Obama 46
Utah: Obama 48 McCain 46
"Meanwhile Obama voted with the most unpopular Congress in history 97% of the time."
Ooooh, hate to admit it, but that's a good line. We'll see it a lot more before this campaign is over, I'll wager.
geoff -
I agree, McCain has taken his time refuting the 90% number.
Especially because it is so completely bogus, and the pundits all know it.
My guess is that he is saving some stuff for the debate, stuff that Obama will not be ready to refute.
If you release your talking points before the debates, Obama will have a prepared response.
Schmidt, if he is anything like Rove, will have McCain with a loaded magazine of new attacks that Obama will not be prepared to defend.
McCain is so much better off the cuff than Obama, and McCain will try to knock Obama off balance with some zingers...
Who knows.
yngvaimalmsteve and the others pushing the "liar" talking point, shut the hell up. We weren't born yesterday.
Millions of people heard Obama on live TV say Rezko was just someone he billed a few hours on.
Politicians lie, and Obama is one of this century's best politician.
I am being honest when I ask this question about the ads...how is it not a lie in the ad when it says "learning about sex before learning to read?" and Obama "would teach comprehensive sex education to kindergarteners." They have both been shown as flat-out lies, period. The bill was very specifically created to teach children of all ages how to recognize and reject sexual abusers. Someone please tell me how that is not a lie.
School sex ed and palin lipstick have reasonable explanations and it is for the voters to decide, not for the media to anoint a winner by calling the other guy a liar.
"Reasonable explanations"? Sure they do. The Republican representations of these events are distortions that are plainly revealed as such to any reasonable person who troubles themselves to learn the details. The McCain strategy depends upon the media failing to do that, and/or the public failing to pay attention. That's not a "hard left" viewpoint, except to the extent that reality has a liberal bias, and if the media discovers that a candidate is consistently, provably lying, they can hardly be said to be anoiting a winner by reporting that fact. To assert otherwise is simply to deny reality, but I can't say you're surprising me; McCain's campaign has lately been attacking the media for simply doing their jobs, and now you are too. When all the facts are against you, attack the source and invoke emotion. All part of the master plan.
THe problem for obama is that 70% of the public thinks the media lies for its candidate and 55% thinks that the media lies for obama.
Sadly, I agree with your general analysis, although I don't accept the percentages. However, time is on Obama's side in this regard, and once a critical mass understand the McCain strategy for what it is, his position as a revealed liar is absolutely, totally unrecoverable.
...of course McCain has the ability to tell a stupid joke off the cuff, so he can be a wild card.
The more he can throw random charges at Obama, Obama will be so busy responding to McCain with meandering responses that he will not get his message out.
That is the strategy they will probably pursue.
McCain cannot refute the 90% argument...he is the ONE WHO CREATED IT....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4DrL8-UA4U
This is him in the video and he actually started the use of 90% to appeal to the base.
reader,
link
Rasmussen Reports:
Seven out of 10 voters (69%) remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11% who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain.
Midpointman, you're wrong about McCain's "Maverick" record. Go to factcheck dot org. McCain has averaged voting with Bush just over 89% of the time since Bush took office. The low point was in 2005 where it reached 77 percent.
I told my eight year old that 80% of the country are not happy with the direction of the country but yet are going to vote the same people in. She said:
"Whats wrong with them daddy"
I responded, "I don't know sweety"
Whats wrong with them indeed.
1) I wonder if people understand how insulting it is to a person who takes journalism seriously to tell them the entire industry is in the tank. It's not true, and it's horrible.
2) People who make TV news their primary source get what they deserve.
reader -
I think the sex ed thing is a bit too outrageous for the average person to accept on face value.
...but it reinforces this accepted belief that Liberals want to teach your kids that 2 daddies or 2 mommies is just as good as a daddy and a mommy.
It is not that your average person hates gay people, it is just they do not think teachers have the right to teach those things. It enrages parents that these discussions are taken out of their hands.
