Barack Obama continues to move upward slightly in our electoral projections on the strength of strong national tracking polls. Rasmussen attributes him with a lead -- though it's just one point -- for the first time in ten days, while Gallup has him hitting the 50-percent barrier for just the second time all year, and expanding his lead over John McCain to 6 points overall. Our model has now more or less fully caught up with Obama's "Lehman Leap", and so he cannot expect too many more gains from inertia alone.
The state polling out today, however, presents a more complicated picture, including some decent results for John McCain:
Let's start in Missouri, where a Research 2000 poll for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch gives McCain a 4 point lead. Research 2000 had been just about the only poll to show a lead for Obama in Missouri before, and with that evaporating, the state would seem to be pretty unlikely to change colors. Although Obama has a robust field operation in Missouri, he has not visited the state since July. Indiana -- where the McCain campaign is gambling by not fielding a ground organization and which is partly in Chicago's backyard -- may present the more interesting opportunity.
Two new polls in Michigan, from ARG and EPIC-MRA (for the Detroit News) also show a tight race, with Obama leads of 2 points and 1, respectively. Each of these polls have had a slight Republican lean so far, and so they are not necessarily inconsistent with other polling that gives Obama a slightly more comfortable margin. Still, for the reasons I outlined at TNR last week, I think Michigan comes attached with more X-factors than, say, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, and remains Obama's most difficult defensive state.
The rest of these numbers are relatively inconsequential, although the Research 2000 poll in Maine, which I had completely missed when it came out last week, somewhat contradicts the Rasmussen polling suggesting that the race has tightened there.
9.20.2008
Today's Polls, 9/20
@ 1:58 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
431 comments
Nate -- the most interest result to me here is Rasmussen in South Carolina. Six points? That's pretty close! It might just be an outlier, but if Obama has the ground game in Georgia and South Carolina, and the polls keep trending towards him, those states are not out of the question.
Okay, so assuming this lead holds going into the debates, how much can he expect to either gain or lose from the debates?
I think the trends are good for Obama, as long as he can keep the subject on the economy. I'm assuming this week we'll see a shrieking attack on Obama to try to soften his lead going into the debate.
Nate, the EPIC-MRA poll shows 2 different results, one for Obama vs. McCain, and one for Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin. Isn´t it the more logical choice to go with the +3 Obama/Biden?
The EPIC poll makes no sense. How can there be 15% undecided in Michigan at this stage of the election?
Obama has reached 40% in Florida now...when did that happen last?
Be interesting to see how Friday's debate (and the continued collapse of the financial sector) continues to plays of these two candidates numbers.
Ah, it is just 10% undecided as it includes third parties. Still seems really high.
No comment on the SC poll, Nate? Obama only down 6, I'd say that's a HUGE result.
"Nate -- the most interest result to me here is Rasmussen in South Carolina. Six points?"
I agree. If Obama is down by only 6 points in South Carolina, how close will North Carolina be? (I still don't think spending resources in Georgia is a good idea, not unless Barr suddenly becomes a powerhouse.)
Or this could just be an outlier and we shouldn't get too excited.
I still have dreams of a true Obama blowout. The more people realize just how shaky McCain is and how ridiculous Palin is... And if the cellphone effect plus Obama's GOTV advantage = 5 or 6% - states like SC, NC, WV & Georgia could flip to Obama.
It would be great for his Presidency and for America for this not to be another down to the wire election.
Also: I'm digging this Citizen Ad Against McCain.
How does that work anyway? Can a billionaire private citizen just create all the ads they want? Or is there some sort of restraints on that? For example what if Warren Buffet was just like "fuck it, I'm going to put up $250 million to create and air anti-McCain ads" - could he do that?
Interesting that over the past few days Ohio and Virginia have shifted from lean McCain to lean Obama, while Nevada movement has been far more muted
The Epic-MRA poll in Michigan showed Obama/Biden +3 over McCain Palin. Obama was +1 when no runningmates were mentioned. IMO the +3 number is the one that should be used.
Nate, here:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080920/POLITICS01/809200358/1022/POLITICS
It´s 45% Obama/Biden vs. 42% McCain/Palin.
As a South Carolinian democrat, the fact that the race is so close here, even though we're a major part of the bible belt, renews my faith in my fellow South Carolinians.
I wonder if the tweaks in the model have made it too sensitive to new information. The spikes are very indicative of short term movements that may belie a longer-term trend.
Countering my point though is that in addition to recent events causing volatility, the most persuadable low-information voters are paying attention to the race now that it's after labor day.
If SC -6 is to be believed, that probably puts NC close to even (PPP is hinting something better) and VA a plus for Obama
Nate,
Looks like many of the state polls are not as recent at the national daily polls, whereas all national daily poll interviews were conducted YESTERDAY.
The state polls were conducted over a series of days and so may not be fully reflective of recent economic crisis events and/or Obama's accelerating momentum in the past 2-3 days.
the issue of attack . . . besides the guilt by association tactics of both campaigns and the 527 ads, i'd be willing to bet that the must scurrilous attacks are not done until after the debate period . . . McCain's camp has to be aware of the "lipstick" backlash that I think helped Obama regain his footing at just the right moment when THE ISSUE of this campaign returned to rock the polls and the perceptions of both candidate as "ready to lead". . . what do others think? when will the october surprises hit? what if Obama does well in the first debate . . . does that increase the chance of much earlier attacks?
Nate,
Go ahead and push the tracker up to about 95% for Obama. You know you want to...shit, quit fooling around like you actually have a clue. You don't know a damn thing about how this election is going to turn out.
Hey Nate, any chance we can get a Senate update sometime?
"Still, for the reasons I outlined at TNR last week, I think Michigan comes attached with more X-factors than, say, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, and remains Obama's most difficult defensive state."
What about New Hampshire? I have a feeling that it would be more likely to flip than Michigan, especially since NH voters are more affluent. This is borne out in your projections, too. Of course, it would be much worse for Obama if MI flipped than NH.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Maybe this is just the 'people realizing that McCain is a sorry ass loser who would do anything to win including picking a corrupt moron as his VP without vetting her' bounce.
Although Obama has a robust field operation in Missouri, he has not visited the state since July.
For what it's worth, um, pretty sure Obama visited Missouri during the Democratic convention in August. What with him broadcasting live from Kansas City and all.
North Dakota's first poll after the debate should be interesting. I think we may narrow some, but if Obama wins North Dakota, he's having a landslide evening where North Dakota doesn't really matter. Like Josh, though, I'm still holding out hopes for the big win.
"what do others think? when will the october surprises hit?"
In order to believe that there is some sort of October surprise that the Republicans have in their back pocket, you would need to be convinced that Clinton didn't want to win enough in the Primary to pull it out.
That does not compute.
gwill2k8,
I think the stretch from October 15th through the election will be the nastiest in election history.
A bloodbath. I think these campaigns are highly modernized and realize much of the electorate has a very short attention span. They're fickle, and they're going to try and play that harder than anything ever before.
I suspect the last week of the campaign, we're going to see an all out assault by the McCain camp on Obama/Biden about with cries about:
Ayers, Wright, inexperience, liberalism, elitist, etc.
And Obama's team will unleash an assault on McCain/Palin about:
lying, smearing, Bush's third term, troopergate, bridge to nowhere flop, etc.
And as sad as it is, whichever theme sticks the most with the undecided voters right before they go into the voting booths on 11/4 will determine the election.
