home

WaPo Poll: Obama By 8 Over McCain

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:58:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Remember this morning when I posted about the McCain 72-48 advantage on the C-i-C question and how if McCain were not close despite that advantage, it would indicate how slim his chances are for November? As I suspected, McCain is cooked - WaPo has Obama by 8 - 50-42.

McCain is finished barring some incredible and unforeseen event, imo of course.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama on Larry King Live: Osama and the VP Stakes | Excellent Questions >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    WaPo Poll: Obama By 8 Over McCain | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Unforeseen by whom? (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:01:15 PM EST
    Some of us see it coming a mile away.

    What do you foresee? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:02:58 PM EST
    It will take some incredible blunders for Obama to blow this election.

    [ Parent ]
    One pundit was recently saying. . . (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:05:47 PM EST
    it would be a very tight election.  Wait.  That was you.

    I still forsee a blowout.

    [ Parent ]

    No that was not me (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:07:51 PM EST
    I actually have already called the election for Obama.

    I did so because McCain blunted his only avenue of attack by feigning outrage at "negative campaigning."

    Unless the New Yorker is going to do the dirty work for him, I do not see how he can win.

    [ Parent ]

    I distinctly remember. . . (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:10:21 PM EST
    having a discussion in which I forecast a blowout election and you forecast a tight one (albeit in Obama's favor).

    And what does McCain publicly eschewing negative campaigning have to do with the likelihood that the Republicans will employ it at they time they consider most opportune?

    [ Parent ]

    Because he has to condemn it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:12:02 PM EST
    and the Media (remember the Media Darling thing?) now has grounds to call McCain to account on it.

    How close will the election be? I have no idea, But I am calling the election now.

    [ Parent ]

    Meanwhile at the Philly greasy spoon (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:13:50 PM EST
    where I ate dinner tonight: Obama's negative ad! Looks like he'll get away with it.

    [ Parent ]
    What is the meaning of. . . (none / 0) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:15:10 PM EST
    this phrase "media call McCain to account" that you keep using?  If they call anyone to account it will be those nasty people completely unconnected to Saint John of Scottsdale.  And they'll have a debate entitled "Barack Obama, Harvard Over Achiever or Muslim Infiltrator?"

    [ Parent ]
    It is not so much about calling McCain (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:35:11 PM EST
    to account as it is condemning any attacks on Obama by anyone.

    Did you miss The New Yorker kerfuffle?

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, (none / 0) (#95)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:38:25 PM EST
    please tell me you don't think that was an attack on Obama.

    Please.

    [ Parent ]

    That just speaks to BTDs argument. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:44:11 PM EST
    It wasn't, in fact, an attack, and yet the uproar in defense of Obama happened nonetheless.  Imagine if it were actually a smear with even a hint of racism or anti-Muslim sentiment.

    I'm telling you, for a variety of reasons, Kerry-style swiftboating won't work this year.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh-huh. (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:48:40 PM EST
    We will see.

    John Kerry was .00000000001% as personally vulnerable as Obama and the swiftboating still worked.

    And all the fake uproar about that cover showed nothing but weakness from the Obama camp. Come on, he can't handle a cartoon? Is he kidding me with this stuff?

    Like I said...see you once he has the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    The Obama camp didn't even have to (none / 0) (#127)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:58:19 PM EST
    respond hard to the cartoon -- they issued one statement, McCain got scared and followed suit, and the media took care of the rest.  "Weak" my @ss; that's just an example of how protective the media is of him (which is an asset to be exploited, BTW), and how his opponent has boxed himself in by being so touchy himself.  Kerry never had that going for him.

    On a macro level, I think the cover thing shows another reasons that 527 smears won't work -- the MSM and the public are so on edge about attack politics, and so ready to throw out the word "swiftboat" and its negative connotations, that they'll have greatly diminished returns this year.  It's a "fool me once, fool me twice" kind of thing.

    One thing's for sure: we will see who's right, because God knows they'll trot them out.

    [ Parent ]

    It's all the Obama ... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:53:31 AM EST
    camp seems to be able to do:  Fake outrage.