...as for the Lipstick think, I think it is obvious that people assume he was bashing her.
The whole crowd knew it, so why would anyone think that the rest of us would react differently?
He should have said, yeah it was about her, but I was not calling her a pig.
For him to deny the whole thing is phony.
...of course he was talking about her. Any moron knows it. He measures every word.
I don't think he meant to call her a pig, but he did mean to bash her.
reader,
Calling other people liars tend to have an unintended effect of backfiring. Most people with average to above average intelligence figure that out in about second grade.
Howie-
Obama can lose with Pennsylvania. McCain can win without it. If it has come down to Pennsylvania, then Obama has already lost. Period.
All McCain has to do is play defense to win the game and defend the Bush states. If Obama does not improve Kerry's map he is done.
Pennsylvania is not going to be the state that the election hinges on. I assume that you are from PA and that is where this is coming from. You can think it is "in play", but that is not the same thing.
As an Obama supporter, I hope McCain plays defense as well as San Diego did last Sunday.
Obama is definitely more partisan than McCaIn.
He can, theoretically, afford to be because he's not a member of the party that so spectacularly bollocksed things up the last eight years.
And the Bush is the worst president for the majority of Americans since Harry Truman.
William,
Nice "et tu" fallacy. It still doesn't refute the fact that McCain is spewing out false information at a very high rate. And that rate is certainly much higher than any truth-stretching put out by the Obama campaign.
"If Obama does not improve Kerry's map he is done."
He already has. Iowa is solidly in his corner at this point.
matt j h,
You should tell your daughter, it's because the alternative is even worse.
Bob Dole:
"Tell them to stop lying about my record!"
Suddenly he become "mean-spirited" and lost handily to GHWB.
Obama has been calling everyone a liar. It makes him seem peevish and unable to handle criticism.
It is not Hope and Change. It feeds the narrative that Obama is getting desperate and rattled, which feeds the narrative that he is just not ready for the job.
What´s the alternative?
Mac or Bama?.
dario, the alternative is a blank check to Pelosi and Reid. That's your alternative, let it sink in a little. Give me bickering divided government anyday.
link
Rasmussen Reports:
Seven out of 10 voters (69%) remain convinced that reporters try to help the candidate they want to win, and this year by a nearly five-to-one margin voters believe they are trying to help Barack Obama.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11% who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain.
You guys think because someone believes something, that its true? Liberals see Fox as a right wing propaganda outfit, and they are right. Republicans see MSNBC and NYTimes as Liberal outfits, and they are right. So I'm sure 70% of people think "The media" are out for their own candidate, when "The media" is entirely too large to be characterized that way. This is bullshit as usual. Rasmussen always polls this shit for its right leaning subscribers.
ink -
He needs more than Iowa, because he is likely to lose at least one state, probably New Mexico or New Hampshire.
He needs Colorado, and at least on other states.
He is not going to win Virginia. It will not happen unless a lot of other things happen.
A senior aide to one of the most powerful Democrats in the House of Representatives voiced the fears of many: "Palin doesn't just play to the Republican base. She has much broader appeal."
The aide said that her repeated mockery of Mr Obama's boasts about his time as a community organiser in Chicago are "the most effective criticisms of Barack Obama we have yet seen." He said: "Americans in small and medium size towns dont know what the hell a community organiser is. Real Americans graduate from high school or college and get a job that pays a wage. Campus radicals go off and organise a community."
from the Telegraph courtesy of John K.
matt j h,
You obviously aren't very good in reading comprehension. The poll explicitly stated that by a margin of 5-to-1, voters believe the media is trying to help Barack Obama.
As your daughter will say: "epic fail."
Midpointman, I find your analysis amusing.
You say it makes Obama sound "desperate and rattled." Yet, if he doesn't respond to the attacks, I guarantee you people would be criticizing him for not fighting back, just as people criticized Kerry for not responding quickly to attacks on him. People would see him as weak.