Do you want an inexperienced, liberal intellect from the big city or a win-at-all-costs, not overly bright war hero?
You Decide 2008!
Obama 289, McCain 249
Their Possible Pasts
Cindy McCain's Fallacious Rebuttal
The Red November: An analysis on campaign marketing
"Go ahead and push the tracker up to about 95% for Obama. You know you want to...shit, quit fooling around like you actually have a clue. You don't know a damn thing about how this election is going to turn out."
Jeez someone's a sore loser.
Wow! Look at all the BLUE in those polls!
Day Five of "the fundamentals of the economy are strong."
Lol, Mule Rider is bitter.
And the blue OH, NV, and VA make me even happier than the pale red FL.
@mule rider:
"I hope the stretch from October 15th through the election will be the nastiest in election history."
Fixed.
Howie,
Fucking shit. I've said about a God damn million times on here that I'm not for EITHER OF THESE GUYS!!!!!
How many times must I say it. Sore loser?!!! I'd have to be on one side or the other to be a "sore loser" fuckbag.
Jeez. Get a clue.
couchpotato,
Nope, not bitter. See comments to Howie.
Ian Burns,
F you. I don't hope for shit, dude. Who in the hell asked you, anyway?
Break one off in your ear, asswipe.
When Obama wins, will people like Mule Rider still be whining to nate, or maybe the elctoral college instead?
Mule rider:
You can say anything you want, but the next time you say something that goes against the way McCain supporters want to see the election will be the first.
Hell, you've even got his temper.
mule rider...
Today, you cam on here with the animosity and began with your very first post as an angry rant. Don';t blame us for pointing out how you're acting.
@Mule Rider
You can say that you're neutral all you want, it's very clear where you stand. Maybe McCain wasn't your first pick, but like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter you're up his ass right now.
If you look at historic voting in Missouri and note that there are not really any catalysts specific to that state to change history, there's no reason to believe Obama has a chance there, certainly not as a consequential tipping point. Indiana is a possibility primarily because of Chicago's media market.
I personally don't believe Michigan is as close as some polls suggest. Unless Kwame Kilpatrick creates a huge quasi-"Bradley Effect" not seen elsewhere I think Obama wins there. Romney's not on the ballot. Obama is nothing like Kilpatrick. Not even remotely. Anyone can see that. OBama is up +3, +2, +9 in the last three polls there. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and perhaps Minnesota seem more vulnerable.
Maxwell,
I'm NOT WHINING, ASSHOLES!!!!!!
I COULD CARE LESS!!!!!!
GOD DAMMIT!!!!!
"When Obama wins, will people like Mule Rider still be whining to nate, or maybe the elctoral college instead?"
They'll switch to predicting how horrible his presidency will be and how they can't wait to see 2012.
It's classic amongst all victims of cognitive dissonance who are forced by reality to shift their views.
Mule-Rider: The big problem for McCain is that McCain has now been outed as a desperate serial liar. That's why their future desperate lying attacks (Ayers etc) are going to fall so flat.
I think that's why it's very important that everyone keep the meme of McCain/Palin's desperate lies going. It's important to discredit their future attacks.
Of course the fact that McCain/Palin can't go a single day without telling a series of lies makes that much much easier.
@mulerider
Lol, "break one off in your ear." I need to remember that.
Why is it that when the polls are good for Obama the left screams "ITS OVER, ITS OVER, OBAMA WINS" and the right does the same when McCain is up.
We're 6 weeks from the election and obama has a 3 point lead. Thats nothing. Last week McCain had a 3 point lead. Can we please stop with the claiming of victory and the prognosticating about the future when we have no clue.
We got debates, maybe Keating 5 attacks, Jeremiah Right will be re-introduced by the right, there's a long time to go. Not to mention an October surprise that we have not yet anticipated.
Its not over by any stretch.
Mule Rider - If you're not for either candidate, and you think Nate doesn't know a damn thing about how the election is going to turn out, why are you wasting any time on his website?
"How does that work anyway? Can a billionaire private citizen just create all the ads they want?"
I'm no lawyer, but I would think so. If I, as a private citizen, unaffiliated with any campaign, pay a tv station to air an ad, and they decide it's ok to air, what would stop it from airing?
Unless Kwame Kilpatrick creates a huge quasi-"Bradley Effect" not seen elsewhere I think Obama wins there.
I'm with you about it not being as close as they make it look, but as a Detroiter I can say that we're all completely over Kwame and he won't be a problem at all. And the rest of Michigan either aren't fully aware of him or were going to vote Repub anyway.
"Why is it that when the polls are good for Obama the left screams "ITS OVER, ITS OVER, OBAMA WINS" and the right does the same when McCain is up."
Stereotype a little more, please. I've been saying it's over in Obama's favor even when McCain had his convention-bounced lead.
"We're 6 weeks from the election and obama has a 3 point lead. Thats nothing. "
No, it's not. That's where you "everything is equal" people show that you don't know much about election history. 3-point leads with six weeks to go almost always hold up.
What else should they throw at Obama?
They already tried pedophile, infanticide, radical, liberal, communist, muslim, black, inexperienced, responsible for the financial crisis, celebrity.
shadowguidex,
My first post was a snark indeed, and my second was simply an estimate of how the campaigning would be down the stretch, an ANSWER to a question somebody had posted.
No animosity whatsoever until dickbags start saying shit like "Hah, sucks to be a sore fucking loser like McCain supporter Mule Rider."
Telling lies and bullshit like that gets me bent out of shape.
@Howie: You can say that you're neutral all you want, it's very clear where you stand. Maybe McCain wasn't your first pick, but like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter you're up his ass right now.
I'm up nobody's ass right now. I've NEVER voted Republican and don't plan to this cycle either. How do you like that, shitface.
If anyone's up anybody's ass, you are the one up Obama's cornhole.
So shut the fuck up.
I expect that if McCain wins it will be with about EV. If Obama wins it will be a blowout with over 300 EV.
McCain is just looking like a desperate failure while Obama is looking like a level headed leader. I expect McCain will have to try for a home run on Friday and may be setting himself up for some major gaffes or he may just come off looking like the prickly SOB he is.
"Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and perhaps Minnesota seem more vulnerable."
My state, Wisconsin is good to go for Obama. Naturally, we'll be close as always, probably within 4%, but trust me, those 4% are insurmountable for McCain. Wisconsin is blue for sure.
South Carolina, like Georgia, seems to me to be a diminishing returns of Virginia and North Carolina sort of state. North Carolina lags Virginia, and South Carolina and Georgia lag North Carolina by about the same amount. Thus, while SC, NC, and GA are probably winnable by Obama, they are not states that would ever be tipping point states.
Matt JH - I agree with you on that front. Obviously good news in the polling for Obama makes me feel better but I think it's far from over. I truly think Obama is working with a handicap due to the racism of so many Americans. And I know that the GOP is not done with their slime. Things will get dirtier. And again - I think that's why it's so important that the "McCain/Palin are desperate liars" meme has to be pushed from here to election day. Discredit their attacks (and by association the 527 attacks) before they start.
@Mule Dick
See my previous post.
As a Missourian, I can tell you we are about to elect a Democratic governor, but I think that's about as Democratic as we're going to get here. Missouri has reddened in recent years. I think we're now a "soft red" state rather than a true swing state. The only thing to change that would be extremely lopsided wins for Obama in KC/StL/Columbia.
