home

Static Race: Obama By 5

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:26:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The CNN poll, Gallup tracking poll and the latest Ras poll demonstrate a static race - Obama has held a steady 5 point lead now for about a week.

Ras writes:

Those results have been identical for three straight days as the campaign has entered a period of amazing stability. With leaners, Obama has been at 49% for eleven straight days and at either 48% or 49% for twenty straight days.

This looks like a 5 point race to me, all the way to November.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< GOP Columnist: " Clark Is Right" | Obama Says No To Religious Discrimination >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Static Race: Obama By 5 | 131 comments (131 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    People keep bringing up Dukakis's big early lead (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jim J on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:29:05 AM EST
    but polling has improved greatly since then. I believe this is a far more accurate snapshot than polling from a previous era. I agree it's a tight race, and probably a soccer game rather than a basketball game, i.e., a contest to see who can not lose instead of who can win.

    A soccer game? That explains why so few (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    Americans pay attention to politics.

    Parent
    I like the analogy. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM EST
    Obama needs to play like the Spanish team -- ball control, deft passing and a constant (if low-grade) threat to score.

    Germany had no shot in the finals because they never had the freaking ball.

    Parent

    Your comment is totally (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:43:42 AM EST
    off the mark.

    The problem with Dukakis lead had nothing inherent to do with problems in polling.

    Dukakis was, as I recollect, ahead by 17pts in a reliable national poll immediately after the convention. He lost by 8 pts. This is a swing of 25pts.

    Polling is not responsible for this. The Willie Horton ad, Dukakis' rather pathetic answer about what he would do if his wife were raped, and his infamous ride in a tank had everything to do with it.

    By any rational account, he was, in fact, quite popular after the convention. And, after the Republican attack machine took its swipes at him, and because of his own gaffes, he became, in fact, very unpopular.

    Point is: don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

    5pts is nothing in a scheme of things in which 25pt turnarounds are not unusual.

    Parent

    Most every candidate... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Thanin on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:48:39 AM EST
    is quite popular after their convention.  The real story would be a nominee not losing his lead afterward.

    Parent
    I'm not counting anything (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jim J on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    just agreeing with BTD's post.

    Blogs=opinion, folks.

    Parent

    In other words (none / 0) (#83)
    by eric on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    Dukakis was virtually crucified by the media.  That could happen again, btw.

    Parent
    One poll (none / 0) (#95)
    by anydemwilldo on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:37:30 AM EST
    The "17 points" meme is based on the biggest lead Dukakis ever showed, I believe.  I obviously don't have composite numbers from 1988 handy, but his lead after the convention was sizeable but not (obviously) insurmountable.

    If Obama goes on to lose this election, for example, his lead from these last weeks will probably be remembered as "15 points" based on the outlier polls last week.

    Obama is doing very well, but he's not putting the election away early.  Nor will he -- the country is more polarized now than it was in the 80's.  A Reagan-style landslide just isn't in the cards.

    Parent

    You seem to assume that (none / 0) (#44)
    by tree on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:59:50 AM EST
    Dukakis had a large lead only because of bad polling. I'd say that the Willy Horton ads, the other Republican campaign tactics had  much more more to do with the erasure of Dukakis' lead that year. Bad polling would imply that either the polling right before the November election was inaccurate (it wasn't), or that the quality of polling suddenly improved from June to November of that year, which is highly unlikely.  

    Parent
    You forget two things (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:14:15 AM EST
    -- the Duke had an outstanding and dynamic convention and speech, incredible as that sounds.  Second, people weren't warmly embracing the rather peculiar preppy VP of Reagan.  So those July polling numbers, while somewhat exaggerated, probably reflected accurately the strong Dem advantage at that point in the race.

    But no one here has mentioned that Duke lost the election in the 2-3 weeks following the convention when, after just a day post-convention on the stump, he inexplicably decided to reverse course and leave the campaign trail to return to Boston to govern.  That's when he sort of went into a shell, failed to complete the job he'd started well in definining himself to the public, and utterly refused to rebut when the Repubs began defining him.  

    1988 was our election to lose (though to a lesser extent than in this Repub Recession Election of today) and our guy did just about everything he could to ensure we lost.  Strange fella the Dukester.

    Parent

    I forgot nothing. (none / 0) (#116)
    by tree on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:01:06 AM EST
    I was responding to Jim, who was implying that Dukakis' lead was merely the product of bad polling methods. Your response should have been to him. I generally agree with your assessment of the 1988 campaign. My point was only that it is folly to assume that the polling in early 1988 was bad or faulty, and that the polling methods of today allow one to ignore, or deny, the lessons of 1988.

    Parent
    Other reasons why 1988 polling may (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    not be a guide....

    There is much more information out there now.  In 1988, there was no internet, only one cable channel of note, and the Big Three Networks dominated the news....

    Big swings in polling could represent an electorate absorbing new information....It will be more difficult to bring anything new to this election newswise....Sure, many may not pay all that much attention but there is still alot more information out there and greater knowledge...

    Rasmussen showed a very, very static race in 2004, Swiftboaters nothwithstanding.  No more than 2-3% Bush lead throughout, and Kerry's high water mark was a 2.8% lead for one week right after the Democratic Convention....And Rasmussen was right on the money in 2004.

    Parent

    Causal fallacy (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jim J on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:04:10 AM EST
    Obviously, the polling could have been bad AND Dukakis could have made some missteps.

    In any case, your guess is as good as mine, there's no way to prove it either way.

    Blogs=opinions, people. Adjust accordingly.

    Parent

    No, my point was not (none / 0) (#94)
    by tree on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:36:53 AM EST
    that Dukakis made some missteps, so therefore the polling must have been good. That would be a causal fallacy, but it isn't what I am saying.