I have a feeling all of the armchair analysts here would be criticizing Obama no matter what strategy he used.
"Since Elizabeth I through Victoria, Thatcher, and Meir to today’s Elizabeth II and Merkel … women in power have come from the Right and are tough … pitbull bitches."
What an odd statement. Thatcher would probably be outraged at being compared to Palin.
I just finished reading Golda Meir's autobiography a few weeks ago. Meir was a socialist and would be shocked that you think she is from the "right". And I think very offended to be called a bitch.
Who cares what Elizabeth II's politics are -- she has no power and is only queen by birth. All the royal family does is leech off of the British taxpayer.
Right, nobody believes they MSM. All the heartland voters in PA, OH, MI, know they're in the tank for Hussein.
William, my alternative?
I hate Pelosi and Reid, and i hate Bush too.
I want one person different of Pelosi and Bush.
matt j h -
I think we all know what "The Media" is.
It is not bogus. We all know what we are saying when we say MSM.
The 5 to 1 ratio means that the media has lost all impact.
This is the year journalism died.
"Obama has been calling everyone a liar. It makes him seem peevish and unable to handle criticism."
Is Obama even doing it? I thought the media was.
The Media plays for Kerry in 2004 and Kerry lost.
The peo'ple is one thing and the Media is other.
yngvaimalmsteve -
You do not respond by calling people liars. It looks angry.
Nobody will vote for an angry Black Man, let's be honest.
BO cannot start to look angry.
You can respond without calling people liars. I think humor is a good way to do it.
But Barack has never been funny, which is one of his weaknesses.
The media, today, exists to make money...to make money they sell advertising...to get people to look at advertising they need a close horserace...when Obama was smashing McCain early on, the media (from my humble perspective) helped to keep McCain close...now McCain has the advantage and shockingly, the media is there to help bring him back down...the real experts here are not the candidates.
MidPointMan said...
Bob Dole:
"Tell them to stop lying about my record!"
Suddenly he become "mean-spirited" and lost handily to GHWB.
Obama has been calling everyone a liar. It makes him seem peevish and unable to handle criticism.
It is not Hope and Change. It feeds the narrative that Obama is getting desperate and rattled, which feeds the narrative that he is just not ready for the job.
He's not calling everyone a liar as you so inaccurately put it, he's calling McCain and his campaign a liar, which happens to be true.
"This is the year journalism died."
You couldn't be more right. Though, to be fair, it was the public that killed it by lapping up idiotic TV news and then turning on it.
The liberal-media myth began with Nixon. Even guilty-as-sin Nixon managed to stall for an incredible length of time by painting every story as a product of the evil liberal media. Once people saw how effective that attack was, they never let it go.
Read Bil Burton's latest comments.
Yes, Obama has called them liars, directly from his mouth.
The problem is that this election is turning into a referendum on the media, and most Americans think the media is full of crap.
A vote against the media is a vote for McCain.
That is the problem for Obama. Schmidt is smart to villainize the media, and Obama would be smart to start doing the same thing.
Matt J.H,
>>>Have republicans fallen so far that even facts are open to dispute. Every non-partisan organization and fact checking outlet in the country says McCain is lying, and doing it at an ever increasing rate.<<<<
Do you want Truth Matt, or do you just want to hear partisan BS that you can attack on the way back. You seem like someone who wants the truth, so I'll try.
Is the McCain campaign getting more vicious and coming close to outright lies about Obama lately? YES -- Now let's see how you are at truth telling ?
Did Barack Obama misstate the McCain position on the 100 years of WAR?
Did the Obama Campaign go after McSAME, ignoring the pounds of flesh that McCain paid for McCain- Kennedy, McCain- Feingold, McCain Kerry, fighting to get Rumsfled fired, supporting the Surge against his president, pissing off the neocons of the republican party, pushing the gang of 14 to reach compromise on Supreme Court Justices? Where was the RESPECT of the democratic party and Obama for the biggest thorn in Bush's side for the last 8 years?
