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 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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 / 1) (#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 / 0) (#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 / 1) (#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, (2.00 / 1) (#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)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:19:48 AM EST
    Obama won by despite. :-P

    Parent
    I dunno. The dudes (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by mrjerbub on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:37:47 PM EST
    at RCP have it at only 3 points for the ABC/WP poll. (I think it's registered, as opposed to likely) Anyway, 8 points this early ain't nuttin. I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it seems to me that BO has lost some "cred" with some dems with the FISA thingie and now the "refine" statement, what looks like he's trying to backtrack from. I think he needs to un-smug a little. Just my uninformed HO. Please don't attack me Steve M.

    I would never attack you (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:39:50 PM EST
    even though you foolishly admitted to not having a dog to defend you.

    Parent
    Sure, you wouldn't. . . (none / 0) (#110)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:44:59 PM EST
    lay a hand on the guy.

    Your 527s, on the other hand. . .

    Parent

    Sheeesh (none / 0) (#135)
    by mrjerbub on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:05:41 PM EST
    You chased me for 6 or 8 posts yesterday. You told somebody today that if they didn't want to talk to real people,(I guess that's you) as opposed to a "straw man" they shouldn't waste the space posting and then you said that every American should read your post before they vote. I just want off your list. I'm not your enemy. I came here for a safe place to express my opinion w/o being flamed.

    Parent
    My friend (none / 0) (#137)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:09:08 PM EST
    I think you are a little confused about which comments are responses to which posts.  It was not you I accused of making a strawman argument.

    Also, the comment where I referred to every American reading my post was just a joke.

    I apologize if I have inadvertently made you feel unwelcome here.  I assure you I never intended such a thing.

    Parent

    I do. (none / 0) (#136)
    by mrjerbub on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:08:19 PM EST
    His name is Ralph and he is a Yorkie. Did you see the movie "Stand By Me"? "Sick Balls".

    Parent
    RCP (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:39:00 PM EST
    posts only LV resuts, which I disagree with. That is why I do not pay much attention to the RCP averages.

    Parent
    Since Obama himself is unforseen... (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:00:31 PM EST
    ...and since our electoral system is completely insecure and hackable electronically, with no paper trail to check in most places, and with the last two presidential elections having been utterly fraudulent in many respects, I'll wait to feel any kind of comfort in poll numbers.

    What a boring campaign season tho (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by catfish on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:11:29 PM EST
    for such a new type of politician this thing just drags along. Somebody says something and candidate x rejects and denounces it. Days pass. Somebody says something else, candidate y rejects and denounces. Days pass, a bank fails, we endure Armageddon-like weather. A magazine cover comes out, which some find offenseive, candidate x and y denounce and reject it. Pundits discuss. Days pass. Pundits speculate on veep picks. Discussion dies down.

    You nailed it. I can't make myself (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MarkL on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:14:38 PM EST
    pay attention to any of it.

    Parent
    You were expecting. . . (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:16:18 PM EST
    mud wrestling?

    (Actually, there's still time for that. . .)

    Parent

    It's the dearth of reporters, anemic newspapers (none / 0) (#155)
    by catfish on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:32:26 PM EST
    so everything is driven by cable news, which isn't really news but just talk shows around the clock.

    If we had reporters reporting news they would find worthwhile stories, not just campaign stories, to report. For example, Sarkozy is emerging as the leader of the free world right now. Given our two listless candidates, Sarkozy should keep that position for a few years.

    Parent

    Well good, then I can vote the Green party (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by nellre on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:14:38 PM EST
    Black and female and a cause close to my heart.

    McCain is the best dems could run agains (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:17:39 PM EST
    IMO. He's really a horrible politician. Just look at the campaign so far. Of course he did win the primary which was quite a surprise. He's the candidate I most wanted to win the repub primary because of his stance on immigration reform (so that wouldn't be a wedge issue this year). Even with Obama's many weaknesses, it's hard to imagine McCain winning.