     My point was that, if the polling was accurate right before the election, and it was, as it closely matched the actual results of the election, then the polling in November was, by definition, NOT bad. If the polling in November was not bad, then one of two things could be said about the polling that year. Either it was roughly accurate at earlier times during the campaign year, or the polling accuracy improved between June and November. (Ignoring for the moment the truism that as any election, even one held today, progresses, people get more sure of their votes, thus assuring more  polling accuracy regardless of methodology.) I see no reason to assume that the polling methods  suddenly improved in the fall of 1988, and your mention of improved methods over the past 20 years has no bearing on that question.

     I would also remind you that some of those "improved" methods over the years have been necessary because of the changing nature of technology and voter behavior. The universality of cell phones, answering machines, caller ID, and other technological advances and lifestyle changes have made it more difficult over the years to get a proper rndom sample for polls. Methods had to improve merely to maintain the same kind of accuracy more easily obtainable in the past.  

    Parent

    Dukakis (none / 0) (#72)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    lost so convincingly because Republicans successfully portrayed him as a radical liberal, in a time when being a liberal was equivalent to being a communist.
    But the thing with Obama is that people already view him as liberal.  If you look at polls where they ask the respondent for a word that best describes the candidate, the word "liberal" is number one for Obama. Which is why his dash to the center is confusing to me.

    Parent
    Dukakis analogy is accurate (none / 0) (#59)
    by Exeter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    because he is an unknown commodity. Of course he could also do better as people get to know him better.

    Parent
    A win's a win, so five's fine. (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:32:28 AM EST
    I do think, however, that Obama has a not insignificant debate bounce coming in the fall.  He's not a debating wizard by any means, but McCain is even worse, and the visual contrast between young and vigorous and, well, McCain will be helpful.

    Standard caveats about early forecasting apply, of course.

    I doubt (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:34:35 AM EST
    that much of a bounce is coming for either candidate. And I think things are going to get worse for Obama in the fall. Right now the GOP has been holding their fire for the most part.

    Parent
    I keep wondering, what if? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:14:17 AM EST
    What if the right doesn't raise any money and can't mount an effective onslaught against Obama? It could happen. Obviously, McCain doesn't expect a huge fundraising advantage, or he wouldn't be taking public financing.

    What if a significant number of right wingers simply decided that they hate McCain more than they hate Obama, and McCain has to defend himself on both fronts? That's not completely implausible - McCain, like Kerry, gets a lot of criticism from veteran's who object to his surviving imprisonment instead of dying for his country.

    What if the Obama campaign is able to attack McCain as effectively as they attacked Clinton? They were pretty ruthless. Okay, totally ruthless. I don't think the "race-baiter" technique will work again, although it might be continued to diminished the effectiveness of some of McCain's supporters. But they still have the internet at their disposal.  Will the same "whisper" techniques work when the population they need to reach is not composed largely of young, computer-savvy people?

    What if the onslaught comes and Obama effectively defends himself? They must have some kind of defense team in place - they already came up with the web site, which is a good idea. They have also had a quick response to attacks. Of course, Obama has screwed up more than one, over-defending, but that is fixable.

    Of course, this is dreaming. The right will have plenty of money for attacks, and will use it. They will rein in the more extreme fanatics who will be attacking McCain and unify against Obama, who will attack McCain back and help make this the dirtiest campaign in history - even as he claims the high ground. The entire election is going to be about spin - who can spin their opponent as the less qualified person. So far Obama has managed to avoid the "experience" issue by running for change, even as he changes his positions for standard centrist views.

    Parent

    Yes we know from experience (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by zyx on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:16:39 AM EST
    that Republican candidates who are not good in debates are doomed to lose in November. <sarcasm alert>

    Parent
    yeah, I agree (none / 0) (#11)
    by tben on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM EST
    The more Obama and McCain are seen side by side, the more it will become clear which represents the future and which the past. Both the convention and the debates may well provide additional step-ups.

    Parent
    I wonder what color stage background (none / 0) (#13)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:38:51 AM EST
    the GOP will go with in Minneapolis... ;)

    Parent
    St. Paul....not Mpls. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:02:48 AM EST


    Parent
    whoops, I always do that. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:08:07 AM EST


    Parent
    No problem (none / 0) (#91)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:35:15 AM EST
    The generic "Twin Cities" or as they say around here, "the Cities"  will always do in a pinch when one is not sure.

    -speaking only for me, and not all Minnesotans (snark)

    Parent

    I went to college in Northfield. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    So I should know better.

    Parent
    National polls are meaningless, though (none / 0) (#65)
    by Exeter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:11:58 AM EST
    Especially this year with the sharp regional divides.

    Parent
    5 Points in November is enough (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    to win.

    Except that it's a statistical tie (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    and not a 5-point lead because of the MOE of the poll, says CNN.  MOE matters.

    Parent
    When every single poll is saying (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:43:32 AM EST
    that there's a 5 point lead, I believe it.

    Parent
    Except (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:54:40 AM EST
    it IS NOT November.

    Parent
    No $hit (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:57:43 AM EST


    Parent
    Unless all the pollsters ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    are making the same mistake.  And they easily could be.

    Parent
    cx: Not necessarily a 5-point lead (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:41:04 AM EST
    based on the MOE, etc.

    Parent
    yeah, didn't you find that hilarious? (none / 0) (#24)
    by tben on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    Its true, technically - since the MOE in most of these polls is +-4 pts, at least, and that needs to be applied to both numbers.
    Which means, of course, that most poll results that you see are technically "tied" - in that you cant say with 95% certainty that the ranges for the two candidates dont overlap unless there is an 8 pt lead.