    [ Parent ]
    You talk to too many liberals (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:46:39 AM EST
    I think Middle America has got this guy's number. It's only the Obama-supporting liberals (and McCain) who are hand-wringing over the "New Yorker attack," which was thoroughly within the bounds of satire.

    Flyover country won't go for this touch-me-not candidate who is sensitive only to himself.

    [ Parent ]

    It won't be McCain (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Mike H on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:20:38 PM EST
    doing the negative campaigning, though.  So he's fine.

    Also, I think it's far too early to count the GOP out, and I suspect they are waiting until after the convention before unleashing their biggest guns.

    I believe they want to make sure Obama is the nominee precisely because they feel they can beat him -- and so they don't want to really taint him while there is still the slightest chance the Dems could nominate someone else (eg, Clinton) at the convention.  They just need to keep McCain reasonably close until then.

    The big attacks will come out in September and October, and in politics, that's plenty of time for people to turn against Obama.  

    Then include some "October surprise" like Osama's capture, a show of withdrawing from Iraq, etc. and all this will be enough to make some state races close enough to seem like toss-ups, at which point Diebold does the rest to give McCain the victory.

    All well within the GOP playbook of the last decade.  And absolutely nothing has been done about black box voting to prevent this, and the media will, once again, play along.

    [ Parent ]

    Any negative campaigning against Obama (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:22:35 PM EST
    will stick to McCain. Count on it.

    [ Parent ]
    If they use Democrats' words against Obama (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by catfish on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:39:34 PM EST
    Or Obama's words against Obama, maybe McCain will be fine. Did you see Democrats vs. Obama. There's also Obama's Money Man.

    [ Parent ]
    oh you mean (none / 0) (#167)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:52:56 PM EST
    in the liberal news circuits it will?  Oh well, of course.

    Fortunately for McCain though, Obama's an indecisive ditherer - and no one really has to say anyhting about it because Obama and his surrogates illustrate the point on a daily basis.

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree completely (none / 0) (#199)
    by Mike H on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:45:11 AM EST
    Given the way the media has softballed McCain so far, I expect that to continue no matter what happens.

    They'll just conveniently and collectively forget McCain's previous stand against negative campaigning.  It's as simple as that.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you believe (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by weltec2 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:34:55 PM EST
    there will be a fair election? How many across the country will be voting by touch-screen voting? Late last fall, I believe it was, DiFi and Chuck Schumer sided with the Repugs and voted down the paper trail for this election arguing that it would cause chaos so close to the election. As long as there is no paper trail, Diebold and other Repug controlled touch-screen voting corporations will be in a position to decide who wins this election. If you believe there will be a fair election this year, then I admire your faith.

    [ Parent ]
    I foresee a massive Swiftboating (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:08:01 PM EST
    after Obama gets the nomination.

    I don't think he'll survive it.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think this election is like the others (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM EST
    One huge difference is the primary campaign.  With such a long, drawn out primary, people aren't as likely to be affected by some last-minute swift-boating.  They have been paying attention for a while already.  Plus, it would've come out already.  I know Obama isn't the nominee yet, but he has been in the spotlight a lot longer than Kerry was at this point.  I mean, Rev. Wright already happened, what could possibly be worse than that?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh dear. (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:36:23 PM EST
    You think Reverend Wright has "already happened?"

    See you in September.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:41:34 PM EST
    But I like my little bubble world and short-term memory of history :)

    Honestly, I do think Wright has "happened", he was in the news cycle for long enough that even pundits on Fox have got to be tired of that one.  There may be something else, but I don't think it will be that.

    [ Parent ]

    Mmmmkay. (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:51:18 PM EST
    Fox doesn't get tired of stuff. They are paid not to. It is their job to trash Democrats and elect Republicans. They have no other function.

    Sorry but I just don't get this attitude that the Republicans won't attack Obama relentlessly, fiercely and overwhelmingly. It's what they do.