Josh,
Thanks for the intelligent response, unlike these other morons who just shout, "He's a McCain loving fuckbag, and he's pissed he's losing now."
We went over this in the other thread, guys.
In the last 15 elections, two have flipped in the final six weeks.
It just doesn't happen as often as you think. Large leads become small leads, small leads become large leads, but small deficits rarely turn into leads.
To be fair, Mule Rider. I don't think you are a McCain-loving f-bag.
I think you are a libertarian, anti-Obama f-bag who tolerates McCain.
InkStain,
Even though that was still a cut, I respect that. I don't know about "tolerate" McCain, though. I tolerate him in the sense I "tolerate" other politicians, but I don't plan on voting for him.
But you're right about me being a libertarian, anti-Obama f-bag.
Anyone who thinks Obama can win Georgia and South Carolina is on some really good drugs.
Inkstain said...
It just doesn't happen as often as you think. Large leads become small leads, small leads become large leads, but small deficits rarely turn into leads.
for what it's worth, I believe Obama's up about 49-44 right now. That's not a small lead.
Even a McCain/Obama blowout will only be around 55% vs 45% in the popular vote. I think bigger swings are extremely unlikely. So each percent more for one of the candidates is a real, significant benefit. And an estimated popular vote advantage of 2% is nothing to sneer at at all.
"What else should they throw at Obama?"
This is kind of how I feel about it at this point. I mean, the people who think he's a Muslim (14% according to the AP poll mentioned in the previous thread, and another commenter, ty) are pretty much impervious to facts. Any rehash of Wright, Ayers and Rezko will have little effect because the media will cry foul and say that we've gone over it already.
Know what hasn't come up though? The Keating Five. And with newspapers all over the country comparing the size of our current bailout to that of the S&L's back in the eighties, it could be McCain who's in for a surprise.
"Fucking shit. I've said about a God damn million times on here that I'm not for EITHER OF THESE GUYS!!!!!"
I don't think Howie believes you when you say that.
I don't think many people here believe you when you say that.
In retrospect, I'd like to thank Hillary Clinton for hanging around so long, making sure everybody saw the primaries and got all the dirt on Obama into the public eye to be digested long before the General Election.
The only candidate who might have any real October surprise is Palin, and if you don't hate her for her anti-trasparency, pro-secessionist scandals, nothing will change your mind.
Does anyone have access to the internals for the Rasmussen SC poll? I am highly suspicious that the race is really that close in SC, but if it is then I think we can safely say that momentum has shifted in a BIG way to Obama. I'm still dubious, though, and I suspect that this poll was an outlier.
MuleRider,
I certainly hope that you are wrong about the campaign turning especially nasty during the last few weeks. I do expect it from McCain since he will likely be trailing (barring a significant shift during the debates, which is definitely possible) and because the folks running his campaign are very good at the nasty attack ads. Obama, on the other hand, seems to go for the issue attack ads. He has had a few that crossed the line of truthfulness or taste (the Spanish-language ad appears to be one of them), but I generally get the sense that he would rather be talking about issues because: 1. that's his temperament and inclination and 2. more people agree on him with the issues this year, so he doesn't want this race to devolve to a personality contest. We'll see.
"Anyone who thinks Obama can win Georgia and South Carolina is on some really good drugs."
I don't think this, VC. I also don't believe McCain has the ability to flip Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Michigan.
The Idaho poll appears to be for only the First CD and is not a statewide poll. Not that it makes a great difference, McCain will win by 4-5 touchdowns, but the 1st CD has a serious Congressional race which is why Kos polled that district and not the other one.
Michigan, he can if he throws everything he has at it. MN and WI, no.
Just like Obama has an outside shot in NC, but zero chance of SC or GA.
The state polling looks pretty good for McCain as opposed to the national polling since the national polls, excluding Rasmussen, are polling too many Democrats.
Looking at the Gallup tab, I have calculated (down to 1%) that the mix they are using is 42% D, 32% or 33% R and 25% or 26% I. So it is safe to say that the electorate will not lean 9-10% Dem over Rep when there was only a 3% advantage in 2006.
Case in point, Michigan is, at worst, a D+2 state which means that a Democrat will do 2% better in this state than in the national polls (normally, this is a D+4 or D+5 state). However, using the RCP average and taking into account the X-factors, you don't see many polls of Obama + 6 or greater which means wither the national polling is off (likely) or the state polling is off (not too likely).
The first debate is in 6 days and is on foreign policy. This is a bit of a lucky break for McCain who surely wants to change the subject from the economy.
But while McCain's record is long, what about that record actually recommends him on foreign policy? Doing nothing in 26 years to get us off foreign oil? Voting against incentives on alternative energy? All of which interferes with our ability to pressure Iran? McCain's stubborn reluctance to negotiate with Iran which 5 former Secretaries of State, Democrat and Republican, unanimously agree makes sense? Failing to foresee consequences of invading Iraq in lives, treasure and hurting our efforts against Al Qaeda which Obama anticipated? Joining the impulsive neocon push for democracy in the Mideast blind to consequences like Hamas gaining in power? Refusing to commit to meeting with our NATO ally who is fighting in Afghanistan with us?
The foreign policy debate might allow Obama to shatter the myth that McCain deserves more trust in that area. McCain's merits on foreign policy are superficial. Even if McCain showed better judgment than Bush in running the war, that is dwarfed by a failure of judgment on which war to launch and which to hold off on. The United States president should be able to grasp a centuries' old conflict between sects and unable to dismiss it as no problem. And if McCain thinks living close to Russia qualifies someone to be the country's insurance policy, then Alaska is also about as close to the White House as I want McCain to get.
My money's on a knock out punch.
"I don't think this, VC. I also don't believe McCain has the ability to flip Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Michigan."
Michigan I could almost see if a perfect storm of polling being off in his favor plus a last-minute swing to him.
Mule Rider,
You sure don't act like a guy that doesn't care who wins... if that were true, you wouldn't be posting on here every day (not to mention the overuse of exclamation point in most of your posts). If you truly don't care, why are you complaining about Nate's model every chance you get? Say what you will, he's done a great job of analyzing the race for months and has been open about his methods all along. If you don't like what he's doing, find a site where you agree with the projections or maybe find another hobby.
"Anyone who thinks Obama can win Georgia and South Carolina is on some really good drugs."
I don't think he'll win them either, but you said similar things about Virginia not a week ago.
Nate,
Given your recent post about some polling outfits utilizing cell phone data, I was wondering if there was some way you could call out which pollsters use cell data and which do not (by adding a superscript to the pollster's name or something similar). I think the data on cell phone usage and polling is still too fresh and tenuous to try and derive any actual numbers from it in your model, but calling out who actually incorporates cell phones in their methodology would provide valuable perspective when looking at the polls, I think.
I'm a through and through Obama supporter, and barring the GOP convention, Obama has lead the entire time, but this is the first time a black man has a shot at the title, he's running against a war hero who's seen as an Independent "Maverick" by many voters, and the GOP will lie, lie and lie some more to win an election.
I'm sure if Obama maintains a safe lead after the debates, we're going to see some despicable racial campaigning from 527's and other right groups to racially charge this election. We don't know how the American voters are going to hold up during such vile acts.
This is far, far from over.
"I don't think he'll win them either, but you said similar things about Virginia not a week ago."