Did Obama reneg on his promise to take public campaign financing if the rebublican nominee did also?
Did Obama refuse to do TownHall meetings with McCain in front of voters?
Obama PROMISED to be a new type of politican!!!! What happened to him?
Inkstain-
Unfortunately Iowa does not have the 18 more electoral votes Obama needs to improve Kerry's results.
I am somewhat heartened that McCain is trying to flip other states on the map. That says he thinks his campaign knows that they are going to give up the 18 EV's Obama needs. Otherwise, he would be playing straight defense.
MPM-
Bottom line, certain phrases are more damaging to old men then young men. McCain should bear that in mind. He does not want "crotchety" to come to mind in the voting booth.
It is not the "get off my lawn" statement for Obama that is was for Bob Dole.
Didn't Bob Dole and GHWB both get beat by the young and dynamic guy?
Ink -
Pew Center has pretty much proven the liberal bias is no myth.
The media is biased left and everybody has known it for a long time.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1919999
"Confirmation for Conservatives
It found that a majority of American journalists say they are liberals. Not surprisingly this has been grist for conservatives because it confirms the impression that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal compared to the public in general."
This is an article on NPR, so relax, this is no right wing think tank.
Stop telling us how the voters are going to backlash against negative campaigning and personal tactics. They don't care.
Let me repeat, they don't care. They don't care that McCain is lying, and they don't care that obama is calling him a liar.
Obama is no Bill Clinton, and there is no Perot this time.
Wait! what about those of us who are paying close attention. I was taking the Zogby polls then reading here most of all and other places that they are worthless, etc. So... got one yesterday and just deleted it. That means I personally threw the model off in Colorado by a vote. I could go try to retrieve it. Meanwhile Huff Po is featuring the NYT page 1 story about Palin. I mean honestly for those who are Republican's who do believe this I don't get the point of continuing on this track for another 4 years. This is Cheney like and for those quick to say but ... Clinton did this, Clinton did that, so what at least I was able to afford gas in those days. So I need to know if I should keep throwing the Zogby polls away. He was on the Daily Show right before the elections and I heard him say that Kerry would win. That said I wish that he would have. I am astounded that people who appear to be reading the issues can still get so caught up in the whirl wind that they cannot see the truth. Good work Nate but still curious about taking the Z polls. I don't like the results at all. Feels like I was in bad company so don't mind not taking them so much. Give me back my country for at least 4 years!
...and another...
http://www.journalism.org/node/11266
Exactly midpointman... calling your opponent a "liar" shows desperation, a lack of class and a lack of respect for the intelligence of Americans. Anyone with half a brain knows politicians stretch and distort the truth, and they also know Obama is no better.
It's not even about looking angry. Obama is like that dork in third grade that always tattled on you, and when you defended yourself, he calls you a liar. You (Middle America) just want to punch him in the face.
4 or 8 chers.
WaPo in a deservedly rough story about the legions of Palin lies, mentioned that they have been lying about the crowd sizes as well. A cameraman for a cable network I know says they aren't drawing squat. I really believe this is a micro-thin bubble in a pin factory.
I piss on McCains lead and stand by a Obama victory with at least 300 EVs.
moondancer, the candidate who win will win by 270-258 EV no more.
MPM-
Kerry did not win New Mexico. Gore did. Kerry lost it by less than 6000 votes.
I would be surprised if NH swung Republican, very surprised.
midpointman,
from the article you referenced
"More importantly in my opinion, the poll never asks about the political leanings of the media owners, publishers and upper management of news organizations. It is arguable that their politics are more influential than their employees in choosing the direction of a news organization."
"Did Obama reneg on his promise to take public campaign financing if the rebublican nominee did also? "
Quote the exact promise, please.
