home

The Tracking Polls: It's Tied

Ras says it a one point race. Gallup says its tied.

What's it mean? Dirty politics works.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Race Card | Obama Heckled at Speech in Florida >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    Surely Research 2000 will be along soon to save the day.

    One way or the other, the Obama campaign is letting itself get dragged down into the mud.  I don't mean to sound like a typical Democrat here, but I just don't see how we can lose this election if it's about the issues!  Heh.

    If only there were some surprise Obama could pull, some announcement he could make that would consolidate his support and get the focus off all this meaningless tit-for-tat that's been dominating the news.  Any ideas, BTD?

    Maybe Gergen is right...if he keeps dropping (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:46:26 PM EST
    he will have to consider Hillary. Maybe that's what's up with the new more extensive vetting supposedly going on.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    at the very least, a tightening of the race will force the Obama supporters to wake up and get serious.  When you look around, you see way too much triumphalism and counting of the unhatched chickens.  Winning an election is hard work, especially if you're a Democrat.

    Parent
    well that would be smart, but it requires (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:02:59 PM EST
    a change in thinking i no longer believe is possible in the obama campaign.

    Parent
    Clinton insiders say (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by madamab on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    that there is no chance that she will be VP.

    According to Lanny Davis, there are a lot of "misconceptions" about Hillary in the Obama camp which make them completely opposed to her.

    Translation: Michelle says no.

    Parent

    Clinton on the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by magisterludi on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    will bring out moderate reps and the working class of all stripes. I believe this more than ever. Screw the Very Serious People.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:47:06 PM EST
    What's funny about this, (5.00 / 8) (#75)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:18:39 PM EST
    well, maybe not ha ha funny but I digress, is that Obama's losing ground in the polls is not due to republican dirty tricks...

    it's caused by the dumb moves made by the Obama campaign and Obama himself.

    He's "tanking."

    Parent

    You mean. . . (none / 0) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    Any ideas, BTD?

    Fernando Ferrer for VP?

    Parent

    Oh man (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:02:36 PM EST
    Can you imagine the size of the last laugh you and I could have with an Obama/Bloomberg ticket?

    Parent
    From what I know about Bloomberg (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    Which honestly isn't much, I like that ticket a lot.  He certainly seems to have a creativity about solving problems you are unlikely to find in most senators.  Although going from mayor to vp or p seems like a stretch for me.  Even mayor of NY which is why I never understood Guiliani's campaign...

    Parent
    I'd trust Bloomberg on Economics (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:13:22 PM EST
    over Obama or McCain. I find it interesting he never did endorse. On a side note, he's throwing Hil a "Welcome back to NY" party Mon on his own dime. Word is he's proud of her accomplishment.

    Parent
    Cool. (none / 0) (#66)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    It's going to be much more interesting and enjoyable following her career from now on, that's for sure.

    Parent
    not to drift too far OT (5.00 / 10) (#98)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:25:56 PM EST
    but the Primary has effectively killed the Hillary is a Power Hungry B*tch charge once and for all.

    The American People now see her as frighteningly intelligent, tremendously competent, strong, a true fighter who can take MORE than her share of punches and someone who is, surprisingly, just like them in many ways.

    I think Barack's anemic poll numbers indicate what voters were saying loud and clear in the Primary after February:  we've changed our minds and we want Hillary.  Too bad the DNC and the Stupid SDs ignored them.

    I anticipate her to be a hands-on, without-a-doubt favorite to beat an incumbent McCain in 2012.

    Parent

    prediction (5.00 / 7) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    she will emerge from this as the powerhouse in the democratic party.

    Parent
    Senate Majority Leader (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by madamab on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    works for me.

    Someone's gonna have to stand up to McCain.

    Parent

    I don't think it'll happen (none / 0) (#126)
    by CST on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    Not the way the senate works.

    I could see her replacing Ted Kennedy as the "liberal lion" though, someone is going to have to if he doesn't come back...

    I still am hoping for VP, but I no longer think it will happen.

    Parent

    Not the way the Senate works? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by madamab on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    Not following you there.

    Anyway, she can either be President or a Senate powerhouse. Nothing else works for me, personally.

    Parent

    Isn't Senate Majority Leader (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    Based on seniority?

    At least that's what I've read here on many occasions.  I could be wrong, in which case, great.  Ted Kennedy is a powerhouse without being majority leader though.

    Parent

    You know, I thought it had to do (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by madamab on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:46:29 PM EST
    with being elected by your colleagues. Seniority might be the most important factor in that case.

    Maybe I'll teh Google and see what I find. :-)

    Parent

    Seniority has little to do with it (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:57:38 PM EST
    Lyndon was elected Dem leader at the tail end of his FRESHMAN term, ferchrissakes.  

    It's about who tosses his hat into the ring, and who gets a majority of the caucus votes.

    Helps though to be one of those pols who has one foot in the lib base and the other in the moderate wing.  Iow, no doctrinaire purist types tend to get elevated.  And it helps to be either generally well-liked (Mansfield, Mitchell) or, if not liked, respected (LBJ, Byrd).  Solid knowledge of the institution's intricate rules helpful too.

    Parent

    Aha! You are correct, Madam. (none / 0) (#187)
    by madamab on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    Senate Majority Leader. The Majority Leader is in a practical sense the most senior Senate official (the President and the President pro-tempore of the Senate are largely ceremonial positions.) As the day-to-day manager of business on the Senate floor, the Majority Leader is responsible for working with each committee on legislation and scheduling the sequence and manner of debate on all legislation. As the highest ranking partisan position in the Senate, the Majority Leader exercises broad powers, has the right of priority recognition on the Senate floor, and serves as the primary spokesperson for his party in the Senate.

    Senate Assistant Majority Leader. The responsibilities of the Assistant Majority Leader are similar to that of the House Whip: persuading Members to support the party's position on votes and projecting support for the party's position.

    Link

    You are right. Liberal Lion or Senate Assistant Majority Leader is all she is qualified for in terms of Teh Rulz.

    Parent

    most senior Senate official (none / 0) (#230)
    by sj on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:09:04 PM EST
    I believe that "seniority" in this case refers to rank not to years of service (if that was your take).

    Parent
    Lioness of the Senate (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:50:28 PM EST
    She is.

    Parent
    Gergen agrees (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:17:31 PM EST
    He was less critical of Obama on the reverse race card issue than was Roland Martin.

    Gergen said that the Clintons know how to win low road fights like the one McCain is tossing out there....

     

    Parent

    Except Hillary didn't (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by brodie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    win in that very tough primary contest which many of her supporters saw as involving some serious MCM- and TeamO-driven low road tactics.

    And Bill, both in the slimy 92 race and in office, though he put up a good election fight at least, didn't so much "win" (43%) those battles as much as he survived as the last person standing.

    Nah, I think Gergen and some of the others are taking some of the recent polls a little too seriously.  Gergen almost seemed to be reaching for the panic button with his suggestion of Hillary for Veep.  

    Or perhaps DG wants to offer a "make up" for the spouse of his former boss for some mostly pro-Obama punditry in the primaries.

    Wake me up about the polls being a problem for Dems when they show consistently either even in the key battle states or with McCain ahead over, say, the next few weeks.

    Meanwhile, O has a couple more weeks, if he wants it, to decide wisely in seconding my recommended choice, Kathleen Sebelius, for VP.

    Parent

    Being a "shoo-in" isn't true (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by athyrio on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    Noone is an automatic winner and Obama has really blown alot of positives by taking alot of Democratic voters for granted. He has had positive media etc and still is only tied...Look out when the GOP crank up their dirty politic machine...he will sink like a stone IMO....

    Or it could mean (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM EST
    that constant, adulating praise of the European trip with blanket coverage across 3 major networks plus cable "news" causes a balloon effect that bursts when the adulation stops.

    That's my bet.

    I said before the trip (5.00 / 9) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:29:28 PM EST
    that is would bomb electorally. that the Obamans would swoon and everyone else would either scratch their heads or be offended by the hubris of it.
    there was not bump from the trip.

    Parent
    My crackpot theory is that the media is.... (5.00 / 12) (#114)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    ...hyping up the race card theory because they want to attribute Obama's decline in the polls to McCain's negative tactics rather than to a possible backlash by the American public to all the uncritical adulation the MSM itself is heaping on Obama.