No, I've always said he has a shot at winning Virginia. And probably a better shot than winning Ohio, at that.
If I "said" he had no chance in Virginia that was my sockpuppet.
So, NJ_moderate, your theory is that every single pollster but one has an inferior read on national voting demographics than you do?
Why don't we check the official registered voter numbers?
Mule Rider-
Do you have to always be such a dick when you comment?
I thought you said you were leaving and not coming back a week or two ago. Please keep your promise and hop on your mule and go the hell away.
No one "knows" how the election will turn out. If we did, why would we have them. They are rather costly for the public you know.
The "October surprises" already happened in Feb/March. Wright and Rezko. Yes the GOP will bring it out (yet again) in October, but no way a surprise. The Obama camp is prepared for a rapid response. At this point in the campaign (with the financial bailouts), a reprisal of/focus on McCain's Keating 5 scandal will do more to harm his chances than the cultural stuff. I think the Obama campaign is holding this just in case.
I'll state for the record that I think the polls that have Obama up 6 or 8 points are too high. And Nate's win percentage for him is as well.
I won't buy this unless it consolidates. I don't think it will at this level.
Lol, what else can the republicans throw at Obama? They've already done it ALL. Seriously, what more can they say? "Obama is a Muslim extremist who rapes little babies and is going to suicide bomb us all to death"?
"I'll state for the record that I think the polls that have Obama up 6 or 8 points are too high. And Nate's win percentage for him is as well."
If Obama has even a 3-point lead at this stage, I think even 75% to win is too low.
How can people just keep ignoring how statistically and historically unlikely it is for an election to flip this late?
I don't think Howie believes you when you say that.
I don't think many people here believe you when you say that.
Yes, because I give a shit about what a bunch of liberal numfucks think about me who sit around detached from reality in the "blogosphere" and wank their pathetic balls off to every bit of news that makes conservatives look bad.
Yeah, I'm really intersted in how the most liberal and hateful 0.0000002% of the population feels about me.
The McCain campaign's gambit over the next week is to re-inject race as an issue - in order to distract attention from the economy and his missteps. Today's AP article by Ron Fournier (who may as well be a McCain staffer) pushing yet another provocative "poll" on race, complete with the requisite quotes from more hand picked yokels saying they won't vote for the black guy, will be pushed on the internet and Fox News all weekend in order to make race monday morning's water cooler conversation instead of McCain's various fuckups. No matter that Obama polls just as well among white people as past white democratic presidential candidates like Kerry, that democrats NEVER win the white vote, and that the theme that white women are cooler to Obama than other democrats is a complete myth based on a couple polls taken at the height a Republican National Convention bounce.
First time blog replier.. Wanted to post this from abcnews.com from the stump in Florida
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5846951
Obama quoted McCain as saying in trade publication that opening the health insurance market to more vigorous competition nationwide, as was done with the banking industry during the past decade, would provide more choices.
"So let me get this straight. He wants to run health care like they've been running Wall Street," Obama said. "Well, Senator, I know some folks on Main Street who aren't going to think that's a good idea."
Hope this is a good sticking point as dailykos suggests.
"How can people just keep ignoring how statistically and historically unlikely it is for an election to flip this late?"
They only need to look at the first week of September, and to recognize that Obama's state polling is not where it should be to justify such high national polls.
There is a *lot* of uncertainty in this election, and a lot more ground to cover. Obama is a very strong candidate in some areas, but very weak in others and prone to certain types of well-placed attacks that could weaken him in key states.
I think it is prepostrous for people to be feeling so confident when he is showing bare 1%-5% leads in large states he needs to win.
I am not sure that I want to defend Mule Rider, but It seems that he is like a Tasmanian Devil -- He REALLY likes to mix it up and attack people who have fixed opinions.
I have seen some/a few of his post that indicates he does not particularly like McCain, but he really gets his jollies attacking Obama -- I think that's because, on this site, there are a LOT more Obama supporters than McCain supporters.
For McCain to go "all out" in MI just to lose by 1% doesn't make any sense. McCain better spend his $$ to defend OH, FL, CO, NV, and to a smaller extent, IN.
I'm also very concerned about undecided voters, who I think will go far more to McCain than Obama. A 48-46 lead in a state doesn't mean much if half the undecideds vote and 3/4 of them go to McCain.
Obama has his ground game, but this is anything but certain.
Kevin makes a good point. Going all out in MI and then losing by .5% would be a bad use of resources. Similar to what Gore did in Florida in 2000, rather than defending AR, TN, and WV.
The first week of September we were still inside the convention bounces. Once the convention bounces have cleared, the leading candidate almost always wins, even if the lead appears small. No amount of misguided centrism can change that.
"I think it is prepostrous for people to be feeling so confident when he is showing bare 1%-5% leads in large states he needs to win."
1-5% leads aren't bare, though. People are eyeballing and seeing small leads and assuming "hah, it's vulnerable" when it doesn't work that way. Ask any independent election analyst: It's harder to flip a small lead than it is to close the gap on a large one. Much harder.
The preposterous part is people misunderstanding what small leads really mean.
"I am not sure that I want to defend Mule Rider, but It seems that he is like a Tasmanian Devil -- He REALLY likes to mix it up and attack people who have fixed opinions.
I have seen some/a few of his post that indicates he does not particularly like McCain, but he really gets his jollies attacking Obama -- I think that's because, on this site, there are a LOT more Obama supporters than McCain supporters."
I think the reason I spat with MR at times is that he's a lot like me. Smart, mostly libertarian-leaning, passionate and with a temper. Only younger, I suspect, which makes the temper thing worse. :)
The campaign that is behind, whether it is McCain or Obama, will tend to launch a greater share of mudslinging attack ads. Seeing as McCain is behind he will be the one to do so in the next few weeks. If he retakes the lead then Obama will be the one to launch cheap personal lying attacks.
These tactics are less a function of being a Democrat or Republican and more a function of who is the underdog. That's just how it works.
"I am not sure that I want to defend Mule Rider, but It seems that he is like a Tasmanian Devil -- He REALLY likes to mix it up and attack people who have fixed opinions.
I have seen some/a few of his post that indicates he does not particularly like McCain, but he really gets his jollies attacking Obama -- I think that's because, on this site, there are a LOT more Obama supporters than McCain supporters."
That's a fancy way of saying he's a troll :)
I like you, virginia conservative. You're one of the pro-McCain people on this board that I respect. I'm curious, if you could be a one-person primary, who would have been your choice as the GOP candidate and VP candidate? I was a Hillary supporter originally, myself, and I wanted her to take Biden as VP.
"The preposterous part is people misunderstanding what small leads really mean."
I don't misunderstand it. I just refuse to get complacent over it.
For people to putting the champagne on ice, states like Michigan and Pennsylvania should be MUCH further into Obama's column than they are right now.
Do not underestimate what the NRA is going to try to do in October. They hate Obama more than probably anyone who has ever run for office.
I honestly think Obama will overperform dramatically CAN win south carolina, as a black columbia SC resident. I work for a large state government agency, and im seeing so many people openly speaking politics at the agency, and many white women and men from the more rural area's have surprised me by supporting obama. Black people are showing up this time unlike ever before. The Dem primary here was a turning point in the political climate. This is the first election where the black community in SC feels like its vote counts.