"More importantly in my opinion, the poll never asks about the political leanings of the media owners, publishers and upper management of news organizations. It is arguable that their politics are more influential than their employees in choosing the direction of a news organization."
That's even more insulting. Any owner walks into a professional newsroom and starts dictating editorial policy (outside of the opinion page, which is a stupid creation, but that's another story), he's got a mass staff walkout on his hand.
dillon, I hope you are aware that you quoted an opinion.
Dillon -
That is NPR's commentary.
The news media has radically different political views than the public.
None of that changes 2 important facts...
1. The press is vastly more liberal than the population
2. The press gives more favorable mentions to Democrats than Republicans (second link I sent)
3. The majority of the public perceives that the press is biased to the left.
Liberal bias is no myth. It is supported both in fact and in perception.
Sorry, you do not have a leg to stand on.
There's a step you missed:
I know logic isn't everyone's strong point, but proving that members of the media are liberal does not prove that their work is liberal.
That's like assuming that the members of the army's personal opinions effects the way the army fights a war.
FloridaGOP said...
Matt J.H,
>>>Have republicans fallen so far that even facts are open to dispute. Every non-partisan organization and fact checking outlet in the country says McCain is lying, and doing it at an ever increasing rate.<<<<
Do you want Truth Matt, or do you just want to hear partisan BS that you can attack on the way back. You seem like someone who wants the truth, so I'll try.
Is the McCain campaign getting more vicious and coming close to outright lies about Obama lately? YES -- Now let's see how you are at truth telling ?
Did Barack Obama misstate the McCain position on the 100 years of WAR?
Did the Obama Campaign go after McSAME, ignoring the pounds of flesh that McCain paid for McCain- Kennedy, McCain- Feingold, McCain Kerry, fighting to get Rumsfled fired, supporting the Surge against his president, pissing off the neocons of the republican party, pushing the gang of 14 to reach compromise on Supreme Court Justices? Where was the RESPECT of the democratic party and Obama for the biggest thorn in Bush's side for the last 8 years?
Did Obama reneg on his promise to take public campaign financing if the rebublican nominee did also?
Did Obama refuse to do TownHall meetings with McCain in front of voters?
Obama PROMISED to be a new type of politican!!!! What happened to him?
That entire paragraph was complete bullshit. Everyone expects politicians to change political positions (As McCain has) and tactically win elections however they can. I even expect McCain to distort some Obama positions like "he's gonna raise your taxes" even though he won't for the vast majority. Thats not the problem.
When you create an ad, blast it across the country and accuse your opponent of wanting to teach sex to kindergarten students, that is beyond low. It's sick. That goes beyond politics.
Cugle -
You say Bush's 50% + 1 leaves him unable to govern and the object of hatred from all those he's ignoring.
Isn't that pretty ingenuous?
The Kos people here HATE the republicans with such venom that absolutely nothing they could ever do would suffice. They could win 60% of the vote, and you would still hate them! You only hope that you win, and can then ignore the right every bit as much as you claim they ignore you.
Compare Nixon and Gore. Nixon got screwed out of the presidency by the Daley Machine; indeed if a couple of northern Kentucky counties belonged to Illinois, he would have won anyhow.
He refused to ask for a recount because he said it "would be bad for America" - divisive, partisan, and ultimately not worth it.
Gore was ready to fight until 1/20/05. So much for the good of the country...
inkstain -
Politifact calls his Public Financing a flip flop.
@Inkstain,
Look it up on google -- you can find it as easily as I can,
A year ago, at the beginning of his bid to secure the clean-up-Washington mantle, Barack Obama made a pact with John McCain that, if the two were to be their party’s nominees, each would accept public financing for the general election. That agreement sounded far-fetched: At the time, McCain was in the middle of his high-profile free-fall in the polls, while Obama trailed Hillary Clinton by wide margins in virtually every poll.