    But how often are these polls reported as ties whenever the lead is less than 6 or 8 pts? Almost never. Only when Obama is ahead, apparantly.

    As BTD points out, there is a rather remarkable consistency in several major polls, all pointing to a 5 or 6 pt lead. The only real variants from that show the lead even bigger. We are sitting pretty for now.

    Parent

    Any less than (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:56:47 AM EST
    a 10 point lead for Obama right now is terrible. He's in big trouble. 5 point is nothing in a race that has not even started.

    Parent
    I agree. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    This lead is worrisome. It should be a larger lead, given the county's mood.

    Parent
    Haha, you should be CNN's headline writer (none / 0) (#79)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:20:55 AM EST
    Taken from National Council On Public Polls:
    But it should not be called a "dead heat" unless the candidates are tied with the same percentages. And it certainly is not a "statistical tie" unless both candidates have the same exact percentages.
    ...
    When the gap between the two candidates is more than the error margin but less than twice the error margin, you should say that Candidate A "is ahead," "has an advantage" or "holds an edge.


    Parent
    You should read the CNN headline (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:41:11 AM EST
    which, allow me to note, I did not write.

    And then read the rest of the CNN story.

    Parent

    Okay.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by jtaylorr on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    "CNN poll: Obama, McCain in a statistical dead heat"
    -Obama holds a 5-point advantage
    -Margin of error 3.5 points
    Therefore, according to National Council On Public Polls, the headline should be "Obama is ahead" or "Obama has an advantage"

    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:33:17 AM EST
    know about the "until November" part but I certainly think it's going to be a close race to the end. That's why I've been saying that the election is going to be about "who do you hate more" and "who is worse". Either Obama or McCain can squeak into office in Nov. It might also be an election where people are voting against either candidate and not for either.

    Some people, sure. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:37:10 AM EST
    But Obama's got a pretty huge lead in supporter enthusiasm right now, if the polls are to be trusted.  Like it or not, most of Obama's supporters really do like him, and will be voting for him as opposed to against McCain.

    Parent
    Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:43:38 AM EST
    supporters? Yeah I'm sure that they are enthusiastic about him. It's the rest of the voters that I'm talking about. His supporters alone aren't enough to win an election.

    Parent
    OK... so look at fav/unfav ratings. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:47:54 AM EST
    Both candidates score quite well, which would indicate that your opinion, to which you're perfectly entitled, isn't all that widely shared.

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    fav/unfav don't mean a lot. Kerry had good favorables until the GOP went after him.

    Parent
    Kerry (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:51:29 AM EST
    Had no real primary opponent after Iowa.  Obama ran a contested primary campaign through June.  You can't really compare the two.  Honestly I feel almost as if the primary was the G.E. and now we're in "sleep mode" until november because everyone is tired from the drawn out primary.
    Obviously things will pick up again in the fall, but it's not as if Obama hasn't been under the spotlight until now.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#140)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:03:20 PM EST
    the strength of his support among the Faculty Lounge crowd has dimmed somewhat due to Obama's position of FISA.

    Parent
    Right. But they have not increased in number. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:48:14 AM EST
    That's the problem. He has a very very excited base of support. The same ones that voted for him throughout the primary. It's all those other millions he's not getting.  That's the problem.

    Parent
    He's gotten enough to have a lead. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:51:25 AM EST
    The fact that he hasn't (yet) gotten enough to win by a landslide is a good problem to have, IMO.  I'd rather be trying to convince Dems to come home than trying to convince indies to break 2-1 for me, which is what McCain needs to do.

    Parent
    But he's allegedly had a lead (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM EST
    against McCain most of the time. and +5 after your opponent drops out is rather small, don't you think? I find it weird that it's not higher. It seems like he's not reaching those middle voters he never got in the primary any more now than he did then. I think it's a big problem. Especially since these things always tighten up rather than get bigger.

    Parent
    Before Clinton ended her bid (none / 0) (#51)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    McCain-Obama was a tie.  The unity bounce wasn't as big as it might have been, but it did happen.  It accounts for Obama's current margin.

    Parent
    And some polls had him up by more than 10. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:23:13 AM EST
    I recall Obama supporters claiming them as his electability argument. We can all find polls that go with what we want.  However, a 5 pt lead this early is indeed worrisome for him.  His "bounce" should have been much bigger.

    Parent
    Independants (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:04:31 AM EST
    I think it's dangerous to under estimate McCain's success with the independant. His "maverick" image has always served him well with that group.

    Parent
    well it's odd then (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:07:27 AM EST
    that Obama isn't spending much time trying to convince dems to come home and is instead trying to go after the indies with his religion schtick and other turns to the right

    Parent
    As it has been (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    mentioned repeatedly on the blogs. Obama doesn't need to court us. We have nowhere to go. For those dead headers that don't get with his program, he has plan B in motion! (Fundies, neocons and Independants) Snark snark snark

    Parent
    Somehow I do not find (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    "you have nowhere else to go" a compelling argument to get me to vote for Obama. One it is a false statement (3rd Party options) and two I don't have to go anywhere unless I chose to and that includes the voting booth. So I hope they find a "fundie" replacement for me.

    What I do think is that this tactic is a rather stupid one on the part of the New Democratic Party.  

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:57:41 AM EST
    I always thought it was the strategy to secure your base and then go after the fringe. Just goes to show what I know!

    Parent
    Nowhere else to go (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    I've come to think this was never an argument meant to convince the bulk of Clinton supporters to support Obama.  It was cover aimed at Dem-leaning undecideds with the message:  don't believe all those folks who say they won't support him!  In other words -- he's not a loser!  No, really, he's not!