    But I wasn't meaning to insult you, CST. I hope you didn't take it that way. Neither of us really knows what will happen, of course. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    No offense taken (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:58:31 PM EST
    I don't doubt Republicans will attack Obama, I just doubt it's effectiveness at this point.  Plus, one Bob Dole moment by McCain will neutralize anything they can throw at Obama.  But I am in the mood to be an optimist tonight.

    One note on Fox, I was in a liquor store the other day and it was on, they kept going on and on about how J. Lo visited Obama in Washington, it seemed like they were trying to make it a secretive and possibly scandalous visit.  I can't believe people take that channel seriously.

    [ Parent ]

    Suuuuuure... (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by Mike H on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:48:19 AM EST
    In the same way no one remembers Monica Lewinsky any more, because that had its time in the news cycle and was never brought up again...

    I'd bet dollars to donuts the GOP Obama-attack ads featuring Rev. Wright quotes have already been scripted, focus grouped, re-written, filmed, and are in the can ready to go.

    [ Parent ]

    You are mistaken (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:39:24 PM EST
    The voting public still says it doesn't know who the heck this Obama guy really is.  There's loads and loads of room for Swiftboating, oceans of room.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll say it again (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:49:04 AM EST
    The Odinga mess.  What on earth was a U.S. Senator doing participating in a foreign election?

    [ Parent ]
    I think McCain (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:10:42 PM EST
    is stuck now when he fussed for a week about Clark's comments.

    That is precisely why he has no chance as the Media will protect Obama from such an attack, thanks to McCain's own behavior.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain himself (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:33:07 PM EST
    will not attack Obama.

    He will let the 527's do that. And, he will pretend to decry them, while making sure they get plenty of attention and media rotation. He has done this over and over again.

    I find it difficult to believe you think this will not happen, or that Obama could withstand a massive assault of this nature.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama didn't even stick (none / 0) (#34)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:14:08 PM EST
    with Clark. You even, I do believe, disagreed with Obama at the time.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not about Obama here (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:17:54 PM EST
    It's about how McCain reacted.  Doesn't matter if Obama stuck with Clark or not.  McCain cried foul so he is in no position to applaud an attack on Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    But... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Mike H on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:22:49 PM EST
    McCain won't need to applaud a negative ad against Obama, he just needs to ignore it, and it will do his dirty work for him.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree that McCain made (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:23:40 PM EST
    a big deal out of it, but so did Obama and specifically backtracked with that speech he gave at the time praising McCain's service. I think it again showed Obama's judgement. It was said at the time that perhaps he waited one day too many to respond to Clark's remark. The undertow of that bus is getting awfully crowded!

    [ Parent ]
    When on earth has that ever (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    stopped a politician, especially a Republican?

    I'm mystified by this whole idea that there won't be any negative campaigning because McCain said he was outraged by Clark's dis.

    Maybe that's the way it will work out, anything can happen, but it's never worked that way in the past, so I don't see why it would happen that way this time.

    [ Parent ]

    The (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:06:33 AM EST
    belief that McCain isn't going to let the 527s do their job has me a little baffled as well ...

    [ Parent ]
    Gyrfalcon, you have made ... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:07:45 AM EST
    one of the few sensible comments in this thread.

    BTD and others are living in some bizarre La La Land  where election are decided by pixies sitting under magic toadstools ... or something.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think McCain got at all that burned in the (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:10:19 AM EST
    Clark brouhaha, since that WaPo poll has 72% of people believing McCain would be a good CiC, versus Obama's 48%.  While folks here think McCain whined too long about it, it really doesn't seem like it hurt him.

    63% of RV think McCain has a better knowledge of international affairs, to Obama's 26%.  On trusted more to handle a major crisis, McCain's up by 9.

    Other nuggets from the WaPo poll: 41% of Clinton voters still prefer that Hillary was the nominee, and 22% are voting for McCain.  Those numbers match the CNN(?) poll discussed last week.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree about the swiftboating (none / 0) (#35)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:14:33 PM EST
    but think Obama could pull it out in a close election. Apparently, most Obama supporters are not expecting any attacks at all.