I think SC has the potential to be a real shocker. If Obama came back here, i think he could flip the state. He will be in charlotte tomorrow and Im thinking about driving up to see him.
I just saw an interview with Scott Rasmussen on FOX,
He stated that for all his state polls, he has started asking the question on Whether you believe that McCain or Obama made the better choice for VP.
The only data point Scott provided that except for deep blue states, the consensus is that McCain made the better choice.
There may be some democrats thinking about not choosing Hillary.
So, Anyone have a Rasmussen Premium ID, or a clearer statement of the question or best, details on the demographics of the responders?
If after the foreign policy debate the polls don't move, McCain either 1)brings in Murphy and tries to resurrect the year 2000 McCain, or 2)goes absolutely thermonuclear with attacks on Obama.
"A 48-46 lead in a state doesn't mean much if half the undecideds vote and 3/4 of them go to McCain."
*does math*
48-46 Obama, 6 percent undecided.
Half those undecided vote at 75% McCain
That gives us 48.75% Obama, 48.25% McCain. Obama wins.
Thanks for giving such a perfect example of why people don't understand that small leads are still strong leads at this point :)
"Yeah, I'm really intersted in how the most liberal and hateful 0.0000002% of the population feels about me."
Oh come on now, give yourself some credit, you're hated by a much larger percentage of people than that!
You sure don't act like a guy that doesn't care who wins... if that were true, you wouldn't be posting on here every day (not to mention the overuse of exclamation point in most of your posts). If you truly don't care, why are you complaining about Nate's model every chance you get? Say what you will, he's done a great job of analyzing the race for months and has been open about his methods all along. If you don't like what he's doing, find a site where you agree with the projections or maybe find another hobby.
Maybe an analogy would help. I really don't have much interest in the NFL or the Super Bowl, but I followed passively the season as the Patriots went 16-0 and then marched to the title game against the Giants.
The Patriots appeared unstoppable. Fine enough. But even as a casual observer who really didn't care who won, the sheer hubris of most Patriot fans and all of the pundits about how that team was unable to be beaten made me clinch my fists and root against them with everything I have.
So while I in no way liked or supported the Giants, I wanted with my whole heart to see the Patriots get their asses kicked.
See the analogy? I know it's not directly applicable to the election/race, but that's where I stand.
My views aren't aligned very well with McCain, but they're aligned even less with Obama. And Obama has stormed into this thing like an unstoppable force, and it's my belief he's just the best "politician" and not the best leader....and I'm sick of all the loaded talk and rhetoric we are hearing from both him and his supporters about how great he is. He's just another swinging dick. That's all. Nothing special to see here.
But all of that glowing bullshit from him and his supporters is sickening to watch, and it causes me to step in and actually root against him when I would otherwise not care.
"Thanks for giving such a perfect example of why people don't understand that small leads are still strong leads at this point :)"
Well, I just picked those numbers mainly at random. But I've seen rather large splits in McCain's favor among those undecideds pressed to choose one or the other.
"I don't misunderstand it. I just refuse to get complacent over it."
Well, I don't want the Obama campaigners to get complacent, obviously. But the projections are based on the assumption that both sides do their jobs, which they will.
My professional ethics make it a little taboo (though not specifically forbidden) for me to actively campaign for Obama.
"How can people just keep ignoring how statistically and historically unlikely it is for an election to flip this late?"
one reason is that information can be disseminated far more quickly than ever before.
another is that we've never had an AA major candidate for president before. we truly don't know what will happen.
"another is that we've never had an AA major candidate for president before. we truly don't know what will happen."
That's the biggest reason not to believe the lead.
"But all of that glowing bullshit from him and his supporters is sickening to watch, and it causes me to step in and actually root against him when I would otherwise not care."
Fine -- and I loved seeing New England lose for the same reason, and Hillary too -- but keep this in mind.
The McCain leg humpers are at least as bad as the Obamaphiles, especially when McCain does well in polls. You really don't seem to have much to say to *them* about similar behavior. And that's part of why people perceive you as being a McCain person.
If McCain loses Indiana then his campaign will go down as one of the most ineptly run in modern history.
VC said-
"Michigan, he can if he throws everything he has at it. MN and WI, no.
Just like Obama has an outside shot in NC, but zero chance of SC or GA."
I agree. If any of those states flip, I would say it would be MI. I find Michigan troublesome, but don't see any good reason for it. I know Kwame and the primaries are factors, but not enough to tip it I think. I think MI has had issues with racial relations in the past which may be showing up in the polls for about 1% points or so. I am not terribly well informed about MI, so I could be wrong. Any thoughts?
Reality is, other than a week after the GOP convention, Obama has led nationally in averages since April over McCain, by anywhere from 1-7 points. Now it is plus 4 (plus 3 if you go with RCP's head in the sand attitude towards research 2000).
There are some unknowns here, for sure.
Does the cellphone effect, coupled with youth vote, af-am vote and better ground game boost Obama? (I say it does by 3 or 4 points)
Is the "I wouldn't vote for a black man if he walked across the water with Jesus and Moses" voter all above board, or is he hidden? AP seems to think it is costing Obama 6 points right now. I have a feeling there is still 2-3 points of hidden racist out there the pollsters are missing, so I think it is probably a wash, so Obama would, in all likelihood win the pop vote by 3-4 points today.
If it stays on the economy, it is Obama in a walk, probably by 5-6 points.
If it goes back to lipstick, elitists and flagpins (oh my) McCain might sleaze it out, though Palin could well blow up in his face.
In either case, Obama were a young, brilliant, charismatic white guy named Barry O'Bannon, he would win by 15 points...
"Well, I just picked those numbers mainly at random. But I've seen rather large splits in McCain's favor among those undecideds pressed to choose one or the other."
But that's precisely the point.
Even with small Obama leads, McCain needs huge percentages of independents to both split for him and vote. 75/25 with 50% turnout isn't even enough.
This is why I've maintained all along that Pennsylvania isn't a swing state.
Josh,
I think you are dreaming. There is no chance SC and WV are turning blue this cycle. NC has a small chance, but more likely to turn blue in 2012.
""another is that we've never had an AA major candidate for president before. we truly don't know what will happen.""
We have one data point: a primary that had massive turnout and lots of independents and Republicans voting.
The AA candidate had a small but significant lead for almost the entire voting, and nursed it despite many attempts to flip.
@ inkstain:
I liked the math example, lol. And the 3/4 was even more than Chuck Todd suggested. And voters still have 6 weeks to make up their minds. I wonder how many undecideds there will actually be at election day. More than 5%? Unlikely. Will they all go to vote? No.
Why should we be led to believe that PA isn't a swing state, but VA is?
ALL the statistical and historical signs point to an Obama victory.
The uncertainty you guys are pointing out (possible voter effects, possible last-minute swings) are the reasons to give McCain his 25% chance.
They aren't reasons to call the election "close" or "anybody's game" or anything like that.
I'm skeptical of the cell phone effect, the Obama's ground game is strong and may be enough to nullify the Republican GOTV efforts with evangelicals.
"Why should we be led to believe that PA isn't a swing state, but VA is?"
Obama occasionally polls ahead in Virginia.
If there had been five polls in the GE cycle that had McCain +2 in PA or better, I'd say it was a swing state.
We don't even have one poll that says McCain +1
Is Obama smart enough to pay the "street money" this time?