    Parent
    exactly, Maria! (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Josey on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    Yeah, very little to do with dirty campaigning (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    Obama has been bobbing up and down between tied and about 4-5 ahead in both Gallup and Rasmussen since Jun. 2.

    He got a sort of primary-end bump, and then a bit more from the Unity thing.  Then back down to tied or near tied.

    The European Rainbow Tour produced another bump (breaking, finally the 6-7pt barrier, at least with Gallup).  Somewhat oddly, the bump started before he left, maxed out around Germany, and then went 'slump!' quite quickly.

    So it's not at all accurate to say that the current slump/tied state is dirty politics -- at least, if one is trying to make that case based on daily tracking.  McCain hardly made a peep until just recently.

    My guess:  Repubs were watching the polls to max out the damage to Obama from dividing the party.  When that seemed to be losing some power AND time started getting short, they picked that moment to begin the long, slow death of 1000 cuts.

    Parent

    damn straight!! (none / 0) (#63)
    by ghost2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    Or maybe it means... (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    ...that swing voters think Obama is playing the race card and are offended by it.

    Further, McCain fighting back against Obama's scurrilous charges of racism isn't "dirty politics".  It's called standing up for yourself!  

    And McCain has every right to stand up for himself!

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:51:51 PM EST
    I think this poll comes too soon for us to see any effects from the "race card" flap.

    Does this mean that Obama lost the battle of narratives following his European trip?  Who knows.  Like the stock market, these polls jump all over the place for no apparent reason.

    Parent

    And maybe it is a compilation of every (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:53:19 PM EST
    ugly thing that has come out of obama campaign.  I have been offended by the playing of the race card since SC.  SD's...it is time for you to come to your senses along with the DNC "supposed' leaders.

    Parent
    We've got a month (5.00 / 9) (#56)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:13:39 PM EST
    For the SD's to see their Golden Calf has no more rounds in his chamber, while the GOP starts sharpening its knives for the main event.

    Sorry for mixing metaphors, I'm on crack right now. My doctor prescribed it when he found out I was a Hillary supporter... prescribed it for the unending pain in my ears and eyes.

    Parent

    LOL!! (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by ghost2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    I believe these polls are as inaccurate (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:48:13 PM EST
    as the polls in the primary were.

    Now that most people have decided Obama meant time in Washington DC with his dollar bill comment, his campaign has admitted he was talking about his race. Typical Obama campaign strategy.

    Parent

    OMG! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by madamab on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:55:14 PM EST
    I'm so tired of this cr&p.

    Wake me when McCain is President. Hopefully I'll have moved to Canada by then.

    Parent

    When did Obama charge McCain himself (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    with racism? The Obama campaign has pointed out the GOP works that way (and it is true). But I didn't see him explicitly call McCain a racist.

    McCain didn't wait to be charged. He didn't want to wait to be charged. He wanted to make the charge- because it is a much more subtle way to inject race into the campaign.

    BTW, when Weaver denounces McCain, McCain is probably not behaving honorably.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    We really don't need to have a third thread to go back and forth on this issue.  But when Obama says the Republicans are going to run a campaign that uses his race against him, no one is likely to be persuaded by the "he didn't explicitly call McCain a racist" defense.

    Parent
    You are about the thread (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    What you are in effect saying is McCain has to answer for every rand and file member of the GOP.

    I suppose that might be fair, if Obama has to answer for every Rap musician.

    I think it ludicrous myself (no puns intended).

    According to you, Obama can't point out the GOP has race-baited since at least Goldwater because someone might think he was calling McCain out?

    Is this a position you really want to take?

    Parent

    That should read (none / 0) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    you are right about the thread. However...

    Parent
    Sigh (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:15:00 PM EST
    Obama said that was the type of campaign the Republicans would run, a campaign that smeared him and brought up his race.

    McCain is the Republican nominee.  It is his campaign.  You can't make a comment like that, and then be like, "oh I was just referring to the 527s, why would anyone think I meant John McCain" or whatever.

    It is all very, very cutesy and these arguments that attempt to parse everything hyperliterally are tiresome.

    Parent

    Sigh, yes. (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:17:47 PM EST
    All those hundreds of comments in earlier threads on this for nought.  Just pffft into cyberspace.  Too bad there's no way at all to recover and read them.

    Oh, yeh, there is.

    Parent

    Sigh, I just posted the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    as you did -- what's the use? Some people never learn.

    Parent
    So how should Obama (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    point out the GOP has historically race baited since at least Goldwater?

    There is nothing cutesy about it, btw. Maybe its because I have watched it here in the deep south since Goldwater, I see it differently than you.

    Parent

    Do you see it differently (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:31:48 PM EST
    from what was said about this in the previous threads?

    Parent
    Since I haven't read all the previous thereads (3.75 / 4) (#152)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    I cannot respond yes or no.

    I have watched the GOP race bait since before I was old enough to vote. I think calling Obama presumptuous is a sneaky way of calling him uppity. Where I come from, there is only one word which follows uppity. I recognize some folks, like Dana Milbanks (who used it in a column recently), may not have that understanding. In the deep south, I doubt that dog whistle was missed.

    You have to be terribly naive to think McCain isn't trying to find a slick way of injecting race into this campaign.

    Parent

    that's fine...But (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    then tells us what word can be used to describe a man that is presumptuous or arrogant if he happens to be black?

    Are you just not allowed to point it out at all?

    Don't you believe a black man is able to be arrogant?  Wasn't that little pre-presidential seal pretty arrogant?

    Parent

    God, not this again (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    What should a non-racist call a black person whom they consider arrogant or presumptuous?

    Or is there not the possibility that a black person could be arrogant or presumptuous at all?

    Parent

    I don't think its racist (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by CST on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:53:21 PM EST
    To call him presumptuos or arrogant.  I think it is typical Republican Politics 101.  They did the same thing to John Kerry.  I do think it's sad that so many people are willing to jump on the wagon.  As if this is a big issue facing our country.  Personally, I don't care if the president talks to himself in the mirror for 2 hours a day as long as he uses the other 22 to get us out of our current mess.

    Parent
    You miss the point. (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    You don't understand dog whistle politics or you are naive or blind or all of the above.

    The word choice was deliberate for its intended audience. I doubt you are part of its intended audience.

    BTW, was McCain arrogant or presumptuous when he refers to himself as President? Isn't everyone who runs for POTUS arrogant enough to think they are up to the job? Why single out Obama?

    Parent

    presumptuous = uppity (5.00 / 8) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    just kill me

    Parent
    Whether it kills you or not you miss the point (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    You weren't the intended audience. I doubt seriously if its intended audience missed it.

    If you don't think the word choice is intentional, you are being naive or deliberately blind.

    Parent

    he can say the GOP or (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:34:32 PM EST
    indepenadant 527 groups will do it.  Or, he could wait until there is evidence of it.  But, what he cannot do is to claim that the McCain campaign has done it or will do it because that is simply not true.

    Parent
    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:37:14 PM EST
    they should make that exact statement....

    Parent
    Last comment from me (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    Here is what Obama actually said:

    Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face, so what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky.

    But according to you, that wasn't a claim about what McCain would do in this campaign, it was a historical statement about the likes of Barry Goldwater.

    Look, it's great that you're so dedicated to the Democratic nominee, and I hope he wins.  But why insist that we all play this little reality-creating game with you?  We can all see quite clearly what was said.

    Meanwhile, after the Obama campaign said yesterday that the "other presidents" line wasn't about race, today they're acknowledging that yes it was.  Whatever, whatever.  Just let me know today's party line so I can parrot it like a good Democrat, please.

    Parent

    I know it is difficult for Obama fans (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    to understand, as Obama is never at fault for anything his campaign staff, mangers, etc. say on behalf of his campaign, but as to everyone else in the world, in an election, the candidate for the party is the party and everything the party does during the campaign is squarely at the feet of the candidate.  In the presidential election 2008, McCain is the Republican Party -- so like it or not, saying the Republicans are going to run "this kind of campaign" is saying McCain is going to run "this kind of campaign" because McCain, as the nominee, is responsible for everything the campaign does.