William, honey, lying about your opponent is what actually shows "desperation, a lack of class and a lack of respect for the intelligence of Americans". How did you not feel silly typing that calling out a liar when you see one is the problem?
I know you just let people lie about you all the time, right?
ink -
Not everybody knows how to read.
Why don't you give it a try.
Read the second link I sent.
Here it is:
http://www.journalism.org/node/11266
You are correct, your logic is not so good.
Please name two large media outlets owned by a "liberal".
That's all I ask...two...owned by a non-Republican entity.
"1. The press is vastly more liberal than the population"
The individual members are. Again, Logic 101.
"2. The press gives more favorable mentions to Democrats than Republicans (second link I sent)"
That link is an incredibly poor attempt at proving anything. It compares apples (two Democratic candidates who were at the front of the election from the beginning locked in a close race where the winner was expected to have an easy path to the presidency) with an orange (a candidate who had the nomination wrapped up early in primary season after a poor start).
Why didn't they compare ALL Democratic candidates with ALL Republican candidates.
"3. The majority of the public perceives that the press is biased to the left."
So is there anything that the majority believes, anywhere, that you believe is incorrect?
Zogby's internet polls are nothing more than random number generators.
I cannot believe we are actually considering them.
They will come close every once in a while in certain states but so would a chicken pecking randomly at numbers between 40 and 50.
William,
I am aware that I quoted the opinion. But editors have a great deal of control over the content of what stories reporters cover and the content of those stories.
The survey quoted in the article was only of journalists political leanings. It does not provide a complete picture of any bias in the media. The owners of media have an interest in Republican maintaining power.
Redstone repeated these sentiments in an interview with Time (10/4/04):
There has been comment upon my contribution to Democrats like Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is a good man. I've known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.
p smith,
Please stop insulting my cunt by comparing it to John McCain. I am rather fond of this body part, which has been good to me over the years, and don't care to think about Senator McCain in relation to it at all. Yucko. Thanks.
FLA GOP... there is a difference between breaking a promise and telling a lie.
There are often good reasons for having to break promises. There is seldom a good reason for telling a lie.
"The media, today, exists to make money...to make money they sell advertising...to get people to look at advertising they need a close horserace...when Obama was smashing McCain early on, the media (from my humble perspective) helped to keep McCain close...now McCain has the advantage and shockingly, the media is there to help bring him back down...the real experts here are not the candidates."
Beowulf, you hit the nail on the head here. Thank you.
Obama campaign in panic:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4749000.ece
jen -
I know about NM and Kerry, but I do not think Obama will get it.
I mentioned it with NH because they both have the same number of electoral votes.
I did not mean to imply that Kerry won NM, I meant to imply that Obama needs it, and it is unlikely he will get it, in my opinion.
New Hampshire was a Kerry state because Kerry was from Massachusetts.
They are also among the most pro-Gun states in the US.
Full of Hockey Mom's.
Not full of African-Americans or Union Members.
Also, the polls said Obama would win by 5 and he lost by 5 to Hillary.
If Obama is not ahead by more than 5 points in the polls, he is likely to lose.
Polling for Obama in New Hampshire has an disastrous track record.
inkstain, your partisanship analogy between journalists and soldiers is intellectually dishonest.
Journalism is a creative process. Personal bias can be injected in every single phrase a journalist writes. There is no military tribunal to enforce journalist ethics and objectivity. Instead, journalists are in the business to out-do others in sensationalism. How did Dan Rather, Tom Brokow get famous? Defending the establishment is never good for business in journalism.
Nate wrote: "To correct for this, I have simply pulled Alaska (and Delaware) from the sample whenever we're calculating a regression, which produces what I find to be somewhat more intuitive-looking results."
It's hard to assess the reasonableness of what you are doing when you don't publish the exact regression model you are using. Pulling AK, as well as HI, UT, DC make some sense in consideration of the State Sim. index. But pulling DE makes no sense. But even the State Sim model is messed up because it doesn't use the same variables as the regression model.