    Then again, why is Obama only ahead by single digits. I mean really. Look at Bush. Look at the generic dem vs. repub numbers. It's quite amazing really. So despite the odds, I do think McCain can still win. But that mostly involves something quite different than the sort of campaigning we're seeing now.

    Explanation (none / 0) (#181)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:40:19 AM EST
    Then again, why is Obama only ahead by single digits. I mean really.

    Because many still respond to phone polls by party line or ideology, no matter who the candidate is.  

    What the polls do not reflect is "intensity."  I don't know what the numbers are off the top of my head, but it's something like 65% of Dems are very enthusiastic about Obama, and 39% of Republicans are similary moved by McCain.

    Parent

    WAPO Polling Believable? (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by fctchekr on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:30:14 PM EST
    I've spent the last 15 mos or so watching WAPO spin in Obama's favor from Op-Eds to Blogs, to polling. At this point I don't think the media is really giving us accurate figures. It's seems from the snipets of info I'm getting that there are a significant number of disheartened conservative Dems who will vote McCain..

    Wow, come back from vacation (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by FemB4dem on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:13:44 PM EST
    and the election is being called.  Hmm -- here's what I have been saying for a long time, and still think is what will happen.  This will be a close election cycle, within or close to the MOE until September.  The 527's will then start in on Obama. If gas prices are stable and the economy looks even a small bit better, McCain will take a slight lead.  If not, Obama will keep a slight lead, but his favoirables wil slide. Whatever, the race will stay close to the MOE.  Then we will have an October surprise.  My guess is it will be news of the breakup of some huge attack aimed at the US.  Middle America will then be faced with the following question: are you willing, in the midst of two wars, with terrorists out to kill us, to hand over the most important job in the world to an untested rookie?  That's when the C-I-C numbers will begin to matter and the answer, IMO, will be "no" in enough key states that the old war hero will slide into office.  Nothing "incredible or unforseen" needed.  No wars -- Obama wins easily in this economy.  Two wars -- he loses if the public's attention shifts at all back to national security.  This is a change election only if the focus is on the economy; it will be a status quo election if the public's focus is on national security/terrorism.  Trust in Darth Cheney, by November, it will be.  

    Two can play, of course (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:55:15 PM EST
    All it takes is someone ostensibly for Obama in the limelight to make comments about McCain's being too old, or something disparaging about the midwest (again) or the south. It would be helpful if it was one of those Hollywood types, glossy and ready to be turned into the new Streisand or Fonda.

    Maybe not. But Obama isn't teflon, not by a longshot. He's just not a target yet. After the convention, we'll see.

    See you in September.

    Don't forget the 50% Threshold (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by OxyCon on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:59:27 AM EST
    Obama is right there at the 50% threshold, but not over it, which means it is still anyone's election.
    Now, if one of the candidates consistently polls, let's say around 52%, then you could say it is their election to lose.
    Still, no one's laid a hand on Obama yet, and he is a target rich environment. Sure, us Internet political junkies have heard every attack and rumor about Obama, but wait until the other 80% of the country hears them.
    Poof!

    with all due respect (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by ccpup on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:20:33 AM EST
    I find it difficult to believe anyone could insist with a straight face that any candidate would be "finished" based on a WaPo Poll taken in July.

    Three months is a lifetime in politics and Obama hasn't even begun to put his foot in his mouth.  Just give him time.

    Working for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by john horse on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    One of the reasons that Obama has the lead over McCain is because of kids like my son.  He's been going around our neighborhood on Obama's behalf.  I couldn't be prouder of him.

    There is a reason why Democrats outregistered Republicans in Florida form January through May, 106,508 voters compared with 16,686.

    The " incredible and unforeseen event" (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:01:44 PM EST
    would have to be closely tied to national security.

    NPR this morning had Sen. McCain at 30% as to Latino voters.  Bad news for him.    