"In either case, Obama were a young, brilliant, charismatic white guy named Barry O'Bannon, he would win by 15 points..."
hate to say it, but i think i agree...more like 10 not 15, but yeah.
on the flip side, not counting the candidates themselves, this election is almost a perfect set up for the dems to win. so if you're going to run an AA or female candidate, this is the time to do it.
here's an interesting question, if hillary were running, would we be talking about the "sexist vote" in the same way as the "racist vote" now? i say probably yes...
Dropping Biden and adding Clinton would equal a Obama landslide, but how does one do this gracefully?
@mule rider
Sorry for the snarky comment before. And I do like, and can relate to your analogy. But it's just wrong. Obama/McCain is the Red Sox/Yankees circa 2004.
If you have so little skin in the game, it's time to get on the side of history.
As a West-Michigander, I have to say we're fully aware of Kwame. However, I do agree that he probably won't have any impact on Obama. People on this side of the state see Kwame as a corrupt idiot, but those feelings don't transfer beyond Kwame himself.
The biggest liability for Obama will be if the RNC can convince Michigan voters that Obama will be just like Gov. Granholm -- and if they can convince voters that the economy is Granholm's fault. That's why Obama's best tactic here is to convince voters that McCain will continue the Bush economic policies and that the economy is (largely) Bush's fault.
In other words, it all comes down to who Michiganders think is to blame for the dismal economy: Bush or Granholm. No doubt the real answer is somewhat both and somewhat neither.
Maybe we're smart enough in Michigan to realize that too, and won't end up casting our votes based on what we heard in a 30-second commercial.
This will surely get more negative as the election approaches. If the GOP is trailing, look out for the kitchen sink to come Obama's way.
Look for Obama to make a high-minded statement at one of the debates about wanting to run a clean campaign and saying "Americans are too smart for Karl Rove's tricks to work a third time." If he lands these comments in a meaningful way, it could mean that the inevitable GOP attacks would backfire. This doesn't mean that the McCain camp won't go after him with everything they have, but it may not work in '08 as well as it did in '04.
"A 48-46 lead in a state doesn't mean much if half the undecideds vote and 3/4 of them go to McCain."
What the hell makes you think 3/4 will go to McCain?
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan have also failed to ever show a McCain lead on a major poll, I believe. To be a real swing state, you kinda have to see polls that split 50/50, not 100/0 (a 1% lead is small, but it's still a lead - after all, most presidential elections are within a couple points but not close on the EC)
"
here's an interesting question, if hillary were running, would we be talking about the "sexist vote" in the same way as the "racist vote" now? i say probably yes..."
That's exactly why the primaries don't debunk the Bradley Effect. Because a lot of those Obama votes could have been sexists, who would have voted for Harold Clinton but not Hillary Clinton.
Inkstain-
I appreciate your confidence, but I think it can swing at the debates.
Like I said on the cell thread, I see it breaking down like this:
Good debate performance by Obama- Obama electoral landslide, 6-7% PV margin.
Average Obama debate performance- Obama Squeaker
Poor Obama debate performance- McCain squeaker.
Obama calls McCain an old a-hole and pulls down his pants and tells America to kiss his ass- McCain landslide.
I think overall things look better for Obama than McCain, but the debates are pretty important. What is your take on how the debates can swing this, or if they really can?
FloridaGOP,
Thanks for your tepid defense of me. That sums it up for the most part.
Charles,
Thanks as well. I agree that there are some McCain-humpers who are as bad or worse. I just think that with McCain's base mostly uninspired, the Obamaphilia is a far more pervasive thing overall in this election.
But to the reason I don't call out the McCainophiles as much on here? Well, the first and easy answer is that Obamaphiles outnumber them at least 10-1 on this site, so they're hard to miss and much easier targets when skimming the comments.
Mostly, however, it stems from when I first started posting on this site a couple of months ago. I was much more even-tempered, albeit still with a modest anti-Obama tilt.
The vitriol from me started when I started getting railed for anything even slightly hinting that I wasn't an Obama supporter and for being dismissed completely as an airhead...people would deride me for being too much of a cynic and obnoxious in that respect yet would say nothing to Obama supporters who were far too optimistic in an obnoxious way.
So I felt that if they're attacks were so one-sided, I would dig in my heels and be more one-sided as well, even if that means appearing pro-McCain when I'm actually not.
"Is Obama smart enough to pay the "street money" this time?"
supposedly the answer is yes (this from a friend of mine who is from PA and absorbs news like you wouldn't believe). i can't cite a reference though.
We have one data point: a primary that had massive turnout and lots of independents and Republicans voting.
Yeah, and I know some Republicans voting in those primaries who went just to vote against Hillary because they hate her guts. Rumor is that was pretty widespread, like into the tens of thousands.
Hard to gauge much off of that.
I like how they've setup Obama as a poor to average debater. All Bush had to do was "do better than expected" to win the debate because Gore/Kerry were seen as such better debaters going into the debates.
is mccain a good debater? this is an honest question, i didn't watch the repub debates.
i would imagine his directness would be an asset.
"That's exactly why the primaries don't debunk the Bradley Effect. Because a lot of those Obama votes could have been sexists, who would have voted for Harold Clinton but not Hillary Clinton."
Well it's a good thing the GOP are running a ticket of John McCain and Sid Palin then.
I live in Atlanta.
I have no idea why Team Obama would give up on this state.
Huge city and one of the highest AA populations in the country.
Now that Obama is ahead, he should push here some to drain Palin/McCain.
If SC and McCain +6, then GA would be tied.
McCain kicks ass in the town hall setting.
In the other debate styles, fairly good. He needled Romney really well, to the point where he damn near lost it ("Governor, you ARE the candidate of 'change') and ("I did it for patriotism, not profit") were the two lines I remember.
Mule Rider,
I hear what you are saying but you have to agree that we are a very divided country right now and both sides have their share of obnoxious supporters. The fact that you find the Obama supporters so gag-worthy and don't see the same thing in the McCain supports tells everyone exactly where you stand. You are confirming the prior post that compared you to Hannity and Rush -- you aren't a McCain lover by any stretch but he has become your candidate by default since you don't like the other guy. That's far from saying that you don't have a horse in this race. You DO -- you just don't love your candidate the way his more ardent supporters do.
It's not so much McCain, but Obama's expectations haven't been overinflated like Gore's and Kerry's were. The narrative is that Obama excels in giving pre-written stump speeches and performs poorly/average in extemporaneous speaking. It's a smart move.
There are two issues with the debates:
1) They are McCain's last chance, so he will be trying everything he can and taking risks. But this is counteracted by the fact that Obama is both practiced at playing debates to tie, and he's motivated to do so.
2) I sort of agree with your scenario that a poor Obama/good McCain performance in all three debates might make this a close to slight-McCain national environment, but I've said all along (and Nate confirmed yesterday) that Obama can win the EC in that environment. I think McCain needs to get to at least +2.5 in the national voting before he's safe in the EC.
So let's say there's a 40% chance Obama wins the debates, a 30% chance they tie, a 20% chance McCain wins them enough to make the popular vote close, and a 10% chance he wins them by enough to make the popular vote safe for him.
is mccain a good debater?
Depends on who you talk to...not very slick at discussing things and really doesn't give what you'd consider "intelligent" responses.
But he is direct as you mention. For some people, being succinct and clear is enough. He won't be backed into a corner and will have an answer for every question...some of those answers just won't be well thought out.