    [ Parent ]
    All it will take (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:31:09 PM EST
    to defeat Obama will be his having a meltdown at a single debate the way he melted when ABC asked "tough" questions; he will be seen as weak.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, it sure finished him off. . (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:35:33 PM EST
    in the primary.

    It's odd, while I remember that Clinton consistently posted better debate performances than Obama, I don't remember a "meltdown".

    [ Parent ]

    Come on... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:37:36 PM EST
    Obama won't be running against Clinton. He will be running against McCain.

    McCain will take the gloves off in a debate.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:51:12 PM EST
    Have you seen John McCain? He is an AWFUL candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    He IS an awful candidate (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:12:57 AM EST
    Every time I see him I think that.  And yet, most polls show Obama somewhere around 2-4 points ahead.  I'm amazed by how close the race is, esp. since McCain's rock solid support is only in the 30s.

    [ Parent ]
    If I were him, (3.50 / 2) (#102)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:40:55 PM EST
    I'd keep the gloves on.

    Liver spots.

    [ Parent ]

    He'll take the gloves off (2.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:43:40 PM EST
    and dodder into the fray...

    [ Parent ]
    This are ageist remarks (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:52:55 AM EST
    And totally unacceptable. Attack his policies, attack his temperament, but please keep your bigotry to yourselves.

    Is there a moderator anywhere?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, after that debate (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:40:24 PM EST
    Obama won very few primaries; he won caucuses, but not primaries. And Clinton was unable to capitalize on Obama's meltdown, as the MSM clamored on about how unfair ABC had been to Obama and, falsely, how Hillary was somehow behind ABC's decision to ask pointed questions.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I agree with that too (none / 0) (#166)
    by weltec2 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:45:44 PM EST
    but only because it helps Diebold to have the numbers close so that not too much suspicion is raised.

    [ Parent ]
    I forsee..... (none / 0) (#178)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:13:51 AM EST
    ....an Obama landslide, but then I don't have an emotional investment in seeing him lose.

    [ Parent ]
    Or... *Which* do you foresee...? (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:12:56 PM EST
    The media and the public get bored so easily after all.  I bet there will be at least one "incredible" blunder a month (by each side) between now and the election.

    Remember, Howard Dean's "Yeeargh!" wasn't so much a blunder as it was a technical snafu.  And it changed a lot in one week.

    [ Parent ]

    Umm... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:13:39 PM EST
    ...not to put too fine a point on it, BTD, but you have met Democrats, right?

    I will believe Obama has it won about 24 hours after he's declared the winner.  Until then, I will be waiting nervously for the latest Democratic Blunder To End All Blunders.

    [ Parent ]

    On the other hand, Demographics. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:30:39 PM EST
    Front page poll on the nytimes web site now.  Favorable view of Obama?  80% plus among blacks, 30% among whites.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. . . (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:04:22 PM EST
    to chip away at the CinC lead if possible.  I don't have the faintest hint how (note to Axelrod: riding in tank wearing helmet -- baaaad idea).

    Obama had a good day on national security today (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:06:37 PM EST
    imo. He mentioned Afghanistan 22 times in his speech or so Tweety told me.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe he could arrange. . . (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:08:12 PM EST
    to have Musharraf caught on a hot mike threatening to have his ghoolies cut off.

    [ Parent ]
    You may be right (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by IzikLA on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:16:30 PM EST
    Except that I think Dem's will still lose if the subject is national security.  I also find it surprising that you think McCain is toast just because of a national poll, when I seem to remember hearing how useless they are, which I actually agree with.  It's an electoral college thing, not a national popular vote total and that is something we will be dealing with come November I think.

    Maybe I'm in another world but there are many things this month that have caused me concern for our prospects in November.  I know many strong primary season supporters whose support has wavered lately.  That worries me.  There are even simple things that worry me, like Obama on the cover of Rolling Stone for the 2nd time in just several months and all the stories popping up now about the brilliance of Axelrod and Plouffe.  These guys are getting their due and now a lot of people are still wondering who this guy Barack Obama really is.  That concerns me.  