    Parent
    And every rank and file member? (3.66 / 3) (#133)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:36:17 PM EST
    So Hillary was responsible for Gerry Ferraro's white backlash style statements? Admittedly Gerry was not a mere rank and file member (and I don't hold Hillary responsible for Gerry's vile white backlash style statements. I lived through that crap in the 70's and 80's in the deep south and that is exactly what it was. I have no doubt the Clinton's cringed when they heard it).

    It may be difficult for you with ODS to understand, but when, former McCain aide, John Weaver says McCain isn't acting honorably, McCain is not acting honorably. Just because the MSM tells you McCain is honorable, doesn't make it so. After all they told you George W. was honorable in 2000.

    Finally,  I have always consistently stated I support the nominee and that I cared not if it were Hillary or Obama. So call me an Obama fan if you like, but I am no more or less an Obama fan than a Hillary fan. There are pluses and minuses to both. The difference between you and me, I suspect, is I am not blinded by love of either. I am more interested in ending the GOP's reign of error than electing a particular Democrat. Truth be known, I don't know if I am a fan of any Democrat these days. I am just anti-GOP and the Democratic nominee is the beneficiary of that.  

    Parent

    "The GOP works that way" (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:50:48 PM EST
    Having been and voted democratic tickets all my life, I haven't paid close attention to what the GOP does.

    Can you please give some examples that prove the GOP works that way. This is the first campaign I can remember in my life where one of the candidates was other than white, so I'm trying to figure out what reference point is being used.


    Parent

    it is probably a combination of all that. (none / 0) (#32)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    and the repub attack machine is barely gearing up.

    Parent
    It Means McCain Isn't the Dufus We Thought He Was (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by flashman on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    I've thought all along we take this guy too lightly.  He knows how to campaign ( aka - pander ), and he is genuinely likable.  His ads are effective, and not really dirty.  He's going to be a tough opponent, just wait and see.

    I still maintain that: (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:50:20 PM EST
    Obama is in much better shape electorally speaking than the day-to-days show.

    McCain MUST hold Ohio and Florida, both of which are very competitive for Obama. Meanwhile, Obama will pull NM and Iowa into the blue from 2004, already putting him at 264. From there he only needs to steal Colorado, Montana, or Virginia.

    Not to mention the massive funding differential after the conventions.

    All things being equal, I'd still much rather be Obama than McCain right now.

    Funding differential is in McCain's favor (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:05:40 PM EST
    when you include what the parties have on hand.  The GOP is in great shape and gives McCain much to spend.  The DNC's kick-in is paltry, and Obama ends up with less overall -- unless his fundraising recovers.

    Parent
    You're right, Obama's doomed (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    No chance, doomed I tell ya.

    Parent
    That's not what I said. (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    I was responding to what you said, as it's wrong.

    But you just go right ahead and enjoy the cool, cool comfort that comes from keeping your head in the sand.  And don't pay attention to the facts.  Like, y'know, the tides with a tied poll.  Keep trying to come up with incorrect statements, and then when you're corrected, keep pretending that commenters said something else.

    Or you could be reality-based about the funding -- and base your argument on something factual that is in Obama's favor.  There's plenty of that, and you could look it up.

    Parent

    Actually you 'responded' to one thing I said (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    while totally ignoring my points about the EC.

    No worries, I have no grudges in this thing. It's you that has to watch your BP when/if Obama wins. I'll be happy about it. You, not so much.

    Anyway, I hope John McCain, if elected, is all the president you've been hoping for these past 8 years.

    Parent

    Yes, I get to do that when it's wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:22:21 PM EST
    But my, my, this must be a brand-new rool:  Jim J Sez You Must Respond to the Entirety of My Post and Hang the Bandwidth Limitation.

    As for the rest of what you said, it's your opinion.  I won't dispute it.  I just doubt it.

    Parent

    I don't make rules here (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    nor do you. But I am entitled to respond to your comments.

    Still no comment on the EC, I see.

    Parent

    Clean your glasses. My comment (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    was that it's your opinion, and I don't dispute your opinion, but I doubt it.  I see something different in the EC projections, as I've been tracking them for quite a while.

    I will not write this again.  Respect Jeralyn's rule about limited bandwidth, anyway.

    Parent

    Not to think doomed, per se... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:30:31 PM EST
    but I disagree with BTD. I don't think that either CO or VA will turn blue this time around.

    It'll be close, but I don't think that O's gonna win this.

    Parent

    he had a chance in the primaries but (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:36:37 PM EST
    alast short term thinking took hold of the campaign.

    Parent
    bandwidth limitation (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:43:13 PM EST
    Are you connecting through Prodigy?  

    Who has bandwidth limitations these days?

    Parent

    Jeralyn does. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    Didn't you ever read the rules here?

    Bandwidth is expensive. The comment space is reserved for comments that relate to the topic of the post . You may not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You may quote one or two short paragraphs and link to them.

    And she has said in numerous threads that commenters are not to keep beating dead horses, as it were, because of the 200-comment limitation.

    So now you cost us another one.  As long as this isn't one of your typical comments that will keep asking for the same info in thread after thread, okay.

    Parent

    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#49)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:10:17 PM EST
    I imagine a crinkly old man sitting with his buddies in front of the local barber shop saying that.

    Back in MY day...!

    Thanks for the laugh man. I believe its true, but you put it in such an awesome way. No snark.

    Parent

    I admire your optimism (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    I too want a Democrat in the WH. Unfortunately I've watched them fumble the ball too many times to have much faith in them anymore. I'm from Chicago and the Dem's remind me of the Cubs. If they can find a way to lose, they'll do it! And so far this election cycle I have seen them trash MI and FL. Dish the blue collar worker. Trample on progressives, the Constitution and pander to the Christian Right.

    Parent
    But whose dirty politics? (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:51:11 PM EST
    Is it McCain and the Republicans? Or is it that Obama's and the Democrats' political "strategies" have done themselves in? Surely you are not suggesting that John McCain's half-hearted campaigning so far is responsible for Obama's poor showing? Eating brats and drinking beer while Obama has huge crowds cheering him in Berlin? Going food shopping with a typical American family while Obama is posing in front of 10 Downing Street? I thought McCain's campaign is "lame"?

    McCain taking a page from Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    Has Obama done the grocery store stump? I know he went into a deli and bought 100 bucks a pound ham (or some type of meat) after his "down to earth I'm just a reg guy" train tour of PA, but has he hefted a jug of milk and exclaimed about the price? Obama NEEDS to get serious about the dinner table issues in a more convincing manner. He can't end up letting people relate McCain to Hillary, which is what's going to happen (is happening?) if McCain gets more "down to earth" images out there. When I saw him grocery shopping I thought "Hillary". And that would attract the middle of the road voter. I don't think McCain would be better on those issues or anything like Hillary, but many may, or at least see him as more "real".

    Parent
    when the Obama camp (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    complains about the cost of things it's been the fact that they understand your pain because they have to spend $10,000 a year on piano and dance lessons for their daughters.  You know, the kind of thing that average voters can relate to.

    Parent
    Riiiiight (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:25:15 PM EST
    While McCain is so broke, he TOTALLY feels your pain since he has to borrow his wife's jet he can't even afford his own.  Give me a break, what a double standard.

    Parent
    Do you hear McCain (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    or Hillary complaining about their money "issues"? Obama needs to take the issue and make the voters understand HE understands. Complaining about 10k for the kids lessons doesn't quite cut it, imo.

    Parent
    Actually Michele said this (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:36:54 PM EST
    "I know we're spending -- I added it up for the first time -- we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we're spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth," Mrs. Obama tells the women. "And summer programs. That's the other huge cost. Barack is saying, `Whyyyyyy are we spending that?' And I'm saying, `Do you know what summer camp costs?'"

    So now 10K a year on 2 children for non-school related activities is elitist?  Really?  

    Parent

    Did I say it was "elitist"? (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    no, but when many are hurting because of the rising costs of fuel and food, I doubt they're spending 10k on activities for their kids. That's $833 a month. We're talking working/middle class voters here.

    Doesn't matter that M said it. HE needs to show HE understands people's pain in their pocketbook. The price of milk is still affordable for me, but it's getting ridiculous when I go to the store, buy 2 essentials (milk and eggs) and I better have a 10 spot in my pocket cause 5 bucks ain't gonna do it like before.

    Parent

    So he should pander? (none / 0) (#180)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    Honestly I really fail to see the problem here.  LOTS of Americans spend hundreds of dollars a month on their children's activities, especially if they have more than one.  