    On the Republican's watch? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:06:21 PM EST
    short of capturing OBL, that wouldn't seem helpful...

    Parent
    Well, the people polled didn't express (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:11:02 PM EST
    much confidence in Sen. Obama's abilities as Commander in Chief.  A few more U.S. armed forces casualties in Afghanistan and elevation of the terrorist alert in U.S. closer to the GE?  Who knows.

    Parent
    From your lips to God's Ears! (none / 0) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:03:50 PM EST
    I have been saying for awhile, that the voting public is in the midsts of deciding whether the risk of change is less than the risk of the same. Barring McCain pulling a rabbit out of a hat or Obama royally screwing up...

    Thanks BTD! (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:05:13 PM EST
    This is the first polling post you've done in a while that made me smile.

    I hope you're right.

    Also, contrary to popular belief, I don't think a national security event will help McCain.  It will tell people that the Bush plan has NOT made us any safer.

    Good luck with that sentiment (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:31:49 PM EST
    Major attackes or whatever constitutes a 'national security event' makes people afraid.  And fearful people look to strength, not the faculty lounger for answers.  How do you think Bush was able to put one over on everyone to get us into Iraq in the first place?

    Oh, everyone's anti war now, sure.  But folks forget how much support Bush had for going to war and it sure wasn't all media conning.

    Plus the Repub counterargument is that Bush kept us safe all this time until it looked like Obama would be our next pres.  We don't know all the secret attacks his Presidency has thwarted, yadda yadda yadda.

    Is that a weak argument?  Sure it is, based on reality and logic.  But it's a strong argument emotionally.

    Parent

    Oops, 'lounge' not 'lounger' n/t (none / 0) (#156)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:32:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Hopefully, somewhere in Obama central (none / 0) (#10)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:07:06 PM EST
    is a large strategy envelope marked "open in case of terrorist attack".  It's not a matter of playing politics with any prospective attack -- it's a matter of responding to the inevitable vote grab from the Republicans.

    Parent
    What strategy do you recommend? (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:14:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Fortunately, I don't have to (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    recommend one.  Almost alone among blog commenters I don't consider myself any kind of authority on election strategy.  If I had a dime for every time someone told me "Oh, it would have been so easy for Gore, Kerry, etc to win if only they'd listened to my advice" or "Why can't the Dems understand that they'll never win without embracing the NORML platform" or whatever I'd. . . have a bag of dimes.

    So I don't really know what the appropriate strategy is in case there's a terrorist attack and McCains strutting about with a cod piece down his front while Swift Boat Publicists Against Truth is leaking the idea that Obama's daughters were seen casing whatever it is that got blown up.

    I just hope someone at the Obama campaign has thought that through.

    Parent

    I resemble that remark (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:26:59 PM EST
    and yet my advice was good in 2006 and when Kerry went all Iraq in 2004 he closed the gap.

    Parent
    I didn't mean you. (none / 0) (#80)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:33:18 PM EST
    OK, I didn't mean only you.

    And that line about NORML?  I didn't make it up, it's from a comment at Daily Kos.

    Parent

    Probably Ben Masel (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:36:20 PM EST
    with the NORML line. Just kidding, Ben knows his politics.

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#96)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:38:33 PM EST
    It was some nutty guy.  Seriously, the guy was absolutely convinced that the only thing that stood between Gore and the White House was his refusal to run as the NORML candidate.

    Parent
    If I can't play amateur pundit, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:31:11 PM EST
    I don't want to be part of your blogosphere.

    Parent
    Cop out. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:27:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Cop out (none / 0) (#86)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:36:22 PM EST
    is my middle name.

    Parent
    I read the memo..... (none / 0) (#183)
    by DYBO on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:50:27 AM EST
    ....in the envelope.  

    It says you can't trust McCain to repond to a terrorist attack, because he was totally wrong about Iraq, and that has made terrorism worse.  