    Ok, that was OT, but I still think the absolute worst mistake we could make is to think we Dem's have this in the bag.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (none / 0) (#179)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:17:46 AM EST
    Thanks to Bush, the GOP has lost its advantage on security - unless one believes we are more secure today than 7 years ago.  There just aren't that many fools to be had.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is it when the numbers (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:07:33 PM EST
    "please" y'all, it's party time, or "McCain in finished" time. Contrarily, when the numbers are decreasing for Obama and increasing for McCain the response is, well, it's only July! If Obama is so secure in his positions, why did he (if true as CNN reported) take the surge material off his website today after saying it wasn't working and McCain calling him on it. Oh wait, maybe he needed the room! What has he done to tick his numbers up?

    Is this comment addressed to me? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:08:46 PM EST
    I am on record as saying the election is over barring a major catastrophe for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    It's only partially directed at (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:12:26 PM EST
    you. I have friends who were so in the pool for Obama and after his FISA vote and other flips, they are re-thinking their vote. Has his feet been held to the fire? I'm still looking for someone who cares more about this country then himself. Others may see this in him, I still do not. Please help me see "his light."

    [ Parent ]
    zfran...it's a long way til November as you (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:01:07 PM EST
    know and we will see how it plays out.  Grasping onto the numbers in one poll, like some have done, at this point, is pointless.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree as I said above. (none / 0) (#171)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:08:53 PM EST
    Polls I've seen has them almost tied. Amazing at this point all in itself!

    [ Parent ]
    I hold his feet to the fire (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    But just as I am honest about Obama I am also honest about how I perceive his chances to win.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD sheds all objectivity though (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ribbon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:01:16 PM EST
    on Obama and Iraq.

    There is no "holding [Obamas's] feet the fire" on Iraq whatsoever.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, then, if it's all over (5.00 / 5) (#174)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:23:34 PM EST
    and a blowout, the ObamaRoolz require a cacophony from bloggers and other media to call for McCain to drop out now, I say now!  

    Why is McCain dragging this out?  Has he no decency, continuing this unseemly competition?  And, and, and he's saying things that hurt Obama's chances!

    Quit now, McCain.  Have an epiphany, see the light.   Jeez.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget the DNC. (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:26:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Seeing that (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:46:47 AM EST
    major catastrophes are planned already for Obama by the McCain campaign team (read Rove), and that I don't trust the DNC or Obama to stop making gaffes, I'll agree with you except I see major catastrophes on the horizon.

    [ Parent ]
    Why so much faith... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by tnjen on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:08:32 PM EST
    ...in this poll? Others are showing them neck and neck.

    It is not the polls so much (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:09:16 PM EST
    as the comparable poll result I discussed this morning.

    [ Parent ]
    That only tells me... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by tnjen on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    ...that Iraq isn't as important as the economy right now. And the unforeseen is that we're going through an economic meltdown and despite Americans conventionally trusting democrats with the economy there have been several polls that showed Americans trusting McCain more than Obama. That is shocking. However, Obama has no more strength on the economy than McCain as far as experience goes. This is a scenario that would've been extremely advantageous for Clinton but isn't quite translating for Obama because for whatever reason people don't trust him on the economy the way they do a "generic" democrat. To me, that means the race is still open with a slight advantage to Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama as a Dem (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:25:50 PM EST
    leads McCain by 19 points on the economy.

    [ Parent ]
    It will be all about National Security ... again (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    in fall. This same old GOP election strategy will most likely win it for them again.

    Thats why Obama is talking war war war now and mentions Afghanistan at any opportunity - he wants to kill Osama bin laden, too. Tough talking is now Obama's campaign strategy numero uno with some family values thrown in. It's beating the Republicans at their own game and Its all about building up his nonexisting national security and "war resume." Hoping some tough talk stuff will stick to him until the debate rounds with McCain come along and voters start paying attention.

    Most voters don't pay attention to the general election until the last couple months or until the debates start.

    Polls mean nothing right now IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    This isn't a normal cycle. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:01:05 PM EST
    Has there ever been even close to this much attention paid to a presidential race, this far out from November?