    I think it would utterly ridiculous for any Presidential candidate to try and suggest that the price of milk or gas is hurting them like it does some blue collar worker.

    Parent

    I never said he should say the cost of fuel (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:57:02 PM EST
    is hurting him. He shouldn't complain about the cost of optional lessons. UNDERSTANDING a voters issues and CONVINCING them he does is not pandering. Look at the way Hillary went about it. She had voters believing she would fight for THEM. She stood in the middle of the grocery store and discussed it with them. She was passionate about the issues they were passionate about.

    It's really not that hard to see if you put down the glass. But if you don't want to, you're not helping elect your candidate.

    Parent

    she was talking to a group of women (5.00 / 3) (#231)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    in a small town in Ohio at the time where the avg annual income was between 30K - 40K.  I can't imagine they could relate to being all worried about spending 10K on non school activities.

    Parent
    i didn't hear Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    and don't hear McCain comparing their own finances to that of regular voters.  That's the point.

    You didn't hear Hillary talking to regular votes and saying she understands that high prices are hurting them because she had to pay $5,000 each for all her suits to campaign in.

    And, no, I made up that figure, I have no idea what Hillary's clothes cost.

    Do you recall Michelle Obama's attempt to explain why we need another round of stimulus checks?  It was becaus ethe first one for $600 could all be spent on one pair of earrings.  Now, just how many voters do you know that are spending $600 for a pair of earrings?  You don't think that kind of statement is a bit out of touch or comes off as elitist?

    Parent

    Oh, No! Please say you're snarking! (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    Many people were paying bills with their checks!

    Parent
    When will people learn? (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:43:44 PM EST
    Having money does not make you an "elitist" nor does it necessarily make you "out of touch with the common man." Bemoaning the cost of your daughters' ballet lessons to a group of struggling single mothers does -- or at least gives you the appearance of it. For all I know the McCains are elitist and "out of touch" BUT they are politically savvy not to expose themselves as being so -- the Obamas should take a page from their book.

    Parent
    Try arugula (none / 0) (#199)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    Eeep! I forgot about that one. (none / 0) (#105)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    After Katrina, they were reporting from a town in Mississippi (iirc) and the average yearly income was $9k.

    Funny, I don't even spend 10K for my rent. Yes, I have a deal for NYC, but in other parts of the country I'm sure there are others that don't either.

    Parent

    10k for an apartment in NYC? (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Radix on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    I take it, you had to forgo the heating grate for your box for that kind of rate? :)

    Parent
    Family owned building (none / 0) (#226)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:03:15 PM EST
    and mostly family still lives here. The lady before me lived here 25yrs. I've been here 16ish. Started at 400 am now at 535. My friend is paying 3 something in his building, lol! Pays to teach at the Senior Center, lol!~ The rents around me are outrageous and all the new condos they are building start a half a mil for studio/1 bdrm.

    Parent
    yeah well maybe! but frankly the other side (none / 0) (#34)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    has been kinda lame also.

    Parent
    Do Only 'Dirty Politics' Work? (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM EST
    I was just reading this post at one of the New Republic political blogs.

    Emotional McCain

    And I was thinking what a compelling (and insidious) viral message this could become.

    "A senior official in the Clinton administration who worked with McCain on Bosnia and Kosovo, where McCain defied most of his Republican colleagues to support strong U.S. action against Serbia, agreed. "In the many, many years that I've been in Washington," this former official said, insisting on anonymity to avoid upsetting McCain, "John McCain is far and away the most emotional politician I have ever met."

    ""McCain is all emotion," the former official continued. "People don't understand that, so they keep talking about his temperament, his temper. He reacts emotionally, therefore unpredictably." "

    Handled by surrogates and by using McCain's fairly hefty record of emotional outbursts over the years, it wouldn't even have to become a central opposition theme, just a lingering aura of doubt about how equipped he is temperamentally for the strenuous demands of CiC.

    It could, fairly neatly, trump the arrogance meme.

    They've been working on that (none / 0) (#20)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    Other than McCain's age, his temper seems to be his biggest vulnerability. But unless he beats up a little old lady who asks him the wrong question or blows it completely during a debate, it doesn't seem likely that it's going to stick. He has just appeared too controlled. Even his "outbursts" lately have been pretty quiet. People loved Clinton, and his temper is legendary. People don't mine when their leaders are passionate (that's how temper in a man is viewed). I think that implications that he is mentally deficient because of his age will be more effective. It's a sad thing to attack on, though.

    Parent
    There was (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    a video I saw earlier in the campaign where Ana Marie Cox asked McCain some innocuous question on a train, and McCain absolutely took her head off.

    You never heard about that one, right?  That's the thing.  To build a winning narrative, you first have to plant the seed, and then as incidents like that one come along you get to seamlessly piece them into the pre-existing narrative.

    On the other hand, if you don't do the work to get the "McCain is emotional and dangerous" narrative out there in the first place, incidents that could support the narrative just come and go without anyone noticing.

    Republicans are simply way better at this style of politics than we are.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM EST
    The Republicans are better at this.

    And. personally, I hate gotcha politics and politics based on irrelevancies like image and who is arrogant or hair-trigger emotional.

    Moreover, I think any time Obama and his campaign let the dominant daily drone be about things like this instead of the issues and the issues of Republican incompetence and corruption in getting the nation in the state it's in he (we) are losing.

    But it's an ongoing issue with McCain and yeah, I wonder if it is going to start seeping into the mainstream media as we get closer to November. Speaking not as an Obama supporter, but as a voter, I have some uneasiness about the things I've read about McCain's volatility.

    Parent

    Oh the McCain temper is real alright. (none / 0) (#154)
    by TheJoker on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    I remember him looking like he wanted to take Romney's head off in a debate this year in CA. I can't wait for the debates this fall when the candidates get asked ridiculous and unfair questions. He's gonna blow, especially if he's down in the polls then!!!

    Parent
    Temper (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    I gotta confess I heard that Bill Clinton had a temper at times, but I never read or heard about the specific instances except with staff in meetings sometimes. The things I've heard about McCain seem more prevalent, make it seem as if his temper is closer to the surface and less controlled in a wider variety of situations.

    But, as I say, I probably shouldn't compare and contrast because I'm not very familiar with the accounts of Clinton's temper.

    Just for my own take on the two men: Clinton comes across as a warm, passionate guy whose spontaneity is engaging. McCain, who I don't dislike personally, by the way, has an edgier vibe. His body language and demeanor read as very uncomfortable in public situations. I think that difference mitigates people's response to temper. It does mine.

    Parent

    odd thing! mccain does very well (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    in town hall meetings and obama runs away. i have wondered about that and why. it is a great opportunity for obama to let people see and hear him up close and not these mega rallies that actually turn a number of voters off.

    Parent
    What Are You Talking About??? (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    "Obama runs away."

    This week Obama has held town hall meetings in Iowa and Missouri and Florida. Maybe other places. Those are the ones I found with a simple google check.


    Parent

    i'll check it. i recall seeing him (none / 0) (#217)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    refuse townhall meetings on a number of occasions. it would wise for him to do that. it works in his favor.

    Parent
    folks don't mind a little temper if you (none / 0) (#54)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    are their friend. but when it goes along with arrogance as with bush, many don't care for it at all. so who has shown arrogance and hubris?

    Parent
    Who Indeed (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    Well, that's the LAST thing I'd expect from any man or woman who imagines themselves equal to being president.

    Seriously, don't you think, by definition, that running for president takes a little arrogance and hubris? I think that's a healthy thing, a way to armor your sense of yourself from all the tra la la on the campaign trail.

    That's why we don't see too many monks running for office. Though THAT might be interesting if they had some policy cred.

    Parent

    i have seen it all. defending arrogance and (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    hubris. that get the "that takes the cake" award.  you have a nice weekend!

    Parent
    Defending? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by daring grace on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    Okay, whatever. I thought I was analyzing why certain personality traits are common in certain careers and situations.

    But, thanks for the cake!

    You have a great weekend, too.

    Parent

    There is a difference between the two (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:56:45 PM EST
    Hubris implies that a person is arrogant, but the arrogance is based on solid qualifications. Arrogance is hubris without the quals to back it up.