Unless there is total transparency you risk becoming some guy at the roulette wheel who thinks he has "a system".
Lack of transparency regarding any relationship (just deny or confirm) to international and professional odds makers who are taking bets on the elections is also troubling.
What the ZI polls do is show volatility and potentially trends.
Lastly, after all is said and done, what would be interesting is a profile of the voters who hereto for gave O an edge but now give M an edge. Who exactly are these people changing their minds?
And again, I would like to say this:
Please do not lump newspapers in with the shill, shrill idiots on TV. The public abandoned newspapers for TV, and they deserve what they get if they are unhappy with the "media."
..roughly the same number of electoral votes...
Exactly Obama needs to be MORE THAN +5 in the polls or else the Bradley Affect will make him lose.
"Journalism is a creative process. Personal bias can be injected in every single phrase a journalist writes. There is no military tribunal to enforce journalist ethics and objectivity. Instead, journalists are in the business to out-do others in sensationalism. How did Dan Rather, Tom Brokow get famous? Defending the establishment is never good for business in journalism."
Now you are arguing for a seperate bias. Sensationalism. I have no problem agreeing there is a sensationalism bias in journalism. Just not a liberal one.
re: whho is changing their minds from Obama to McCain?
Mainly smaller town women voters who supported Hillary and flirted with supporting Obama, but are now deciding against that.
How can you dispute a liberal Democrat agenda in the MSM after RATHERGATE?
jen,
You don't call out a liar by explictly calling them a "liar." That's a pathetic defensive stance, and truly shows no class. Anyone with a career beyond a Walmart cashier knows that.
Obama's new "liar" meme convinces no one but the already converted.
Since the swing voters believe the media is trying to get Obama elected, "liar liar" assertions by media trolls like lisping E.J. Dionne and badly balding Jonathan Alter are feckless.
Swing voters care less about McCain's lies than they do Obama's lies to cover up his background like his lie that he didn't know what Jeremiah Wright was all about for 20 years (even though his second memoir was named for a Wright sermon that decried a society in which "white folks' greed runs a world in need").
John K,
An N of 1 is not evidence of systemic overall media bias.
John K. said...
Exactly Obama needs to be MORE THAN +5 in the polls or else the Bradley Affect will make him lose.
Really? I hope you guys continue to believe that.
"How can you dispute a liberal Democrat agenda in the MSM after RATHERGATE?"
Rather was an individual, not the entire "MSM."
Funny how everyone keeps using TV as if it were the entirety of the media.
MAJOR GAME CHANGING EVENTS TODAY, PLEASE READ
Thanks Mike for the comps, and Cugal for the thoughtful critique and counter and others for comments and rebukes. ;-)
Of course just as I posted my analysis, Nate updated with new polls for 9/13.
But with the new numbers ...
OBAMA'S STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE IN EVs AT RISK IS NOW GONE, HIS ADVANTAGE WITH CONVERTING PV TO EV REMAINS.
So, here's what to watch, “+” means McCain up, “-” means McCain down. The state groupings are listed in order of importance (the number attached to each state is its EVs):
1 - The Midwest Main Match
OH-20 (+2.6) vs. MI-17 (-1.7) – Tipping; OH 37%, MI 17%
STRUCTRAL ADVANTAGE: McCAIN
2 was 3 - Tight Small States
NV-5 (+2.2) vs. NM-5 (-0.7) and NH-4 (-2.7) – Tipping NV 18%, NM 14%, NH 4%
STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE: MCCAIN
3 was 2 - The Prized Western Purple
CO-9 (+0.3) straight up – Tipping; CO 28%, Polling favors Obama at M-1.1.
STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE: TIED
4 was 5 - Big States Each Side Covets, in Play but Difficult to Flip
FL-27 (+6.4) v PA-21 (-2.5) and NJ-15 (-5.4) – Tipping FL 10%, PA 12%, NJ 5%
STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE: MCCAIN
4 - Mid-sized States in the Game
VA-13 (+4.0) vs. OR-7 (-4.4), MN-10 (-4.8), WA-11 (-5.3), WI-10 (-4.8) ADDING IA-7 (-4.8) (was in "At the Edge") – Tipping VA 19%, OR 3%, MN <1%, WA <1%, WI <1%, IA <1%
STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE: MCCAIN
6 - At the Edge of the Game
For McCain, recent gains in MO-11 (+7.5), NC-15 (+9.3), IN-11 (+7.5) are causing them to leave the game and they are now futher from Obama than is CA-55 (-6.8) from McCain. MA-12 IS NOW ADDED TO THIS "AT THE EDGE" PIPELINE AT -8.8 SINCE ITS INSIDE OF NC. McCain now has a new emerging West Coast gambit beginning in OR, then WA and lastly the Big Kahuna, CA. NJ at -5.4 was moved up to join PA in group "Big States Each Side Covets". CA IS NOW TIPPING AT 4%
STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGE: MCCAIN
Bottom Line - A huge structural advantage shift has happened with the changes from the 9/12 to 9/13 run. These poll numbers may appear mildly McCain but they in fact have resulted in a huge shift in the inside the structure of the game.
This is no longer the Convention bounce.
The Dems bounce flopped in a week, so this is something else.
1) "Lipstick on a pig". Made Obama look foolish or malicious or both. I know you don't agree, but the people who are switching do.
2) The negative Oprah effect: over 5,000 comments about the perceived bias of having Obama on show twice and denial of even discussing whether to have Palin on. Yes I know the argument about book promotion etc. Do you think EVERYONE is buying it? There's a shift right there.
3) The backlash from the more weird claims against Gov Palin (the ones about faking a pregnancy, only qulification "she's not had an abortion" the false claims about forcing creationism and banning books) etc.
I realise you don't agree that these SHOULD win votes for McCain-Palin, but they have. And none of this is about the RNC, but the panicked and ill-disciplined response.
N.B. the more money Obama pours into Indiana, the WORSE he polls. Methinks the message or the candidate is wrong.
Next in the deranged attacks we'll have "Palin's not a real woman" (5 kids not enough to prove XX chromosomes? Sorry, forgot, they're not really hers!) and "McCain might make Whoopi Goldberg a slave." Oops! We've got those messages going out aleady!
Keep it up and its not a re-run of 2004, but of 1988. At least the pseudo-woman VP candidate would win by pretending to be a female. Hope that's a consolation.
inkstain, it is a fact that more individual members on NBC and MSNBC are republican-leaning.
Anyone who has run a scientific study would not interpret the information you just cited as "fact", largely because the question asked is too general.
If a viewer (or radio listener) is conservative and disagrees with the commentator, that person says, "Liberal!"
In turn, an individual who has a broader perspective, will say, "Republican" if a commentator takes a very point on a complex issue.
My husband and I frequently laugh that our long-held views, which once were called conservative, are now labelled "Intellectual elitist." The Republican party certainly veered a long way from its origins. It's fun being called "elite", just like an athlete is called "elite. So, yes, keep up this delightful name-calling.
But regardless of the fact that there is no overarching liberal media bias, the fact that the public believes there is is killing Obama's campaign, and that fact isn't changing.
Matt J.H,
>>>Everyone expects politicians to change political positions (As McCain has) and tactically win elections h
however they can.<<<<<
See that is where we disagree. Obama promised to be "a new kind of politican", and it turns out he lied, and his supporters like you, give excuses.
They are both whores, it is just a question of degree. You have no high ground.
"This is no longer the Convention bounce.
The Dems bounce flopped in a week, so this is something else."
Hmm, what happened the week after the DNC that did not happen the week after the RNC? Anything at all? I'm not smart enoug to think that hard.
Post a Comment