On the question of how there can be so many undecideds at this stage of the election: I take it that there are many stripes of undecideds. Some are simply undecided, and may stay that way until the bitter end. But others may be in the process of moving away from a candidate. My father, for instance, supported McCain, but I think he's having serious second thoughts now that McCain has demonstrated himself to be incompetent and reactionary. I think he now considers himself undecided, where a week or two ago he was pro-McCain.
I would put money on this being the case with many of the undecideds. You can even see this if you see charts of polls. As one candidate decreases in popularity, the number of undecideds grows.
For those who think a 3-point lead for Obama is now "insurmountable" for McCain, I ask this:
If you believe some polls, McCain had a 3-point lead last week. Was that lead "insurmountable" then, too?
Polls were BS then and they're BS now. This is going down to the wire.
Are there any memorable Obama one-liners from the Democrat debates? Any at all?
I think that Nate's model is very accurate in its win % given the circumstances of today. If Obama wins the popular vote by 2.2%, he should win 300+ EVs and certainly VA.
The people who say that a 3% lead in the last six weeks is insurmountable only have to look to 2000 as Bush pissed away (via a DUI charge) a 3% lead in the last four days.
Oh, and the one winning the expectations game for the debates isn't Obama--it's Palin.
"is mccain a good debater?"
It's really tough to tell from this year, because they never really whittled it down to two the way the dems did.
I did see him at the service forum, and I can say that he knows how to talk out of both sides of his mouth and not get called on it. He promised to vote to expand Americorps, but doesn't think the government should be involved in that sort of thing, for example. Must be the years of practice as a celebrity, i mean maverick politician.
Friends,
PBS has a short video on Sarah Palin on their website. Also included is a poll that asks: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be VP?bjw.barbarajanet1@verizon.net
I logged on a few minutes ago and 56% percent had voted YES, 44% NO.
Let's turn this around..... You don't have to give your name or email address in order to vote. It's very simple.
Here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
"The people who say that a 3% lead in the last six weeks is insurmountable only have to look to 2000 as Bush pissed away (via a DUI charge) a 3% lead in the last four days."
And who won?
You guys keep shooting yourselves with your own darn examples :)
Again: Turning a small deficit into a smaller one is much more likely than turning a small deficit into a lead, and history continually supports that.
The 4 trackers have:
Obama +8
Obama +6
Obama +1
Obama +1
Why is there such a big difference? If it was 1 poll it would be one thing but 2 pair of polls showing two different results??
"Are there any memorable Obama one-liners from the Democrat debates? Any at all?"
He didn't need them, because he was winning. Except the same thing in these debates: Holding the line, deflecting attacks, forcing McCain to agree with him on obvious points. Playing for the draw.
"Why is there such a big difference? If it was 1 poll it would be one thing but 2 pair of polls showing two different results??"
Because the MOE is about 3.5 points either way.
"Are there any memorable Obama one-liners from the Democrat debates? Any at all?"
"I look forward to you advising me Hillary".
Best line of the year. And yes, I want to suck O's cock. Sorry.
R2000:
MO: 49-45 Obama
IL: 56-36 Obama
OUTLIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Just wanted to beat the rush)
Jason P, I agree that the Obama campaign have deliberately underplayed expectations for Obama in the debates.
Inkstain- I agree that McCain will be trying to hit it out of the park and he may end up with a spectacular whiff like when a player swings really hard and misses and lands on their butt.
Obama just has to seem acceptable at the debates so his bar is much lower.
I am not ready to celebrate yet, but I am cautiously optimistic about the results. I don't want to count the votes before they are cast.
@Josh ---
I really like that citizen ad you posted. My favorite part is at the end where the announcer asks: "Who can you thank for eight years of George Bush?"
And McCain responds: "I campaigned everywhere in America for him. I campaigned with him. I did everything I could to get him elected, and re-elected president."
There's something kinda creepy about the way he says it, too... Very nicely done.
but he has become your candidate by default since you don't like the other guy
I've railed and railed on this mentality in so many other threads that I'll try and be nice here. This isn't a mutually exclusive, either/or thing. There are more than two people, two parties who can and would be able to lead this country. Not liking or supporting Obama doesn't make me a de facto McCain supporter in any capacity. If there were a good third-party candidate (preferably libertarian), I'd probably vote for them.
I have never voted for a Republican, no matter how much you want to compare me to Rush and Hannity.
To try and silence my opinion and/or place it in a box or across the line in the sand from you is one of the things dividing this country. BOTH sides are guilty. This administration did it in 2000 and 2004, and both parties (mostly their supporters) are doing it now.
Just look at how the base of each party looks to castigate and ostracize people who have differing opinions on cetain issues. Joe Lieberman anyone? And it's just as bad towards people who claim no real party affiliation.
For example, I may not agree with strict gun control laws and support privatization of social security and our school systems....I may not claim any political affiliation, but many liberals/Democrats will try and demonize me (and lump me in with Republicans) just because I don't hold viewpoints similar to their own.
And it's why the beliefs of our two major parties have become so monolithic with little flexibility. If you start disagreeing on only one major issue, you need to get the f out.
Sad way for politics to be run. Sad indeed.
"Are there any memorable Obama one-liners from the Democrat debates? Any at all?"
1) You're likeable enough, Hillary
2) I'm looking forward to you advising me as well
Evidently you weren't paying attention.
""Are there any memorable Obama one-liners from the Democrat debates? Any at all?"
not really a one liner, but i remember the debate when they didn't ask any issue-related questions for almost an hour, when they finally did he called them out on it.
one-liners clearly aren't his thing anyway. appearing calm and professorial is. which is where his tendency to ramble gets him in trouble. playing for a draw is exactly right. unless there is a major gaffe, the debates won't change anyone's mind. but too many ums and uhs by obama might add up to a major gaffe. the one thing he CANNOT do again is say "the answer to that question is above my pay grade." that was awful.
Ala Leo McGarry
No, Biden had the best line of the year, and I hate to admit it (noun, verb and 9/11, that's all Rudy Giuliani is".
But the expectations game is working for Palin, thanks to that and the Gibson interview.
"1) You're likeable enough, Hillary"
That wasn't a one-liner, it was a gaffe. Probably cost him New Hampshire. Not the best example.
That's actually M+4 in MO for R2K
Who was it that was saying the state polling didn't reflect an Obama 4-point lead?
I don't believe each of them individually, but we've now seen:
Obama -4 MO
Obama -6 SC
Obama +11 IA
Obama +9 MI
Obama +2 OH
Obama +5 PA
Obama +2, +4, tied and -2 in VA
I'm not saying I think all of these are likely results, but you just can't keep throwing out everything that doesn't fit the "close" narrative as an outlier and then claim state polling says it is close.
VA Con, although the campaign will not publicize (sp) it, Obama will pay the street money this time. Despite his theme of volunteerism, he'll pay to "motivate" GOTV efforts in places like Philly, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Cleveland. The Hispanic pockets in CO and NV will get some dough too.
"Obama +8
Obama +6
Obama +1
Obama +1
Why is there such a big difference? If it was 1 poll it would be one thing but 2 pair of polls showing two different results??"
Probably because if you averaged them it is Obama +4, and within the MOE. Besides, polling is "scientific" but not a science. There is a difference.
"I'm not saying I think all of these are likely results, but you just can't keep throwing out everything that doesn't fit the "close" narrative as an outlier and then claim state polling says it is close."