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    I'm cherry picking but Quinnipiac also has Obama at +9 today. The DEM dip we saw last week looks to have disappeared already.

    Add to that add the state by state polls that show Red States becoming tossups and Blue States all safe and I have to agree with BTD, the stars are aligned for a DEM landslide.

    and the dip will be back (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by kenosharick on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:19:36 PM EST
    next week, then disappear again, then be back,ect.I'm just stunned at all of you calling this election over due to a couple polls in mid-July. If mccain is up in poll by 6or7 in mid-August will everyone suddenly shift course?

    Parent
    The Ras and Gallup trackers (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:12:45 PM EST
    do show a much tighter race than this. Still, McCain does keep losing opportunities, and it seems like he's counting on his media shop to save him. His ads are clever, and in any other year they would work. I don't see how he wins this year though. My god, Ras shows AL GORE beating McCain by the margin indicated in this WaPo poll.

    Are you calling the election for Sen. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:16:55 PM EST
    also (if, of course, you haven't done so prevously)?

    Parent
    If nothing changes, I don't see (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:20:17 PM EST
    how McCain wins. McCain is a pretty boring campaigner, so unless he keeps up great ads and destroys Obama in the debates (I don't think he can), Obama wins.

    Honestly, I think I'd be more likely to bet on Romney in this position than McCain.

    Parent

    And if McCain coughs. . . (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:25:15 PM EST
    Even once. . .

    Parent
    I am soooo laughing (none / 0) (#67)
    by zfran on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:27:25 PM EST
    right now. Thanks.

    Parent
    How about if Sen. McCain picks a (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:24:13 PM EST
    highly-qualified running mate, possibly a female, who outshines both Sen. Obama and his running mate?

    Parent
    You mean. . . (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:27:39 PM EST
    How about if Sen. McCain picks a highly-qualified running mate,

    a Democrat?  Because this year, the words "Republican" and "qualified" don't really go together too well.

    Parent

    Kay Bailey Hutchison? (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:29:08 PM EST
    Sure, she could be pretty dangerous. But honestly, I don't think even that would have much impact.

    Have you watched Leno or Letterman recently? The only thing they have to say about McCain is that he's old. That's not a good thing to have to run on.

    Parent

    On your last sentence, (none / 0) (#121)
    by Shawn on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    I don't understand the surprise. Al Gore would've been a strong candidate - probably far stronger than Obama - and even many Republicans acknowledge that.

    Parent
    In 2000, McCain would have (none / 0) (#125)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:57:01 PM EST
    wiped the floor with Gore. I think there are two, possibly three, points to be made. One, the Republican brand is in the trash; two, McCain's brand has followed the Republican brand; and three, Al Gore has finally been able to reinvent himself in a consistent, convincing and compelling way (or put differently, the media was finally willing to present Al Gore as himself, the same for John McCain. The former was helped and the latter hurt.)

    Parent
    What's your take on the CBS poll, BTD? (none / 0) (#29)
    by kempis on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:13:26 PM EST
    link

    This one seems to uncover a good bit of "fluidity" in the race, especially compared to Kerry v. Bush at this point. Or at least the commentary claims it does.

    When was the last time (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:15:12 PM EST
    McCain was ahead in any national poll? I honestly can't remember.

    Parent
    It's been a long time. (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:25:02 PM EST
    May 3rd. USA Today had McCain at +1.

    Parent
    Um fluiidity? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:15:44 PM EST
    Looks cast in stone to me. No change in a month.

    Parent
    Missed this? Undecideds doubled. (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:43:18 PM EST
    More than 1 in 10 voters now say they are undecided between the candidates - twice as many, percentage-wise, as last month.

    I think that's where they see the fluidity.

    Parent

    Same with the WaPo poll... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:46:47 AM EST
    ...undecideds went from 6 to 12 percent over the last month.

    Parent
    49-46 among likely voters 50-42 for registered (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:14:05 PM EST
    Just to make things clear.