    Parent
    Or it could mean... (5.00 / 14) (#15)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:52:16 PM EST
    ... that Obama going off to Germany and the middle east did not impress as many people as he hoped it would. Or it could simply mean that the weather has been wonderful and Obama's young supporter's are out enjoying it. Or it could mean that Obama has been overexposed and the "arrogant" meme is catching on (by the way - McCain is exploiting that one - he didn't create it). Or... I think you get the idea.

    Or it could mean... (4.20 / 5) (#65)
    by Truth Sayer on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:15:38 PM EST
    That Dirty Politics Don't Work.

    What Obama did playing the Reverse Race Card against McCain when McCain did nothing to deserve it WAS Dirty Politics and perhaps as result of that and Obama's Arrogance Tour '08 he fell like a rock in the polls.

    Keep up them Dirty Politics Barack and see what happens. Unfortunately for you the public knows all about Smiling Faces who will cheat, lie, go back on their word and slime people for things they have not done - all in the name of personal gain. And oh yeah, don't snub the troops.

    Someone posting here the other day predicted a McCain 10 point lead sometime in the future. Things may continue to trend that way.

    You see on Sunday there was a Obama quote in a Dowd column that had Obama saying he could spend all day thinking up "cleaver retorts". Well that is what he is back to and now we are seeing the results = Not so clever. The dude just thinks he is so clever and way too cool too lose. Problem is that the Hip Hop Nation of Ludicrous are not the only ones voting or paying attention. And no that is not a racial comment - 'Way Too Cool and Ludicrous are friends - - or were???

    File under: Things you won't find at dKos or OpenLeft.

    Parent

    I don't get the troop thing (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:36:37 PM EST
    I guess he would have taken some heat for "using troops for political purposes", but if he didn't take cameras along and made a quiet trip he could have scored a lot of points for visiting them and NOT using them for political gain. All they had to do was quietly leak the visit to the media after McCain made a fuss about his not visiting. They marred an otherwise perfect photo opp trip by canceling that visit and not providing a good reason why they did that.

    Parent
    Of course dirty politics works (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by vicndabx on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    because we haven't had leadership since Bill that was able to call it for what it was in layman's terms to the electorate.  If the overwhelming sentiment is we, the voters don't like dirty politics, why does it continue to get traction?  IMO, cuz we have politicians who are to scared to risk their lot and call it out when it happens and steer us back to the real issues.  Our current crop would rather play the sound-bite, Frank Luntz focus group scaredy cat role than talk to the people as tho we have some sense.  How else was Bill able to maintain his high positives in spite of what anyone who followed politics since the late 70's would probably term the most partisan, me vs. you dirty tricks era in history?  

    Agreed. But I think there's more at work. (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by davnee on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    I think these polls are dipping in part due to the McCain camp stepping up attacks, but they are just getting started with those.  I'd attribute this drop just as much to glitz and glam fatigue following the magical mystery tour across Europe.  Balloons always pop eventually.  At some point, the Obama hype is going to be lost.  People will get tired of it.  

    So what does Obama offer once his 15 minutes are up?  He hasn't made much of a meat and potatoes case for himself yet.  Just some boring, indefinite, middle of the road pablum.  I'd suggest that he get started in standing for something more than just being the next big thing.  

    If the German rally hype hurt (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    as I think it did, and a poll on it said so -- the second half, the European part that was no "fact-finding mission" in the Mideast. . . .

    Then I wonder whether The Greatest Rally of All Time for the acceptance speech will be a mistake, too?

    Parent

    "The Greatest Rally of All Time " umm... (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by ghost2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:27:58 PM EST
    Hate to invoke Godwin's law here.  But what does a huge rally in Berlin reminds you of??

    That's the height of arragance.  His team could have done it equally well in England, or in France... but no ... they went Berlin.

    By the way, I have a 'tin foil hat' question here.  There were talks of free concert and free food at the rally.  If so, who paid for the free food?  Is there a law against this?

    I mean, you can get a wealthy donor spend a few million dollars to sponsor a rally with free food, and then 'ask' people to 'donate' 5 bucks to your campaign to get good seats and tickets.  See what I mean?

    Or you could have a campaign store, and have rich people buy tons of campaign stuff, which means your campaign gets to take huge profits home.

    Does the campaign finance law cover cases like this?

    Yes, I dare say.  Beware of men with silver tongues with no substance and deeds to back it up.  


    Parent

    Acturally, it reminds me of Kennedy (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    Obama avoided any trappings that indicated anything else. I think the speech was meant to associate Obama with Kennedy and Reagan, but it failed because there were no similarities in what he said.  I don't see how it could. Berlin has not been in crisis in decades.

    Parent
    The Obama campaign paid (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    for the 2 bands, the free food & the free beer. But, he wasn't campaigning.

    Parent
    Nope, not campaigning (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    and his decision to ignore the wounded soldiers was one that would naturally produce a bounce.

    The more he proves every single thing he does is intended for his campaign, the more people realize he doesn't care about them or anything about this country other than being in control of it.

    His spending decisions alone have me not wanting him near the USA Checkbook.


    Parent

    Actually, no (4.00 / 2) (#58)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:14:19 PM EST
    There was a signficant bounce after the Berlin speech--that is how Obama was ahead by 9 in the Gallup poll.

    And the CNN poll showed a majority of people thought Obama's trip was appropriate....and on the arrogance issue:  63-36 said Obama was not arrogant; it was 66-33, for McCain.

    The trip was fine and helped--and the big Berlin speech helped alot....Partisans who do not like Obama did not like the speech; but apparently everyone else did.

    Parent

    I love this argument (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by angie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    the polls are good when it shows Obama up by 9 but they are meaningless if they don't.

    Parent
    It goes beyond that (5.00 / 7) (#171)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    Polls that favor Obama reflect the truth. Polls that are good for McCain indicate the polling firms are biased against Obama. Oddly, the same polling firm can go from "biased" to "fair" in a matter of days, depending on what their data shows.

    Parent
    There's a difference between the perception of an (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by LatinoDC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    event that just happened and polls about an election that is 3 months away....

    Parent
    Not an argument (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    The Gallup tracking poll showed no movement until the day after the Berlin speech...it then took off to an Obama 9 point lead....

    The bounce has worn off.

    Parent

    I have to tell you (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    Here in NE Penna, I did not hear one person comment about Obama being overseas. Not one nasty smirk or one isn't this exciting. Nothing. Nada. It was a non issue in conversation. Personally I thought he was going to the Middle East because it was all about the war and the troops. Then he is acting like President and visiting European heads. I hope the tax payers were not paying for this trip.

    Parent
    Was it the Berlin speech? (none / 0) (#163)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    Or was it all of those lovely photos coming out of the Middle East visit? Obama and General deeply conversing in helicopter, Obama sitting and looking Presidential talking to some Middle Eastern leader. I don't even remember the names, but they were Very Important People and Obama looked Very Important sitting and talking to them. Completely in his element. The Germany speech was a bit of a disappointment. There was a lot of rallying to German emotions, but not much meat for Americans. It was designed to get cheers from his audience - but his real audience should have been Americans who vote. And the whole "American flags waving in Germany" thing fell flat - the photos showed very few flags, and, besides, Americans don't tend to see Europe as big on hating America. They may not like us, but they don't actually hate us - just Bush. If he had American flags waving in Iraq, that would be more impressive.

    Parent
    Actually, no, MKS (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:52:14 PM EST
    You have to look at when polls were conducted.  There was a bounce, but I think it was for the Mideast part of the trip, which was very good.

    The European part of the trip did not work well for him.  He ought to have come home to hit the grocery store, as McCain did -- where the voters are, and where they're hurting, which isn't in Germany or Paris.

    Miss the poll spot-on the trip that said this?

    Parent

    ABC is reporting a web site that (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by athyrio on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:54:13 PM EST
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:58:18 PM EST
    ABC rules!  They're only two days behind Wonkette on this.

    Some other website is claiming to have had it even sooner but it seems like a very obvious fake to me.

    Parent

    Well, that was my prediction (none / 0) (#221)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    She pats herself on the back.

    Parent
    The Berlin Bounce (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:57:25 PM EST
    is over...

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    That is obviously what happened.

    Parent
    bounce? what bounce? the polls (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    indicated there was none. in fact some jokes were made about it.