    Very often undecideds will flock onto the winning bandwagon or flock away from the losing one once a side reaches critical mass, or the perception of it.

    This was perception spin.  The DNC doesn't care one bit about losing chunks of the loyal base, or whether they come back or not.  They'd be just as happy to win with fundies, if they can get them.

    Parent

    Personally, I think Clinton (none / 0) (#62)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:11:38 AM EST
    is going to be his running mate.  And I think that'll pretty much take care of his lingering problem with Dems.

    If not, they've still got a loooong time to get stuff done before November.

    Parent

    well, putting Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:16:23 AM EST
    on the ticket is the ONLY way I'll vote for him.  I want to see Obama's most rabid supporters (who hate Hillary) hane to suck it up and accept her for the good of the country and the supreme court like they keep telling Clinton supporters to do.

    Parent
    But November was only a short time away (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:27:42 AM EST
    when they were trying to get Clinton to get out of the race. They were running out of time then! Remember? Now we've got plenty of time?  LOL. No matter. I'm going to vote for him regardless. But let's not kid ourselves. This lead is miniscule. The shine has come off Obama and it is not coming back.

    Parent
    Not really so relevant (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:52:56 AM EST
    at this point, and not so true, either.

    Their favorability ratings are very close, and have been stable for a while.  Obama has higher 'very favorables' but he also has higher 'very unfavorables.'  Rasmussen polls favorability in their daily polls.  Today they're tied at 56% Favorable and 42% Unfavorable.

    Enthusiasm of supporters is only important now in relation to GOTV.  In the GE, each vote is counted the same.

    Parent

    Favorability =! supporter enthusiasm. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:57:05 AM EST
    Regardless, re: the practical effects, I agree.  I was just countering the idea that this will be a "lesser of two evils" election for most voters.  It might turn out that way, but it certainly isn't there yet.

    Parent
    To clarify, I'm talking about this: (none / 0) (#43)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:59:46 AM EST
    Even among voters who said they planned to vote for McCain, more than half said they were "not enthusiastic" about their chosen candidate; 45% said they were enthusiastic. By contrast, 81% of Obama voters said they were enthusiastic, and almost half called themselves "very enthusiastic," a level of zeal found in 13% of McCain's supporters.

    That's from the last LA Times polls, which was an outlier (Obama +12) but even assuming a correction that a huge difference.

    Parent

    Yes, they are different (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:51:54 AM EST
    Honestly, I think I was reacting to an argument you weren't really making.  Sorry.

    Parent
    Enthusiastic supporters (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    still get one vote, just like late deciders.

    Reminds me of those report cards that, in addition to the grade for actual performance, have a grade for effort.  Effort is important, of course, by students or by supporters (in this case, often, one and the same).

    But the effort grade doesn't count.  The performance grade is all that counts.

    Parent

    Enthusiasm levels in a campaign (none / 0) (#108)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:51:10 AM EST
    and lack of same are indeed relevant -- they tend to measure the extent to which voters for a candidate will show up to vote at all or show up not to vote for their party's nominee.  See 1992.  Or perhaps 2000 (advantage Rs).

    Dems enjoy a huge Enthusiasm Gap right now, which I expect will largely last until Nov.  That should translate into a Dem victory.

    Parent

    The enthusiasm gap (none / 0) (#118)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    is really only felt by half the party, though.  The Dems have an internal enthusiasm gap of their own.

    One thing Rasmussen regularly polls on (although not daily) is what percent say their support could change before November -- right now it's at about 30%, which, according to them is fairly high (or 'volatile' is the word they keep using).  It's been around 30% since the beginning of June.  They didn't poll on it today and I can't find the historical polls, so no link.

    And even that outlier poll that had Obama up by 12-15 points -- I think it was the NBC poll -- showed only 53% of Clinton supporters had moved to Obama.

    I really can't see that Obama hasn't pretty much maxed out his appeal on the enthusiasm front.  In his own party, the voters he's getting now are not coming to him out of excitement, but because they'll not vote for a Republican.  Indies are not rushing to his side either.  

    Slightly ot: anyone here read Snow Crash?  I just realized much of Obama's support reminds me of L. Bob Rife.

    Parent

    Or it could be an election determined by who (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:44:37 AM EST
    stays home.....or by people like me who will write in Hillary.  

    Parent
    All the way to November? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:34:44 AM EST
    How can you possibly say that?  A lot of things will happen between now and November, and there are always people who waver, so the numbers will no doubt fluctuate.

    How about we (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:37:38 AM EST
    wait until we see what the Republican attack machine goes into gear until we declare the race "static"?

    If the history of Presidential politics teaches us anything, it's that the true and firm popular approval of a Democratic candidate new to the national scene is not even known until the attack machine takes its whacks.

    Based on (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:38:48 AM EST
    Bush's approval rating and the level of discontent in the country, compounded with the economic down turn, I would have expected a bigger lead. This election should never have been a horse race. (But then I never thought Bush would win in 2000 or 2004).

    It seems that as soon as HRC (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    left the race, so did most of the interest in it.  Suddenly I'm not hearing about it everywhere. It was to the point during the primaries that I was hearing random people on subways, waiting rooms, the street discussing it. Now, not so much. People seem to have gone back to their low level of interest in political races.

    You are so right! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    Even I've been a little bored.

    Frankly, I am sick that Obama's lead is only 5 points, because the heat hasn't even been turned on. I think the Republicans are going to choke the crap out of him. I thought if he had a bigger lead, he might survive gasping to the finish line. I seem to remember feeling pretty confident about Kerry until the Conventions and then everything turned. In a year where being are almost embarrassed about saying they are Republicans, Obama should be doing a lot better. What happened to his Mojo? It was actually diminshing at the end of the Primaries, and I don't see him reversing that trend yet.