    False (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:16:32 PM EST
    ABC has an LV model. And if you have ever read me on the issue of LV models in JULY, you know I ignore them until very close to the election.

    Parent
    I agree about the LV model (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:21:24 PM EST
    It just introduces distortion that you can't parse this early. RV is better--but strangely rarer now.

    Parent
    I was just reporting what was written by ABC (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    and pollster.com.

    Link

    "All told, Obama leads McCain among registered voters by 8 points in this ABC/Post poll, 50-42 percent. Turnout makes a difference: Its 51-39 percent among all adults overall, but narrows to a close 49-46 percent match among likely voters."

    Parent

    I called this for Obama back on May 2007 (none / 0) (#68)
    by s5 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:27:32 PM EST
    That was when Oprah endorsed Obama, back when I was still a Hillary supporter (I switched to Obama in Jan 2008). Obviously, I don't think she'll be the cause of his win, but rather her endorsement was one of the first major indicators of how the public will look at him. The first indicator, of course, was his 2004 DNC convention speech.

    Anyway, my point is that you should feel free to call the election early. As a pundit, it's your right to offend your readers by throwing out random speculations. :) I may not be a pundit but I felt perfectly comfortable calling the election for him over a year ago, and I'm sticking to it.

    Article, front page, Tuesday NYT, on (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST
    inability of late night TV comedians to lay a glove on Sen. Obama.  He really is the media darling so far,  
     NYT

    Late night TV (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by CST on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:55:17 PM EST
    This is where I really miss Dave Chapelle.  I bet he would do a KILLER Obama skit of some kind.  Half offensive, half hilarious, and smart enough to make you really think.  Come back Dave!

    Parent
    How many Barack Obamas (none / 0) (#149)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:20:56 PM EST
    Does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    THAT'S NOT FUNNY YOU RACE BAITING WARMONGER!!!!!!

    Parent

    No no no no no. Please.... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:33:58 AM EST
    This is a classic joke.  If it's going to be re-imagined, it should be done with a certain amount of grace. (And the irony of this whole excercise should be left to the listener to discover on their own.)

    Try it like this instead -

    Q: How many Obama supporters does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    A: One!  And that's not funny! *

    * If you must add a coda, here are a few possibilities...
       ... you senile old dumb person!
       ... you racist hillbilly!
       ... you.. you... you... feminist!!!

    I like the last one best.  Personally, I'd use this joke to apply to all "Progressives" instead of "Obama" folks.  As we've seen this week, there seem to be enough thin skins around for everyone these days.

    Parent

    Sounds about right to me. (none / 0) (#112)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:48:24 PM EST
    In an election held today, Obama would probably win by around 5-7 points or so. It's what you'd expect given the extremely favorable national climate for Democrats.

    I'd also be surprised if Obama manages to lose this election. The GOP needs a game-changer. Other than something currently unknown, their best ammunition would seem to be personal, not political--Obama's church and ties to Rezko. Despite the saturation coverage it got, there are still a lot of people who don't know about either.

    to me, Ayers and Dohrn are (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:39:50 PM EST
    more likely to interest currently uninformed voters.

    Parent
    R's will no doubt resurrect (none / 0) (#133)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:04:12 PM EST
    Wright and Rez in trying to negatively define O, but it's not likely to have the impact such attacks have had for the GOP in past elections (2004, 1988).

    We do have a Repub Recession people are concerned about, every day.  Wright and Rezko will be trifling irrelevancies compared to people's basic fears about making ends meet in the Republican economy.

    McCain might get a small bump from his VP pick, if it's a dynamic one.

    But, barring another stolen election by the GOP -- the 3d in a row -- always a possibility, this election is going to be Dems all the way.

    Parent

    Heh. We'll see what happens after... (none / 0) (#182)
    by cosbo on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:41:51 AM EST
    Fox News makes Larry Sinclair into watercooler conversations all across America. I think the GOP is going straight for the dirt. They have absolutely  no choice and they're good at it. FUD. Dirt.