    Parent
    well, maybe the ball just bounced the (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:15:08 PM EST
    wrong way ;)

    Parent
    smile! humor on friday is good! (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    for some reason (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:41:45 PM EST
    I am reminded of that famous photo op when Bush dribbled the ball on his foot.

    Parent
    Dirty politics DO work of course (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by denise on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:01:25 PM EST
    but Obama is himself the cause of a lot of this. The way he conducted his trip pissed off lots of people, and a lot of people (like me) think that the continual accusations of race-baiting by his campaign is also dirty politics.  

    It wouldn't have (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    pissed people off if he had some foreign policy creds to begin with.

    Parent
    After seeing Hillary get criticized (5.00 / 16) (#29)
    by ChrisO on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    for "dirty campaigning," I have little patience for hearing the same things about McCain. The "visiting the troops" issue was hardly what I'd call "dirty." That term was used so loosely against Hillary that it has lost all meaning. Apparently, campaigning against Obama is de facto "dirty". It just reinforces my notion that Obama supporters are incredibly soft.

    I also think Obama's use of the race card, both against Hillary and McCain, is about as dirty as you can get. Is there any criticism of the guy that his supporters won't claim is racist? People asking why McCain used Britney and Paris as examples of substance-free celebrities, instead of Oprah and Tom Cruise, and claiming that it can only be because the Obama camp wants to send the message that Obama wants to have sex with white women? Sorry, but the Obama camp has poisoned the well more than anyone else in this campaign.

    Which is not to say that the Republicans don't have some dirty tricks up their sleeves. But this constant theme of Obama being the victim of dirty campaigning does him no good, IMO.

    wolf, wolf! but now nobody hears you. (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    those karma chickens are in the truck on the highway coming home to roost. mores the pity for the american people. they are the ones who have my support during this kabuki dance.

    Parent
    Is this bad pun? (none / 0) (#119)
    by ghost2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    Is that what "a chicken in every pot" means?

    Parent
    probably not! honestly i saw that (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:52:33 PM EST
    chickens in the karma truck somewhere else and it seemed appropriate. the chicken in ever pot and car in every garage actually came from herbert hoover in the 1928 campaign.

    Parent
    the Obama supporters (5.00 / 16) (#95)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    constant race-baiting claims may have the effect of making Obama look like the "affirmative action" candidate.

    When normal everyday words and phrases like arrogant, presumptuous, fairytale, roll of the dice are deemed "off limits", it's political correctness run amuck.

    If you compare him to a black person, you're race-baiting.

    If you compare him to a white person, you're race-baiting even when he has compared himself to the same white person.

    If you call him a "young" man, you are using coded language for "boy" even though he now says he meant his youth when talking about not "looking" like the other presidents on the paper money.

    Apparently the only choice is to drop out of the race like they demanded of Clinton.  Because you aren't allowed to talk at all.

    Parent

    I could post a comment about.. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:05:16 PM EST
    ..how I've been saying that the Obama campaign has been doing poorly for a while, and how the Berlin speech was a dumb thing to do.

    But I won't :)

    Obama needs to start acting like a candidate who wants to win, and who will stick up for his voters. No more big events. No more big speeches. That gimmick worked during the primaries, but that's over. What is needed are quick rebuttals of McCain attacks. Specific plans. Pictures of Obama talking to everyday people.

    The primaries, being a series of events, lend themselves well to media events and hype to get momentum going. But this is a whole new ballgame. And the Obama campaign has not adapted, so far (but maybe they are beginning to).


    we all know obama will stick up for himself, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    however now he needs to show it is about us. can they change their thinking? i don't think so.

    Parent
    Hi Frank... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    say Hi to Page for me... :)

    Parent
    I would also add (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by ChrisO on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:05:27 PM EST
    that most negative campaigning is effective because it reinforces already held negaive beliefs. Is there anything about the way McCain is characterizing Obama that doesn't ring true with a lot of people here? But we've seen, as with Bill Clinton's perfectly reasonable comments after South Carolina, that the Obama camp is always ready to play that race card.

    I've read this many times, and I (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by LatinoDC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    agree with the argument that polls don't matter at this time.  It is true that dirty politics may work for a short time, but I believe it can be easily turned around with time, especially if McCain bases his whole campaign in dirty politics.  Obama campaign has been great so far, let's see how they deal with this now.

    unfortunately dirty politics is the norm and (none / 0) (#92)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    must work quite well because they keep doing it. i don't approve but that is reality.

    Parent
    I am disappointed here. (5.00 / 13) (#55)
    by ghost2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    What's up with "dirty campaigning works?"

    McCain did a very effective ad, and his point was utterly valid.  The question was, "what has Obama done except being famous for being famous?"

    The Obama campaign tried (through surrogates and sold-out bloggers and commentators such as Josh Marshall, Atrios, and Eugene Robinson) to say that this was ..umm... somehow racist.  Obama himself stoked the fire by saying, ".. they'd say I don't look like other Presidents on the dollar bills...".

    McCain campaign is absolutely right again. Obama camp and surrogates tried to play the race card (they were feeding the journalists like crazy), and McCain camp went ballistic.

    On Morning Joe today, Andrea Mitchell looked like the pathetic hack that she is and tried to spin Obama camp's points like crazy.  She called Obama's remarks 'self-depracating'.  As if!  Even Mika B. called her on it.  

    You know, I don't give a rat's ass whether you are a democrat or a republican.  TRUTH comes first.  If you don't believe it does, you are creating a MORAL DEBT for your children (similar to the fiscal debt).  You are saying it's OK as long as we win, and just pass the ball further down the road.  


    when you don't think you have much (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    like a thin resume then throwing the kitchen sink looks like a good idea. only problem is the kitchen sink has already been thrown.

    Parent
    That used to be the Dem's mantra (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    The truth is on our side.

    No longer is that the case.

    Parent

    Yah, and I bet it is also true (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by LatinoDC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:19:04 PM EST
    that Obama is responsible for high fuel prices and that he wants to increase taxes to middle class people.....

    Parent
    just how will obama pay for social (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:20:14 PM EST
    programs and the great debt we have now. raising taxes is the answer. it is the elephant in the room no one will admit.

    Parent
    Have you looked at any (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:31:38 PM EST
    of the analyses done on both campaign economic proposals?  Obama's plan is about 40 billion in the red.  McCain's is several billion in the red.

    8 years of borrow and spend which has resulted in the dollar being extraordinarily weak apparently isn't enough to convince people that promising lower taxes while increasing spending while remaining in Iraq will simply continue to mire our country in slow growth or recession.

    Parent

    and if the democratic congress would (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    get off their sorry backsides and stand up for americans and not corporations, we might have a chance. don't forget them. i sure don't.

    Parent
    Then that is the kind of stuff Obama needs to (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    be focusing on and forget the big speeches and the silly McCain ad. The issues are on his side but he is spending his time calling meetings with people as if he is already elected. It seems as if they are counting on Hillary to go from town to town discussing the issues for him. Why the heck can't he do it too?

    Parent
    As I have said before (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:55:23 PM EST
    it is still way too early to start this.  

    When the conventions end and the debates start, that is the time to hammer McCain on the bankruptcy of Republican values.

    Why attack them now and simply allow McCain to change his position to be more acceptable?

    The cards are all in Obama's favor.  He doesn't need to attack McCain right now.  Let McCain keep the attacks going.  Don't let McCain pull him into a mudfight.  Obama made a tactical error talking about race.  He should avoid that discussion like the plague.

    But the time to attack McCain on the issues isn't until the Convention.  

    Parent

    exactly (none / 0) (#131)
    by LatinoDC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:36:05 PM EST
    I'm confused (none / 0) (#229)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    of the analyses done on both campaign economic proposals?  Obama's plan is about 40 billion in the red.  McCain's is several billion in the red.

    Are you saying that Obama's plan is better - 40 million in the red?

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:28:40 PM EST
    It's the raising taxes on WHO.  Not the middle class...  Not if he wants to get re-elected.

    Parent
    i'll bet you even money he raises taxes (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:33:08 PM EST
    on the middle class. who are obama's suppporters? wall street for one. do your homework.

    Parent
    Well, that;s not what he is proposing.... (none / 0) (#127)
    by LatinoDC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:35:10 PM EST
    They may be giving him money (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:36:51 PM EST
    But wall street only has so many votes.

    Parent
    yeah right! keep thinking that! (none / 0) (#147)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:41:14 PM EST
    nope, not any more true (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:30:48 PM EST
    than the way the dems have twisted McCain's 100 years in Iraq comment out of context.

    Parent
    what does this have to do with the subject?find (none / 0) (#140)
    by LatinoDC on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    the right thread and we'll have a discussion on this....

    Parent
    you are the one that brought it up (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    you are claiming that McCain is engaged in dirty politics (subject of this thread) by running misleading ads that blame Obama for the price of gas, etc.

    All I responded was that Obama nad the dems are being just as misleading about McCain wanting to be in Iraq for 100 years.

    Parent

    ghost i agree with you. re: dirty politics i (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    was speaking in very very general terms.

    Parent
    Bravo, ghost2! (none / 0) (#107)
    by JoeCHI on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    I agree!

    Parent
    Could be (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by jb64 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    that word getting that HRC won't be on the ticket might be causing a bit of a backlash.

    and (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Turkana on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    it's only just begun.

    Get out the popcorn . Another newbie (5.00 / 11) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    sent here to ignore all that has been said about this before here.  And this is just her second comment.  It's gonna be a fun day with this one.

    Support your statement.  That's how it's done here.

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    Most people recognize that it came from the Clinton side

    You only "recognize" this if you didn't read the Obama race memo, or if you have your head in the sand.

    Parent

    "head in the sand" (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    thats one way to put it.  clearly they are being told to fan out and circle the wagons.
    I agree.  fun times.

    Parent
    adisa tried (1.00 / 0) (#224)
    by pie on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    this same nonsense on the previous thread.

    Talk about living in a bubble...

    Parent

    I guess that would explain (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    why blacks consistenly polled as one of the groups most likely to vote for Hillary if she got the nomination.
    they are just naive and easily led?

    Parent
    Which oldie is this? Sounds very familiar. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    We've heard this spiel before.

    Parent
    Most Obama supporters think that (4.66 / 3) (#225)
    by dianem on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    There are other points of view.  Black people are, understandably, hyper-sensitive to racism because they have experienced it so often in their lives that they are tempted to see it everywhere. It has nothing to do with black people not having intellect to understand things. A lot of non-black people disagree that what Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro said were racist - as do many black people. Jesse Jackson himself said that he didn't feel that Bill Clinton's comments comparing Obama to him were racist. Obama himself had made comments similar to those made by Ferraro. Obama's campaign and his supporter's played these comments to tar their opponents, creating the illusion that "everybody" who wasn't a racist themselves felt the comments were racist.

    Parent
    And maybe it's not the dirty (5.00 / 12) (#71)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:16:28 PM EST
    politics, but the ongoing (by many) and growing (by those formerly infatuated) realization that for all the glitz and glamour, all the hype and hyperbole, there is a whole lot less there, what is there is not conducive to confidence, and people are hedging and hesitating as we get closer to making an irrevocable decision.

    The undecideds on the Dem side are huge, and that does not bode well for Obama; he should be riding a mid-teens margin over McCain, and he's not.

    I think that's trouble, with a capital T.

    anne, you always have such thoughtful (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:54:20 PM EST
    and accurate posts. thanks!

    Parent
    The average is down to 2.6 (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:18:46 PM EST
    at realclearpolitics.com.  Your source?  That's how it's done here: provide evidence.

    "potential landlslide" (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    wow
    I would be careful what you wish for.

    Parent
    Ummm...... (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    Obama's still ahead in the polls. I realize this causes you much heartburn, but still 'tis true. Evidence, as you would say.

    Parent
    You again? Yes, he's ahead by 2.6. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    At the source I cited.  Got it?  What is with you today, stalking me across this thread?

    Parent
    not by much (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:32:23 PM EST
    and not for long.
    anyone who thinks Obama is doing "fine" should put the koolaid down and back away slowly.

    Parent
    Don't you think he should be blowing McCain (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:32:40 PM EST
    out? Have we ever had a more favorable Democratic climate before? I would think you would be more concerned because McCain's ineffectiveness as a campaigner has really surprised me. I have never seen a less exciting speaker in my life. Not to mention, he's a Republican at a time when that should doom him.

    Parent
    and they are tied (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    helloooooo

    Parent
    These polls mean absolutely nothing (none / 0) (#144)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM EST
    They really don't have any relevance.  

    They won't matter at all until, at the very earliest, September after the conventions.

    They are fun to talk about for us but that's about it.

    Parent

    context (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    historically from this point on the republican gains about 10-15 points.
    that could mean something.

    Parent
    I know, but in this political climate, he should (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    be way ahead. The real mean stuff hasn't even started.

    And I do think they matter for one other reason...it keeps Clinton supporters like me riled up because we think she would be doing much better at this same point. I can't prove that but I know she would be going from town to town right now rather than practicing her CiC act.

    I saw on the news that they are going to have Hillary campaigning nonstop in August. I'll bet you his numbers go up and he will realize that she would be a great VP for him. But he still won't choose her unless he is pressured to and those that would do the pressuring don't want her either.

    Parent

    I doubt it (none / 0) (#216)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    Remember that going from town to town costs money.  And right now she would still be spending primary money, not General election money.

    I see a lot of speculation about how Obama feels about Hillary.  Yet I see little evidence to back it up.  

    If his VP selection committee feels that Hillary is the best choice, then he will pick her.  It's that simple.

    Parent

    newby with three comments. (none / 0) (#87)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    should be interesting!

    Parent
    Re cell-phone users, see (none / 0) (#239)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 04:11:07 PM EST
    pollster.com essays on this -- which is last year's news.  Several polls now do call cell phones.  And, of course, some don't do phone calling.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:18:48 PM EST
    Peaked in the spring. Since then there's been this sort of holding pattern and living on past successes.

    Dem's should be concerned. The election isn't a done deal. McCain will take the independants. Obama needed to be here solidifying his base instead of a grand stand international tour. It made no sense to run a "victory" lap before the race.

    Until Obama and his people realize that they do need the Democrat's to win, his numbers aren't going to get any better.

    his numbers were better (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    during the Spring, but his peak was truly in January after his winning Iowa.  He stumbled -- badly -- when he lost NH and then brought out the racist attack dogs to go after the Clintons.  

    Even with that, though, he still didn't do what he needed to do on Super Tuesday and, save for the Red State caucuses in mid-February which ran up his delegate count, he didn't really perform all that well in the Big States the Dems need in the GE.

    For the first time in history, the Dem nominee is one who dragged himself over the finish line (with some help from his pals at the DNC) having lost NH, CA, NY, NJ, OH, PA and FL.  And took himself off the ballot in MI.

    And people wonder why he's struggling in the polls?

    Parent

    I was going to say peaked in Feb (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    but I will go along with you.  I think the peak was right before that huge rally in California when Maria S. breathlessly popped in to endorse him. That rally was the height of the Obama pop culture phenonemon that McCain is now ridiculing. I believe he suffered a backlash in California and elsewhere because of it, and it has been downhill from there.

    I know the Obama campaign will say 'people just don't know him well enough yet'.  Well, it did not work that way in the primaries - the more they got to know him, the less they liked him.

    Parent

    tied (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:19:01 PM EST
    not for long I betcha.

    Dude... (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:22:22 PM EST
    This is the way it's going to be for a while. The polling numbers will separate...tie...separate...tie...and on and on throughout the summer months and into the early fall.

    I mentioned this ages ago.

    but I bet these threads get a lot more views (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    than those silly torture or death penalty posts.

    Parent
    they have been filling up (none / 0) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    pretty darn quick as threads go. I went away to grade a few papers and came back to nearly 50 posts in the time I was gone.

    Parent
    Out all day so I've missed the race threads (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:35:30 PM EST
    but essentially, what BTD said.

    Obama dropped in polls before ad (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by stefystef on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    but it's been getting alot of attention, just what the McCain camp wanted.   With all the coverage, Obama should have gotten a bigger bounce in the polls, but it didn't happen.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, McCain's camp has grasped hold of something about Obama that has bothered many Americans, but wasn't covered because it was the MSM making Obama a "celebrity" instead of a politician running for President.  