    Parent

    You are so right (none / 0) (#98)
    by delacarpa on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:40:09 AM EST
    The squeeze is coming. Picture an ad that shows McCain laying on a gurney looking at the camera side by side with Obama with his arm around Wright. It is coming the GOP ads, just a question before the Nov. convention or after the convention. Lost interest around May 31th.

    Parent
    I don't think anyone (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:52:39 AM EST
    can say that this will be a 5 point race from now until November. Especially given that the race has not even started.

    I remember many people saying the primaries would be over after New Hampshire while I was saying they wouldn't because people wanted their voices heard and were not going to let two little states quiet their voices.

    This race will not be a static 5 point race and besides it is not the popular vote that will decide it anyway. Let's be realistic - given the built in anti-Bush advantage that the Dems have Obama should be ahead by 10-15 points at this beginning juncture. The fact that he isn't is cause for major concern for Obama supporters.

    And the long knives have not even come out yet. The campaigning has not even started. The GOP slime machine has barley started their engines and the media is just beginning to develop their story line.

    If Obama's poor performance in the Clark/McCain dustup is any indicator of how this election will go that 5 point national lead is about as sure a bet of holding as Big Brown was winning the Triple Crown.

    5 points! On the heels of a complete Dem blowout in 2006? 5 points! That is the best head start Obama can muster? 5 points can evaporate overnight. 5 points is barley outside the polling margin or error.

    No no no. This race has a long way to go and at minimum we must wait for the starting gun to sound before proclaiming a static and unchanging 5 point  Obama win.

    I see it far more likely that just like Big Brown Obama will limp to the finish line out of the money - just another example in a long string of examples of just how inept the Dems are in picking their nominee.

    once again, i must play (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:54:48 AM EST
    chops buster. oh well, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it!

    let me just refresh everyone's memory:

    the "campaign", as far as sen. obama is concerned, has not yet begun. last time i checked, he'd not been nominated for anything, except maybe school crossing guard.

    as such, those 3 polls, plus a buck, will get you a small coffee at mcdonald's. actually, the coffee's worth more than the aggregate value of the polls.

    wake me when the conventions are done, and the actual campaign starts. oh, don't forget to bring cream & sugar for the republican 527's, who will gleefully rip sen. obama a new one, politically speaking, of course.

    heard the new one, about sen. obama's preferential loan treatment? it'll be playing across tv screens everywhere, starting the end of august.

    ok, i lied, i enjoy busting chops! sue me! lol

    Maybe you don't get the fact that not everyone (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Angel on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST
    has jumped on the unity bandwagon.  Just because Obama has a D beside his name is not enough reason to vote for him.  I think an Obama administration will be a disaster.  McCain will be a disaster as well.  Why would I vote for a disaster?  I'd rather stay home so I don't have that on my conscience.  

    Period of amazing stability? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:59:03 AM EST
    A week? "This looks like a 5 point race to me, all the way to November."

    Come on. Rasmussen is simply spinning to sell a product - providing a handy headline for all of the media outlets who may buy these poll results to put under a handy headline on page 8 -"Presidential race in period of stability". But you have to be smart enough to realize that a 5 point lead now does not mean a 5 point lead throughout the race, and that the odds of Obama taking McCain by 5 points in November are infinitely small.

    The media will decide this race (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by joanneleon on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    IMHO, the media and the Republican party worked to choose the Democratic candidate, so that our candidate would be the one who is most vulnerable to media manipulation.  They chose Obama.  Now they will begin the work of swinging the election to McCain.  It will be subtle until after the convention, and then we'll see their real work begin.  Therefore, the polls in June are pretty irrelevant.

    and the media and the repugs (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    aren't really going to go after Obama at full throttle until AFTER the convention when it will be too late for the dems to change the nominee.

    Parent
    History and Political awareness. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by dianem on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:33:38 AM EST
    Recent history and political trends show that our nation is split about 50/50 politically. Unless there is a spoiler who draws a significant portion of the vote, the odds of any candidate winning by more than one or two points are quite slim.

    The right wing has an unpopular leader and candidate, and the left has a popular but controversial candidate. The right wing has a national machine in place that is quite effective, and the Democrats don't. Yes, I know, Obama has a lot of college kids and clack churches behind him - and that will give him an advantage Kerry and Gore didn't have. But the right's machine has been working for a decade, while the Dem machine is composed of groups of people who have as little experiencer running an election as Obama does leading anything. Look at the caucuses - Obama won based on sheer enthusiasm, not because he drew massive numbers out. The caucus strategy won't work in a general election - enthusiasm doesn't win general elections, organization does. Axelrod threw down the gauntlet and Rove picked it up. This is going to be a battle of epic proportions between the two of them: The king of kingmakers v. the upstart who wants to replace him.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    I will take the easy route, and go on record as predicting that this will not be a static race.  More people are paying attention this year than in most years, but still, you can't take June trends as probative of what will happen when things really heat up.

    Also, it always bothers me when people don't understand the concept of margin of error.  A 5-point lead is not a "statistical tie," even if it's within the margin of error.  Doesn't the most trusted name in news have anyone who understands statistics?

    Simple answer to simple questions (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    No.

    Parent
    Again, it's going to be (none / 0) (#101)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:44:26 AM EST
    an "It's the Economy, stupid" election, only more so even than 1992.  Gas prices are a daily reminder of the middle class's serious economic anxieties.  Poor job numbers and declining RE market and stock market.  

    Things look like they won't turn around at all for Repubs come November.