    Parent
    This is the argument? (none / 0) (#115)
    by lambertstrether on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:49:16 PM EST
    1. McCain has to be consistent

    2. The press will call him to account if he isn't.

    Dubious on both counts, I would say.

    Of course, Obama's got more money than God, so he should be alright....

    Expecting consistency (none / 0) (#126)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:58:01 PM EST
    and even-handed treatment from the media... Sounds pretty dubious for sure...

    Besides money he's got a snarky wit. Personally, I'm looking forward to the debate moment where he gets a dig in at McCain that makes that famous temper of his blow up on national tv.

    Parent

    "more money than god"... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:43:33 PM EST
    not anymore...

    Parent
    BTD, this one's for you. Telephone (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:30:05 PM EST
    poll taker asked if my opinio of McCain and/or NYT was impacted by the McCain/female lobbyist article.  

    What company? (none / 0) (#153)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:31:13 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't know. Questions started (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:33:31 PM EST
    out general:  Wash. Post, USA Today, WSJ, BBC, NYT, internet.  But the specific questions dealt with Judith Miller, Jason Blair, and the McCain article.  Also, in my opinion, is the NYT's editorial page driven by the need to make a profit!

    Parent
    Word to the wise (none / 0) (#161)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:36:13 PM EST
    when you get polled, ask who's conducting the poll, and who's sponsoring it. It makes your report more interesting.

    Parent
    The caller told me the name of the company. (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:37:26 PM EST
    She couldn't pronounce "neutral" among other words, so I don't think she had a dog in the hunt, so to speak.

    Parent
    Sounds like Push & Co. (none / 0) (#158)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:33:35 PM EST
    if that was all they asked (and if they described the article).

    Parent
    Well, I got off a few riffs on NYT holding (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:35:44 PM EST
    info about telecomms cooperating with Bush admin. re warrantless wiretapping and NYT coverage of runup to Iraq invasion.  Then I got to respond to the specific questions on the same issues.  

    Parent
    Rest of Rasmussen today (none / 0) (#176)
    by delacarpa on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:41:45 PM EST
    New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points 50 to 42 says the daily tracking poll today. McCain does better with Obama when the leaning votes are used. That doesn't bode well for either one of them.

    New York Times CBS Poll on Favorability (none / 0) (#198)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:30:06 AM EST
    This poll shows a racial divide: 83% of blacks and only 31% of whites favor Obama. This is on favorability only. The article says Americans are sharply divided on race. Will that ultimately impact the outcome of the election?

    http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080716/POLITICS-USA-POLITICS-POLL-RACE-DC/

    I agree that Obama will win (none / 0) (#201)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:28:03 AM EST
    And I think the overriding reason is the unprecedented vacuum of criticism against him. McCain won't go after him, the media won't go after him, even the late night comedians won't go after him. Even satirical political cartoons are not allowed if he is the subject. I have never before seen a politician so protected.

    There are other reasons (like McCain's campaign sucking and the anti-republican mood of the country) but I believe the main one is that no one dares to attack Obama.

    Never so protected (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:32:30 AM EST
    Actually, the only thing being protected is the media's collective a**. Nobody wants to be labeled racist, and the O campaign has made it clear that pretty much any criticism WILL be seen through those rainbow-hued glasses. heh.

    All it takes is one incident (of harsh criticism the O campaign attacks as racist), for one paper of record - or network - to turn around and say 'Hey, this is a legitimate gripe - pulling the race card won't help you here', to provide a window for the others to rally behind and push the race card back where it belongs: Behind glass and USED ONLY FOR REAL CASES.

    This will either happen during the election cycle or during his presidency, but it WILL happen eventually.

    Parent

    WaPo Poll: Obama By 8 Over McCain | 205 comments (205 topical)