    McCain is bring Obama back down to earth... after all, Rev. Wright said it himself.  Obama is a politician who will do and say things as a politician to get what he wants.

    Was Obama hurt by attacking Hillary's (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    character? Not at all.
    Please---character attacks are among the most effective political attacks, and Obama is extremely vulnerable to several of them.

    I think it was the person who said that (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by MarkL on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    Obama was uniquely qualified because of his race (kerry), or the one who said she was glad to have a black candidate who was not a "victim" (McCaskill), or the guy who said that being black gave him advantages (Obama).

    It's not the dirty politics (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:59:13 PM EST
    that's making it a tight race, but the candidates.  Both candidates are terrible and both are looking for the dregs.  Obama wants to find support from people who don't vote, register them and hope they will be fired up to vote.  McCain his hoping to get the Democrats who won't vote for Obama.  McCain is closer to the right approach because we're already halfway there.

    Turn out is the key (5.00 / 0) (#234)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:44:28 PM EST
    It's hard for me to imagine even the most diehard Clinton supporter voting for McCain.  Staying home seems more likely although hopefully people will looks beyond and see the importance of getting rid of the Republicans.   If I were McCain I would pick Christy Todd Whitman for vp and blame the NYC health issues on Rudee.  I would make a council of advisors out of all the people Shrub fired (well not Rummy)

    I think what the Obama campaign is failing to recognize beyond regularly making the connection of McCain to Bush's third term, is the fence sitters are people influenced by racial issues -- Obama's campaign needs to raise their comfort level not get in a fight with the Republicans about who is or is not playing the race card.
    Regardless of the appearance of recent events, the media is still a big part of the Republican base.

    Seems like for a lot of people here (2.33 / 3) (#46)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    this is good news. It's disturbing, though certainly no surprise.

    People need to get over this HRC thing. The country needs a Democratic president too badly.

    Hillary will be fine, trust me.

    I agree (5.00 / 10) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    We need a Democratic president, not a right-leaning centrist.  I'm still hoping we can get a Democratic president in 2012.

    And BTW, it isn't about "getting over" anything.  This ain't tiddlywinks.  It's about the future of actually having a Democratic Party that actually IS a Democratic Party.  The further we allow the Democrats to move right the more likely the Democrats will be destroyed.  and then we won't have anyone to vote for.

    Parent

    so did you support Kucinich in the primaries? (2.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Jim J on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:21:40 PM EST
    He was actually the only logical choice, in the context of your comment above.

    I really get a kick out of all the HRC fans -- of which I was and still am one -- insist that Obama is not far enough to the left for them.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 7) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:36:13 PM EST
    you should consult with your wife, your doctor and your clergy about that.

    ...if you know what I mean.

    Parent

    Yes (1.00 / 0) (#236)
    by tek on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    dirty tricks work, that's how Obama got the nomination (presumptively).  He should have seen all this coming and more.  You can't stoop to the lowest behavior toward your own Party members during the primaries and think you won't get hit with that stuff yourself in the GE.  Democrats should stop claiming racism and dirty politics and look at the truth:  Obama is from the dirtiest political machine in the country.  

    Like Feeding Candy To A Baby (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:43:43 PM EST
    Dirty politics works like a charm.  

    Gallup Effect (none / 0) (#4)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    Perhaps the Gallup polling effect by day of the week that we saw during the primary is at work.

    Shh (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jgarza on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    These peopel have an agenda, they want this race to be about Hillary Clinton. Gallup is the evidence so they will use it.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:31:42 PM EST
    The irony is rich.  You obviously didn't even read the link, but you had to write a comment to further your own agenda.

    Parent
    I was refering to the other (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jgarza on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:57:28 PM EST
    posters not BTD

    Parent
    Oil drilling (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    could be more of a long term problem....

    Too bad.  Our oceans are taking such a hit already....and it's not just leaks from oil platforms that could be a problem....The Exxon Valdez proves that all sorts of unintended consequences can result.

    Careful, the Republicans are barracudas (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    When the situation looked bad for Daddy Bush, Lee Atwater was reported to say that the campaign needed to go negative or face up to a loss at Democratic hands.  So, the Willie Horton ad ran with devastating results for the hapless Dukakis.  McCain has hired derivatives of Atwater-Rove, and, maybe, during his much ridiculed visit with the elder Bush at Walker Point, took some well-tested Republican advice.  For all of our sakes, I hope that the Obama campaign takes this polling data very, very seriously.  Once polling dips, a tough to reverse free fall is possible.

    but race baiting won't continue to work (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    over and over and over. those mega rallies are that swift either. how about some down home campaigning in the heartland. you know where all those bitter dem hardworking blue collar voteres live?

    Parent
    His campaign is doing fine. (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    if you keep saying this, it will be true.
    really, it will.

    Parent
    If Obama picks a male then McCain picks a female (none / 0) (#210)
    by Saul on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:59:04 PM EST
    for VP.  What would the polls show then? That's one way for McCain to get the Hilary supporters. Is there a Republican female that would attract Hilary supporters?

    Polls don't matter much (none / 0) (#213)
    by Blowback on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    until the end of September or early October.

    Polls don't matter much (none / 0) (#220)
    by Blowback on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:00:26 PM EST
    until the end of September or early October.

    I had on CNN earlier in the week. (none / 0) (#232)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 02:25:05 PM EST
    The entire discussion centered on the recent poll question regarding whether Obama too audacious.  Not a good sign, IMO.  

    DemFromCT (none / 0) (#235)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    See my interchange with DemFromCT (warning: link to GOS) on this very issue. He basically says the tracking polls (whatever they are) are less reliable.

    (P.S., I know you've been trying to educate us all on polls, but I still don't consider myself well-informed on the vagaries of varying validity.)

    Obama is the media propped candidate (none / 0) (#237)
    by thereyougo on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:12:14 PM EST
    and a wise campaign staff that knows how to work on marketing their guy.

    Its true that the closer we get to the election after Labor day, we're going to finally get the people to pay close attention to him and McCain's barrage of negative ads will be in the collective psyche of the electorate.

    As bad as McShame is he is still a war heeero with limited range of motion to his arms and that inescapable vision will push the lever in his favor come election day.

    If Obama was smart, he'd attack McCain on his 100 year war mention and ask how do you propose to 1. pay for it or 2. do you intend to bring the draft to man it?  

    Mention of a draft is enough to get the dear children of the rich to either tell McShame to STFU about a 100 year war or it will force him to answer.

    I vaguely recall... (none / 0) (#238)
    by pmj6 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 03:16:50 PM EST
    ...Obama said at the beginning of the primary season that he did not want to go into the general election with half of the country already not wanting to vote for the Democratic nominee. Whatever happened to that "electability" argument? Where is that crossover appeal Obama has been touting?

    Seems to me Hillary is (and has always been) the more electable one. But, of course, this has never been about winning the general election but about purging the Democratic Party of Clinton influence.

    It not dirty politics... (none / 0) (#240)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 05:41:08 PM EST
    It's lousy politics on the part of Obama.

    By pandering to the right wing, which may in fact be his home, he is losing the attention of what should be his base.

    The economy stinks.
    The war in Iraq drags on.
    Threats of more wars are in the hopper.

    McCain is clearly identified with all of these.
    Donald Duck could defeat him if Mr. Duck could enunciate clear alternatives to the status quo.

    Obama is a terrible nominee.

    Clinton would wipe McCain out.
    The way Obama is going, he'll be lucky if anybody votes for him.
    The right wing won't. The center doesn't care. The left is being revolted by his behavior.

    McCain hasn't even taken the gloves off yet (none / 0) (#241)
    by Slado on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 09:36:15 AM EST
    I love that him pointing out exactly what Hillary did is "dirty" politics.   Remember the lines Hillary dropped about his inexperience?   McCain is simply plaiying from her playbook but now that dems have decided on Obama it's "dirty" politics.

    Leaving personal politcs out of it IMHO Obama is a better candidate.   He looks better, sounds better, is smooth (except when off script sometimes).   If he had 6 more years or so of experience he'd be unbeatable.

    But reality is his lack of experience and his metoric rise to fame is the one thing McCain can really attack.   If it wasn't such a weakness McCain wouldn't be going after him.   McCain is old.  What else is he supposed to say.

    I don't like McCain much but to me he'd make a better president..."on day one" sound familiar?