    I'll take 5 pts now as being fairly accurate -- and add a couple more, at least, in the final days for our side as late deciders (who are always a factor) determine on the basis of the stark depressing Repub Recession the final near-landslide margin of victory for Obama.

    Parent

    I find it amusing (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:52:18 AM EST
    that you claim to know in July the basis on which the late deciders will move.  Even considering the ludicrous degree of certainty you always attempt to display, that sets a new high.

    I would be much more confident that the economy will be the dispositive factor if Obama would spend more time linking the state of the economy to Republican policies like the Bush deficits, and less time trying to score points with conservative voters by denouncing MoveOn.org.  If we don't do what it takes to drive a stake through the heart of Reaganomics, if we try to coast to victory through a degree of microtargeting that would make Mark Penn blush, then these same nation-wrecking policies will come right back to life the next time Republicans hold power.

    Obama needs to make this election a referendum on Republican economic policy, and not simply assume it will work out that way without any effort on his part.

    Parent

    Oh my level of certainty is not much (none / 0) (#120)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:08:11 AM EST
    different from most posters here, including you.  But I think you really object not to my confidence level in my views but to the views themselves.

    As to the economy, you keep going on about O's need to talk economy all the time, but you forget that most of the work about talking economy is already being done every day as ordinary citizens go about their daily lives and see how things are going seriously south in this deepening Republican Recession.  In that sense, Obama really isn't compelled right now, in early July, to make the sorry economy his official #1 focus each day -- the facts on the ground are already doing that on his political behalf.

    Right now, 7 weeks before just the convention, he feels there's a need to shore up some candidate ID matters -- and here I can't disagree, not with his unusual profile.

    But from time to time until Denver, then in the 8-9 wks after that, there will be numerous opportunities to drive home the points about this Recession.  But right now it isn't unreasonable for him to try to make himself known as a non-radical moderate-centrist type.

    My only complaint is that the otherwise capable Gen Clark accidentally stepped in the way of the campaign's messaging ...    

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#146)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    It is only a Republican Recession if we brand it that way.

    People wanted a break from Republican management of the economy in 1992, but we didn't fully drive home the extent to which Republican deficit spending practices created long-term problems for the economy - and so, as a result, as soon as the Republicans retook power we got the same old policies.

    Here we are in 2008, still having to listen to crap about how tax cuts pay for themselves.  The present economic circumstances offer us a golden opportunity to win all these arguments once and for all, but only if we actively define our mandate in those terms.

    Your oft-expressed confidence that Obama will talk about everything I want him to talk about, just that the time and place isn't right at the moment, is entirely faith-based and therefore not reassuring.  It's clear that your only purpose here is to offer the same one-note post about how whatever Obama happens to be doing right now is sheer genius and will inevitably lead to victory.

    Parent

    After reading this thread (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    I do want to make a general response - to wit, McCain's campaign has proven incredibly inept and seems to have no rhyme or reason.

    The Media protected him vis a vis clark and he still fumbled the ball. He is losing on all the issues and seems unable or unwilling to get tough on the "character" question.

    There is nothing else that can win this election for him and he seems to be weak and whiny.

    McCain looks a sure loser to me UNLESS his campaign goes nasty. It is his only chance.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    the defining moment of McCain's campaign to date has been the feeble "green screen" speech.

    I confess I never expected this, after seeing how impressively Bush's two campaigns were run.

    Right now, McCain is simply not offering anything.  The onus is very much on him to get his campaign out of this rut.

    Parent

    His TV ads are pretty good (none / 0) (#131)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:42:58 AM EST
    but that's about it.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jeannie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 01:29:00 PM EST
    you are under-estimating the GOP. They are staying low, low-key, and staying out of the spotlight as part of a plan. They don't want to do anything to upset the Dems and to lose Obama as the candidate. Because O and Hillary were so close, there is still an offside chance of her winning at the convention if Obama is attacked now and his numbers go south.
    So the GOP is being quiet, collecting over 1000 pages of stuff on Obama, and will let lose as soon as the convention is over and the Dems can't change their minds.
    It is my opinion that he is a weak candidate, and the Republicans are ecstatic - they didn't think they had a hope this year.....

    Parent
    Republicans going nasty is just SOP (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:01:43 AM EST
    Although I do think that most of the hard core nastiness will come from the 527s rather than from McCain .

    I do agree that McCain is being clumsier than I expected him to be in his talking points and tactics.

    Parent

    Maybe McCain's ineptness in (none / 0) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:12:49 AM EST
    campaigning is just a big fake-out to lull the Dems into complacency.

    Ha!  I don't actually believe that, but it's just as plausible as the meme that Obama is a super-secret progressive playing Right-side possum for now only to throw off the disguise and become SuperLiberalMan after he's elected.

    Parent

    Swiftboating came after the conventions (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    in 2004.  With conventions so late this year, it is hard to predict when it will come -- but it might again be in August, without waiting for the convention.

    Too soon for swiftboating now, I think, as it leaves enough time to correct untruths.  The GOP is just holding its fire -- but it is storing up ammo, I am confident of that.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#160)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:58:04 AM EST
    McCain's campaign has been quite ineffective so far.

    On the other hand, there's an apparent shakeup happening, so they realize it.

    Parent

    Poll Numbers (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    I would think that if Obama abandoned his "personal responsibility" campaign and talked of the issues that matter to everyone, his poll numbers would be signifiacantly higher. I don't think most American's want to here that right now. Food and energy costs, foreclosure and loss of jobs are really what they care about. None of these issues has even the remotest connection to personal responsibility. Maybe he's saving his ammo for September but I would prefer he started sooner as opposed to later.

    This site is getting boring... (3.00 / 2) (#60)
    by tben on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    Lets see...