    I'm not saying the polls are by any stretch definitive, but I doubt they're as soft as you think.  We're going on eight months of presidential politics being the news story, 24-7.

    [ Parent ]

    That either means. . . (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:14:54 PM EST
    This isn't a normal cycle.

    The Democrats will win, or we're having a baby.

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure about that (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:17:40 PM EST
    I would have agreed a month ago, when the primaries seemed to be front page on all the papers almost every day.

    But now all the stories are related to the economy.  I think Clinton being out of the race has diminished people's interest, for now.

    As for the WaPo poll, almost all the one-off media polls show Obama up by more than the daily polls.  The one exception is the CNN poll taken a few days ago showing up by only 3.  The WaPo poll isn't quite high enough to be a significant outlier compared to almost all the other polling around the same time, but it's not all that consistent with them either.

    So someone's wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    Just because the cable pundits and bloggers (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:05:47 PM EST
    are all hyped up about Obama and McCain and are analyzing all the crumbs thrown their way by the pols or at each other (something we should all ignore IMO) ... it doesn't mean the people who really matter, the voters, pay "this much attention" to this presidential race. Who cared about the hyped up Clark comments, Olbermann nonsense, or any other pol statements? Only the cable pundits and the bloggers.

    The presidential politics are only the news story for folks who make it their priority. Most people have other things to do. They work from 9 to 5 and have families ... and garden work to do ;-)

    Anyone old enough to remember election 2004 certainly thought the same attention was paid to the race then -  actually it was a v. special election with war and peace at stake ... altho Kerry who refused to fight didn't seem to look at it that way  (to my deepest chagrin). So Dems lost again.

    Now its only war war war talk by the candidates who wouldn't know the importance of peace if it bit them. Both of them.

    So  McCain has Iraq, Obama is busy making Afghanistan his Obama business, and both share Iran equally so far. That should worry everyone.

    So That's what it comes down to right now and the polls are something I completely ignore because I  have films to analyze ;-)

    Really. I mean who cares. Three points up, 18 points down. Spare me! Let's talk again after the last pres. debate round is a thing of the past. Then we'll see.

     

    [ Parent ]

    It definitely isn't a normal (none / 0) (#139)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:12:00 PM EST
    cycle.  

    Not with McCain having to run with Bush, the most unpopular president in polling history, and his 8 yr record of War and Recession.

    Voters' views probably are a lot more firm at this point than in previous elections.

    O does have to seal the deal with his upcoming CiC trip abroad, then the performance in the debates -- but he's facing a guy who really doesn't perform well w/o a teleprompter.

    [ Parent ]

    Its as normal or abnormal as you make it in your (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:18:15 PM EST
    mind

    btw. who in the world believes Obama seals the deal with his upcoming trip abroad?

    Is that the kind of thing the devoted Obamafolks talk about when they talk about "hope?"

    AFAIK he will do some lecturing Rumsfeld style in Germany and having to endure this AGAIN from a newbie like Obama who is not even a President yet ...

    Ah well, hope springs eternal for the Obamafans.  

    [ Parent ]

    Really? When did that (none / 0) (#73)
    by tnjen on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:29:54 PM EST
    ...change? No snark, btw. I just hadn't seen that. If Obama is beating him that badly on the economy then McCain is in serious trouble. Too early, IMO, to call it over but bad nonetheless.

    [ Parent ]
    This poll (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:32:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ok, I was going by Rasmussen (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by tnjen on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:36:28 PM EST
    Trust on Economy:

    45% McCain

    42% Obama

    [ Parent ]

    Are you JOKING??? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:11:08 PM EST
    One poll shows it barely out of MOE in July and you declare it over? No reason to hold an election then, just ask Presidents Dukakis, Gore, or Dewey. Obama might win, but it is by no means a sure thing. It will be close no matter what. (of course, polls be darned I still think mccain ekes it out in Wis.)

    I declared it over (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:12:46 PM EST
    before this.

    Pay attention.

    [ Parent ]

    no offense, but that (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    is so naive. I'm not saying Obama won't win, but like they say, "in politics, a day is a lifetime."

    [ Parent ]
    No offense (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:17:33 PM EST
    But your calling me naive means nothing to me.

    Try your insults on someone who knows who you are.

    [ Parent ]

    I certaily did not mean that as an insult (none / 0) (#51)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:20:53 PM EST
    as my preface said. Sorry if you took it that way.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD=Surely (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:17:25 PM EST
    4 months out from the GE and ur proclaiming victory for Barack.  LOL.

    Ummmm.  Okay.

    Barack can't even get his own party to fall lockstep behind him (same goes for McCain), but the GOP is better at getting "behind their guy" than the Dems.

    Polls like this, and this far out mean NOTHING.

    Kerry enjoyed the SAME exact point spread JULY 19, 2004....50 to 42 over Bush.

    http://tinyurl.com/5wbnud

    Like the quote in Airplane, "Surely you can't be serious?!"  "Yes I am, and don't call me surely!"

    You must mean some other poll (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:23:31 PM EST
    You linked to a Time poll that showed a 3 point spread and not much to choose from on the C-i-C question.

    Also significant was the right track wrong track in that poll - only 42-53 against Bush. Much worse now.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh please. Obama can certainly screw up. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:17:48 PM EST
    If the press becomes slightly objective about Obama's thin record, he will suffer in the polls.

    I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:21:44 PM EST
    what makes it so implausible for this race to turn out like 1988.

    Mind you, I don't expect that.  I believe Obama will win.  McCain really isn't much of a candidate, but then again, neither was Bush I.

    Oh, and I don't think folks will see this as a good day for Obama on national security if the website gaffe gets play.

    Come now Steve (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:24:25 PM EST
    The implausibility lies in who the GOP incumbent was - Reagan vs. Bush. I am sure you want to rethink your comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:28:23 PM EST
    When Dukakis had a whopping 17-point lead in July, had people forgotten that Reagan was the outgoing President or something?  Reagan's approval stayed basically flat from July 1 until October 31, by which point Bush had the race well in hand.

    Reagan's popularity was already baked into that 17-point lead, as we say in the market.  So, too, with Bush's unpopularity and the current margin.

    [ Parent ]

    That lead was in one outlying poll (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:31:31 PM EST
    right after the Dem Convention.

    But stick with your thought if you like. I find it kind of ridiculous myself.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:37:49 PM EST
    What were the rest of the polls like?  Less than the 6-8 point margin Obama enjoys today?

    The more I talk to people the more I come to understand that Obama is still really, really poorly defined for a lot of folks.  That leaves quite a bit of room for the landscape to shift.

    Allow me also to gently remind you how many times you declared the primary irrevocably decided in favor of one candidate or the other, only to watch circumstances change.

    [ Parent ]

    It's funny about the primaries (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    In a conventional contest, Obama's failings, starting with Super Tuesday, would have doomed him. But he had an unshakeable base that saw him through the decline and he held on to win.

    Let me ask you this, if it were Hillary holding these leads, you would not disagree that it was over right? Your premise is that like Dukakis, Obama can be defined right?

    I would normally agree with you but McCain's overreactions to criticism and Obama's teflon and Media support make him impregnable imo.

    [ Parent ]

    What do you make of the fact (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:44:16 PM EST
    that according to Ras Obama is today the weakest Dem against McCain?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:48:44 PM EST
    That is kind of meaningless - Clinton is not the opponent so what are we polling exactly? And the Media would have been killing Clinton right now if she were against McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:52:38 PM EST
    I take your point that they're polling races that aren't real. But as to Hillary, I think she managed to bypass the media toward the end. I think she's have pretty much wrapped up the race against McCain by now.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL. (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by madamab on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:55:18 PM EST
    Yes, the media would have been relentless with her. It was during the primaries, too. Didn't prevent her from winning the popular vote.

    I think the media's power to define Hillary is pretty much dead at this point.

    [ Parent ]

    I would not disagree (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:50:35 PM EST
    Hillary and McCain are both very well-defined.

    Something else that strikes me when I talk to people is the raw power of Brand McCain, probably the only thing that got him the nomination (it obviously wasn't a money advantage or dynamic campaigning).  When I bring up McCain's latest gaffe or incoherent policy, it's like people aren't even listening.

    This election is a referendum on Bush, but those results are in and will not be changing.  The other thing it will clearly be a referendum on is what the American people think of Obama, where I believe the jury is still out.  My money is on him, but if you genuinely believe he's a 90+% favorite, there's a lot of money to be made at Intrade.

    [ Parent ]

    How would I make money? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:56:18 PM EST
    Betting that the price will go up?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#130)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:00:59 PM EST
    You can buy shares of Obama for 65 cents.  It's worth a buck if he wins.

    That's a 50% return on your investment in less than four months!  In this market, can you afford NOT to buy?

    [ Parent ]

    You know what? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:04:50 PM EST
    It really is a good bet. I may do it.

    [ Parent ]
    Drinks on BTD! (none / 0) (#143)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:14:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There were also the little matters of (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:45:30 PM EST
    Willie Horton, the "raped your wife" question, the tank picture, and the devastating Boston Harbor hypocrisy ad, all of which managed to convey the idea that a very tough, strong-minded Korean war vet was a wimp and a fool-- compared to Poppy Bush yet.

    [ Parent ]
    Poppy was a real war hero. Dukakis...not so much. (none / 0) (#189)
    by CK MacLeod on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:00:07 AM EST
    was a wimp and a fool-- compared to Poppy Bush yet

    Geez - be a partisan if you want, but, if you reviewed the facts before you made you attacks, you might not avoid reinforcing certain stereotypes about Democrats and their understanding of honor, service, and things military in general:  George_H_W_Bush#World_War_II

    In short, "Poppy" was a war hero.  Dukakis was stationed in Korea several years after the fighting in Korea was over.  Honorable service, but I think he'd be the first to tell you that he was no "Korean war vet."

    [ Parent ]

    Oops (none / 0) (#190)
    by CK MacLeod on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:02:48 AM EST
    Hit the "post" button between edits, but I think you 'll get the gist.  

    [ Parent ]
    How many here were calling McCain's (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:35:35 PM EST
    run for the nomination dead in the water last August and predicting he would fold up his tent and go home by November?

    Just sayin'...

    Not me. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:37:08 PM EST
    I called it a McCain / Romney race.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#186)
    by Jane in CA on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:26:26 AM EST
    A friend forwarded me an email I had sent to her in November 2006 where I mention that I'm convinced McCain will be the Repub nom, and I think it will be hard for Hillary to beat him in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    You were 100% correct. (none / 0) (#202)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:19:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I do not know (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    How many? I did not write about the GOP nomination fight much.

    I predicted Romney would win but just on gut, not on analysis.

    I DID predict Rudy had no shot.

    [ Parent ]

    I sure was (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:50:08 PM EST
    After watching him last summer look about as bad as he is this summer I am still shocked he is the nominee.

    I wrote him off completely.


    [ Parent ]

    I confess (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:39:11 PM EST
    I was in the "I really wouldn't count out McCain" camp.

    [ Parent ]
    I still am (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:22:43 PM EST
    based on his comeback in the primaries.  A lot of media (sorry, I wasn't poll watching back then) had him down for the count.  And some had it pretty much over.

    I didn't like either McCain or Romney, but I esp. wanted Romney to lose after swanning his way into the governorship of my state, messing it up and then running off to run for Pres.  I don't know which of them I like least politically, but I sure know that personally I hated Romney more.  That's why I noticed when all the bleating was that Romney was out.

    [ Parent ]

    I was watching Iowa (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:42:57 PM EST
    and figured it was going to be Romney vs. Edwards or Romney vs. Clinton. I never saw Obama's Iowa win coming until Ann Selzer predicted it.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain didn't "come back" (none / 0) (#180)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:31:26 AM EST
    The Republicans just couldn't find anybody else among the rest of the clowns on their slate.

    McCain won by default.

    [ Parent ]

    Whereas on the Dem side (none / 0) (#203)