You can't just cherry pick polls either. I could say:
McCain: +12 in NC
McCain: + 9 VA
McCain: -1 MI
McCain: Tie MN
McCain: Tie PA
McCain: +6 OH
See what I did there?
"That wasn't a one-liner, it was a gaffe"
You're so predictable. A lovable moron, even.
NCV - If you believe some polls, McCain had a 3-point lead last week. Was that lead "insurmountable" then, too?
you're a newbie .... mccain's lead was his convention bounce, and it has returned to pre-convention levels (and then some) exactly as nate predicted.
"See what I did there?"
Made up the NC number (no poll said that that I've seen).
Used a poll that predates the Obama +4 days in VA
Used another predating poll in Michigan
Did it again in Minnesota, PA and Ohio as well.
"See what I did there?"
Used polling taken before 9/14 to prove that state polling doesn't support that national polling since 9/14.
Kinda dumb...
"The rest of these numbers are relatively inconsequential,"
Actually, Nate, Obama is screwed because he's so far behind, since TN has voted for the Presidential winner so many straight elections. :)
(Just wanted to throw that out before the Repubs did.)
The Missouri bellwether might also be off the table, as Eric hinted at 1:33, although the M+4 there is exactly where McCain should be (just a few points right of the national average; Bush both times and Dole both went 3-4% to the right of the national average there.)
Clinton actually did better than the national average in '92 in MO, because he was from neighboring AR and Bush wasn't from KS like Dole to cancel it out; and Perot had strange effects everywhere in '92 more than '96. Dukakis also overachieved in MO in his '88 loss (perhaps related to his 10% Iowa win.)
Now if Obama is really up +4 in the R2000, that is dang impressive...he hasn't been there much, but McCaskill has been working very hard on his behalf.
I don't think Obama will win OH in the end, but any arguments for why he will and how he can?
"Now if Obama is really up +4 in the R2000, that is dang impressive...he hasn't been there much, but McCaskill has been working very hard on his behalf."
That was a mistake by the poster. It is M+4
Biden was in Missouri last week. He is a little underreported. But I thought he did well there, there is a video of him in Missouri on youtube.
How he can? Hit the Wheeling, Marietta/Parkersburg, Steubenville/Weirton, and tri-state metro areas to improve his weakness in southern Ohio (and give him a chance in WV.)
Get Hillary, Strickland, and Sherrod Brown out there more. (There's no reason that the OH race can't be similar to the Brown/DeWine race; we have an openly liberal senator running against a conservative who's trying to run to the center. Race might be an issue, although incidentally Limbaugh actually thought Sherrod Brown was black, too...heh.)
"Even with small Obama leads, McCain needs huge percentages of independents to both split for him and vote. 75/25 with 50% turnout isn't even enough."
I'm not convinced Obama will still have a lead in PA by the end of October. He probably will, but it's far from certain.
Forgot part: The "bittergate" thing is going to likely be used by the NRA in a massive campaign in places like PA. And I think it could make a difference.
"I'm not convinced Obama will still have a lead in PA by the end of October. He probably will, but it's far from certain."
Well, if never polling behind in the GE cycle isn't enough to convince you, nothing will.
"Forgot part: The "bittergate" thing is going to likely be used by the NRA in a massive campaign in places like PA. And I think it could make a difference."
Because months-old scandals always have big voter appeal?
"Forgot part: The "bittergate" thing is going to likely be used by the NRA in a massive campaign in places like PA. And I think it could make a difference."
Yup. Wait for it.
You guys should really drop gun control as an issue. It does nothing but hurt you.
"Yup. Wait for it."
So we're back to this:
Everything we currently know favors Obama. All of McCain's chances hinge on predicting things will go much better for him then than they are currently now.
Good luck with that.
"You guys should really drop gun control as an issue. It does nothing but hurt you."
Just because McCain is willing to sell out almost every principle he ever had to (fail to) win an election, doesn't mean we all are.
Though, to be fair, I'm a states' rightist on gun control.
Not as much as getting shot by a gun would hurt.
There were two gun "accidents" in my high school and one gun suicide. No one wants to "take away" people's guns, but promote and yes, legislate, responsible gun ownership.
If Dems drop gun control than the Republican view that no principle is sacred to the Dems would have more validity. Not that I do not feel that way at times too, since, I feel as a liberal member of my party I am completely taken for granted.
The McCain +6 in SC is not necessarily out of line with the McCain +1 in NC that CNN had this week. They could both be outliers, but in the end it doesn't really matter -- if SC goes blue, then NC has already gone bluer. If NC is blue, then Virginia is long gone for McCain... along with the election.
The interesting thing to watch will be Obama's resources -- he could decide to invest in NC just to force McCain to divert some ad money there.
Nate, your TNR link in your post is like Palin's bridge ... it goes nowhere
Gun control benefits you in no way whatsoever. The Ban on Scary Looking Guns cost you Congress in 94, for God's sake. You could have avoided the Clinton impeachement!
Virginia Conservative said...
Is Obama smart enough to pay the "street money" this time?
------------------
I heard on Hardball weeks ago that they will definitely pay the "street money" common to Philly politics.
On Bittergate:
If you go back a couple weeks and look at what McCain's people were saying their strategy was, you'll see that it was:
1) Trash Obama leading up to and during the convention.
2) Rile up the base and send Palin out as the attack dog.
3) Have McCain pivot back to the bi-partisan Maverick that was going to bring change to Washington.
They accomplished number 1. Numbers 2 and 3 have stalled with Palin's appeal and gravitas being shown as lacking (while outshining McCain at the same time) and the financial crisis forcing McCain to turn into a pro-regulation populist. Two thirds of his strategy is in trouble with five weeks left. Bittergate isn't going to turn that around.
Obama was really great in the 2004 debate against Alan Keyes, but no one expected Keyes to win. Obama was less commanding in the primary debates this year.
But you can't really push his buttons; the worst thing he said, in nearly 20 Democratic events, was "you're likable enough, Hillary". Given the probable lay of the land a week from now, Obama is likely to be even more risk-averse than he was during the primary. If I were betting on a candidate to melt down during the debates, it wouldn't be Obama.
"Because months-old scandals always have big voter appeal?"
Bittergate was not just a run-of-the-mill scandal. It was Obama's single biggest fuckup of this campaign, and one he still has not properly addressed.
Worse for him, it plays *right* into the gun-grabbing fears of conservative Democrats.
Ignore this issue at your peril. This isn't like Wright or Ayers, it is a legitimate criticism of his attitude and policy.
"Gun control benefits you in no way whatsoever. The Ban on Scary Looking Guns cost you Congress in 94, for God's sake. You could have avoided the Clinton impeachement!"
It would have benefitted me by not losing friends and classmates 18 years ago. It would benefit all the kids who have been victims of gun accidents.
Thanks for your comments about the methodology in the Stanford racial attitude survey. I'm reminded of research I read in grad school about how generalized racial attitudes got qualified when asked about one's neighbor. "Jim's not like most (fill in group here)" even though attitudes toward the group remain unchanged. It's not unlike the difference between evaluations of generic congresspersons contrasted with one's particular congressman.
Let's ban cars so no children are hurt by car accidents, too. Or at least ban the scary looking, fast cars.
@charles on Bittergate
Who could possibly disagree with this statement that wasn't already in the tank for McCain?
"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."
Post a Comment