    The sky is falling. Obama should be winning by 20 pts. The slime machine is gonna get him. Woe is us. WE SHOULDA NOMINATED HILLARY.

    Thats really all one finds 'round here anymore. Over and over and over again. Do you guys not get tired of writing the same thing?

    Not only are you not convincing anyone of anything, y'all are just sounding more and more like the ranter on the corner, carrying the sign.

    May I suggest that y'all might get back in touch with your interesting sides by starting to look at the race with fresh eyes - try to see it for what it really is, rather than just one long playing out of your frustrations and disappointments.

    I'm not sure Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Lil on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:13:43 AM EST
    would have a much better lead at this point, but she is not the candidate. Obama is, and he's not inspiring a great deal of confidence from some of us. Some of us have moved on from HRC for now and are looking for Obama to lead...not happening yet.

    Parent
    Then it will be no skin off your nose (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:16:44 AM EST
    when I ban you from my threads,,as I am doing now.

    You are free to comment in Jeralyn and TChris' posts of course but comment no further in mine.

    Your further comments in my posts will be deleted.

    Parent

    thanks BTD (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    I was just going to suggest to tben that they post with something other than their current tone....no need now.

    Parent
    It's because the race is boring for many of us (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    We have a Democratic whose speeches put us to sleep. Every day he moves closer to the center and makes the differences in policy between him and the Republicans smaller and smaller. The Republicans are just dancing around at this point. They're waiting for the convention to really begin campaigning. All they have to do at this point is to sit around collecting YouTube videos of Obama himself to get their ads ready for fall. What is there to be excited about? Criticizing Obama is the only campaign sport there is right now.

    Parent
    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#147)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:49:54 PM EST


    Parent
    tben....and as I have recently learned...if you (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:24:43 AM EST
    disagree with someone....the NO. 2 is what you should punch....

    If he wins (none / 0) (#14)
    by jb64 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:39:22 AM EST
    by 5 points it could well be an electoral landslide

    It is the stability of his lead, not the percent.. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:51:21 AM EST
    ...that I find interesting.  

     McCain is weaker now than he was in 2000 when he ran, but really, it is hard to imagine any of the other GOP candidates even competing as well as he is.  Huckabee? The South.  Mitt? Er...maybe the various states he lived in.  And Idaho.

     I really think McCain would have been close to undefeatable if he had secured the nomination in 2000.  His "maverick" status is the only thing that keeps his candidacy on life support these days.  

    What about the state polls? (none / 0) (#30)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    that I've been reading that show Obama in trouble in MO (Link below). I've always thought he would have trouble there. McCaskill just squeaked a victory out in her Senate bid.

    http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/missouri-and-mccain/

    McCain needs MO, not Obama, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 09:56:49 AM EST
    whose weakness in OH and PA is more concerning.

    Parent
    Is he weak in Penn.? I think most polls show him (none / 0) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:00:56 AM EST
    strong there. I do know that the last 2 Ohio polls were nothing to write home about.

    Parent
    How weak he actually is in PA (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:05:32 AM EST
    depends on whether you think Rasmussen is right to weight by party ID. I think Obama's lead in PA is about the same as his lead nationally.

    Parent
    Ok talex, whatever (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:03:54 AM EST


    Whatever? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:11:55 AM EST
    This year was supposed to be a Dem Blowout. And when you look at 5 points and realistic electoral maps things don't look good for Obama.

    With the positive press honeymoon he has received over the last year plus he should be sailing. He has not even been redefined by the GOP yet so that 5 points is about as safe as snow on a Phoenix sidewalk on an August day.

    Parent

    hahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:16:53 AM EST
    Yes, against Senator McCain, any Dem would be running 10-15 points ahead...sure.  Because 2008 with McCain would be a magic year where the candidate outperformed every Democratic candidate who followed LBJ.

     Maybe against Huckabee or Romney.  But they went down a much safer road this year for a reason.  Honestly it is McCain.  Not Huckabee, not Thompson, not Romney.  McCain the "maverick."

     

    Parent

    Well at least you are (none / 0) (#81)
    by talex on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    being realistic and giving McCain his due.

    Parent
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#85)
    by Alec82 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:30:47 AM EST
    It is a testament to his age, embrace of Bush policies and loss of brand that he isn't five points ahead right now.

     Oh yeah, and the country is on a one way road to inferno.  That certainly helps the D.

     But realistically, this was always going to be close once they chose McCain.  Not because McCain is a stellar candidate but because Brand Maverick McCain is about all the GOP has left to sell the country in a presidential candidate.  He's Teddy Roosevelt '08, as a pundit might opine.  Which is what makes any suggestion that any other Democrat apart from Obama would be performing ten to fifteen points ahead absurd.  The country was in great shape in 2000 and maverick McCain would have made mincemeat out of Gore if he had secured the nomination.

     Giving him his due? As a faux maverick I happily give him all the credit he so richly deserves.

    Parent

    Alec82....what is your take on DINO's like (3.50 / 2) (#126)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    obama?  

    Parent
    You forget how unpopular (none / 0) (#97)
    by brodie on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:39:03 AM EST
    "Maverick" McCain was with the conservative base in 2000.  Even if he'd managed to win out over the Nitwit, he would have gone into the GE with a divided disgruntled party unsure or unhappy about McC's true political leanings.  No Rove also working for McC -- advantage Gore in a much less toxic GE campaign.

    Though, as for today, the Rs did indeed nominate their strongest candidate, no question.  So 5 pts now with our still somewhat unknown guy vs the War Hero who's been worshipped for a decade in the MCM, well I'd call 5 pts pretty darn encouraging.

    Parent

    Hillary's "legacy" (none / 0) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:09:34 AM EST
    have you written off any political future for her now?  Are you working on her obituary as well?

    Picture this (none / 0) (#103)
    by delacarpa on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    and squeeze is coming. Picture an ad that shows McCain laying on a gurney looking at the camera side by side with Obama and his arm around Wright. It is coming the GOP ads, just a question before the Nov. convention or after the convention.

    The picture of McCain (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:55:13 AM EST
    giving Bush a man hug may actually do more damage than Wright.  Bush may have never said God Damn America, but Wright never presided over  the greatest economy in the world going down the gutter.

    Parent
    I don't get all this (none / 0) (#143)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    Yesterday Olbermann pointed out that McCain wants to run on national security/military experience, and Obama is continuing to allow this to be the issue (although I think the Dems scored some points against McCain with the Clark talk about the difference between McCain's particular military experience and what's required of a CIC); the McCain camp, KO pointed out, does not want the focus of public debate to be the economy because he has little to contribute here that's different from the failed current admin. KO's point -- Dems/Obama should be putting discussion of the economy front and center.  Real people, real voters are hurting.  So Obama is talking about service? faith-based initiatives?

    Parent
    National polls vs. state polls (none / 0) (#105)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    State polling is obviously more important than national.  However a lead of five or greater makes in nearly impossible to lose in the electoral college count...

    I think outside of a terrorist attack or "whitey" tape, this lead should hold.  The election may have been decided in the primaries.

    Then there's this one (none / 0) (#122)
    by tree on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    in the Boston Globe:

    Grim Proving Ground for Obama's Housing Policy

    I think this will be more devastating than the preferential loan.

    Yikes (none / 0) (#129)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    Grim indeed.

    I lived in Chicago at the time the Grove Parc opened up.  The problem of big money going to developers but not actually producing long (or even medium) term affordable and livable housing was pretty well known throughout the city.

    Not sure Republicans will want to go there, since they're big private-industry-subsidy fans themselves, but this is a very scary piece.

    Almost as scary -- the Boston Globe was a huge cheerleader for Obama throughout the primaries.  This story would never have appeared before June 3.  Could be the media worm turning.

    Parent

    Your right , the GOP might not (none / 0) (#134)
    by tree on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    go there, because it reflects so poorly on government subsidy of private enterprise. But a 527 might use it to charge that Obama benefited his friends at the great expense of his constituents, and elide over the implications for public policy.

    Parent
    Five points (none / 0) (#133)
    by rbtalk on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    but is that still within the difference that allows the electoral college to say otherwise?

    His lead should be larger (none / 0) (#139)
    by crabbydan on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:02:40 PM EST
    and remember; the repubs. haven't opened their box of toys yet. Nope, all hands will be needed on deck for this one, too.

    V.P. choices will matter this year... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
    ...more than in other years, partly because of McCain's age and Obama's inexperience, and partly because of the split Dem primaries.

    I've noticed that in a lot of the states that SurveyUSA has polled, Obama more often than not loses points when v.p. choices are added to the tickets. Of course, those same polls omit an Obama-Clinton ticket from the match-ups, which is the combo I think would actually boost his ratings among voters.

    Historical precedents... (none / 0) (#155)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:05:52 PM EST
    (non-incumbent beating incumbent or non-incumbent)
    1. FDR over Hoover, +18
    2. Ike over Stevenson, +11
    3. Reagan over Carter, +9
    4. Bush over Dukakis, +8
    1960, 1968, 2000 all even(more or less)
    1992: Clinton +6

    In 1932, 1980, and 1992, a popular and charismatic candidate beat an unpopular incumbent.
    In 1952, a popular war hero beat the candidate from the incumbent party at a time when the incumbent president was very unpopular.
    In 1988, the incumbent president was still fairly popular, and the challenger was ill-prepared for the mudslinging of the campaign.

    In 1960, there was a charisma gap between two roughly evenly-matched candidates, and the more charismatic one edged out the incumbent VP.
    In 1968, the incumbent party was deeply polarized, and the opposition candidate had learned a great deal from his loss in 1960.
    In 2000, the incumbent VP lost by one vote, in the Supreme Court.  He either failed to associate himself more closely with the incumbent, or failed to distance himself enough, depending on whom you ask.

    There are no historical examples from the last 20 elections of a candidate from the incumbent party winning the election when the incumbent president is deeply unpopular.  In the five instances I can think of, the average margin of victory was around 9 points.

    So, I'm going to predict a 6 to 12 point margin of victory for Obama (9 points, plus or minus 3), based simply on historical precedent.  There are other factors which would tend to support this(fundraising, organization, message discipline, etc), but in light of factors which might not(smear campaign, etc.), I think it's as reasonable as any other projection.

    There are no precedents (none / 0) (#159)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:12:32 PM EST
    that help project the turnout this time, I think -- which constituences, how much, etc.  Are there really more AA voters out there than already turned out in the primary?  (pollster.com debate, some pollsters think it already peaked)  Will the youth vote turn out this time?  (precedents aren't good on that)

    Polls don't tell us their turnout projections enough to know if they are basing theirs on precedents or pulling them out of their hats.  Without their turnout projections -- and perhaps a crystal ball -- the precedents simply may not apply this year, based on the most recent precedents we have: the primaries.  We saw how often those polls were off, because pollsters were off on their turnout models.

    Parent

    The status quo @ 5% is a losing (none / 0) (#156)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:24:28 PM EST
    position for Obama. He should be widening the lead on mcinsane. As the race heats up, Obama's campaign will increasingly be in defense of wingnut insanity, smears, and lies mode. He should be building a cushion for the fall.

    Static Race: Obama By 5 | 131 comments (131 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment