home

More Signs Of A Non-Transformative Election

The Presidential electoral map is looking more an more like the Blue/Red split we have become accustomed to these past 8 years. The latest evidence of this is the PPP MO poll:

McCain’s advantage is 50-40, a seven point increase from PPP’s July poll, which showed him leading by just three points. Obama’s biggest issue is with white voters, who support McCain by a 56-35 margin. “There aren’t enough black voters in Missouri for Barack Obama to win it if he can’t make things more competitive among white voters,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “That’s going to be his challenge if he wants to have any chance at winning the state.”

Obama's chances of changing the Red/Blue dynamic are best in Colorado (9 EVs), Virginia (13 EVs) and Nevada (5 EVs). Iowa and New Mexico (12 EVs combined) have swung back and forth in the last 2 elections and Obama looks pretty good in those 2 states. That's 39 electoral votes total from those 5 states. Obama needs 18 more than Kerry to win the Presidency, so if he wins Iowa and New Mexico and holds the Kerry states, then he only needs only one of VA or CO (NM gets him to a 269-269 tie). Of course, Florida (27 EVs) or Ohio (20 EVs) alone would do the trick, but they seem a second thought for the Obama campaign.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Making Pay Equity a Campaign Issue | Report: Obama Aides Heading to Indianapolis >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This assumes of course (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    He keeps PA and MI

    I think he will. (none / 0) (#22)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:36:17 PM EST
    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    know about MI but he has been dropping in PA and if he doesn't pick Hillary (unlikely) it may go GOP for the first time in 16 years.

    I still can't believe that I was so excited about this election one year ago and now I'm reduced to utter disgust as our presumptive nominee and his campaign.

    Parent

    sigh. (none / 0) (#30)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    yep (none / 0) (#58)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    you have made it crystal clear OBAMA is not even in the ballpark of being your guy.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    you only can have sand kicked in your eyes for so long before you get the message.

    Parent
    Florida and Ohio... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:07:05 PM EST
    ...are also the two most utterly corrupt states in terms of election fraud in the last two presidentials.  Lest we forget, fraud in each of these states was THE reason Dubya "won" those two elections.  

    Don't even get me started on the Dems punishing (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by FLVoter on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    Florida for enacting a paper trail to our voting.  I do not think that I will ever get over my anger about that.

    Parent
    Ohio now has Dem Gov and Sec State (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimotto on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:19:02 PM EST
    So it will be a much different environment there than in the last election.

    Parent
    But has the (none / 0) (#109)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:56:40 PM EST
    SYSTEM changed?  The governor and sec of state don't count the votes.  People don't vote at the state capitol...they vote in their precincts or counties.  Who has control of those?

    Parent
    Secretary of State Certifies Votes (none / 0) (#110)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    In Florida in 2000: Katherine Harris, also co-chair of Bush Florida election campaign.

    In Ohio in 2004:  Ken Blackwell, also "honorary co-chair" of Bush 2004 election campaign.

    Parent

    Yes.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM EST
    and both certified voter suppression in precincts.

    Certification is not the issue.  Voting and counting are the issues.

    Parent

    But If The Final Say (none / 0) (#112)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 02:50:08 PM EST
    rests with the certification (of fair or fraudulent counts or votes) certification, and who does it, is a big issue too.

    Parent
    Perhpas in some states. (none / 0) (#113)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 05:53:59 PM EST
    Not in mine...Washington.

    Certification is all but automatic after all the counts from counties are sent to the Sec/State.  That can be challenged by a lawsuit, as it was by the Rossi campaign.  They lost.  Gregoire is our governor but liar/crook Rossi has posted billboards all over eastern Washington (rual/Republican) saying "Don't Let Seattle Steal the Election Again!"

    Parent

    If Romney is chosen for McCain that might (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by athyrio on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    take Michigan off the Obama list of wins IMO...

    Michigan is GOP fools' gold (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    just like Fla. is for Dems. It's good for the rethugs and their apologists to keep hope alive though. If Obama blows this, its gonna be in Ohio or one of the western states. Missouri is also a problem imo.

    Parent
    Um... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    As a born and bred Michigander, I would say that with the economic troubles in the state, a Democratic governor who keeps falling in popularity, an Obama superdelegate who is the mayor of Detroit who is in a world of legal troubles of his own, I would venture to say that Michigan is ripe for the GOP taking.

    Parent
    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    Just can't see Obama winning over the (4.66 / 3) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    conservative Dems in small town and rural Missouri. So far, the few  times Obama has campaigned in that environment he has looked like a fish out of water and IMO in no way connected with the voters there.

    Parent
    are you trying to say (none / 0) (#18)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:32:06 PM EST
    he's not the one they've been waiting for? snark. But really, how could anyone ever think that sort of approach (we are the ones we've been waiting for) was something that could connect and win over people. I just don't get it. Maybe I'm bitter.

    Parent
    It couldn't (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM EST
    because those are the disgusted parents and grandparents of the 'me' children who swooned when O told them they were the ones the world was waiting for.

    Pathetic.

    Parent

    That's an interesting (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TomP on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    point.  I think McCain's celebrity ad hit effectively on that.  Obama's support among young voters helped him win caucuses, soem primaries, and the nomination, but his use of age (or generational warfare) as wedge issue, sometimes subtle, sometimes left up to young people who do it naturally, put him into an awkward position for the general election.  The celebrity ad capitalized on some of that.  Grown ups are not looking for a rock star and McCain defined him as that.

    I want Obama to win, because I believe McCain is more dangerous that Bush.  I hope the Obama campaign wakes up.

    Parent

    Tom, in all honesty, a great many voters (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    are going to be asking whether Obama or McCain will be more dangerous as President, and will not have an easy answer.

    Parent
    That is an easy question for me. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TomP on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    McCain is a neo con who hawked the Iraq invasion starting on 9/11.  Obama is amoderate like Hillary Clinton.

    I know soem people are angry about the primaires, but the choice is very stark.

    People will die if McCain is elcted, many people in needless wars.

    Parent

    easy for me too (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:04:01 PM EST
    i agree   a McCain Presidency = our kids/grandkids  dying in dumb wars all over the globe.

    i will fight hard to prevent that

    Parent

    Again, I am being honest: (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    Two reasons to think Obama is dangerous.
    First of all, his experience is just not sufficient---not by a long shot.
    Second, he has made expansion of the WOT in Aghanistan and Pakistan a priority.
    Let's not forget what he said about Georgia, either.
    The next President may be drawn into proxy wars with Russia. Do I trust that Obama can avoid that? No.
    Many Democratic Presidents have started wars, Tom.

    It doesn't matter what you or I think, though; my point is that what seems an easy choice to you is anything but that for many voters.
    We should not be in this situation.

    Parent

    If you choose not to vote for (none / 0) (#90)
    by TomP on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:13:46 PM EST
    Obama, I hope you vote Green, just not McCain.

    To me, no matter what Obama's faults, he's better than McCain.  

    Take care.

    Parent

    It seems clear that Hillary's map (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:08:39 PM EST
    would have been easier to win. I do not think she would have been 10 points behind McCain in Missouri.

    In any case, CO and VA are obviously the states to watch this cycle.

    I have a sinking feeling about all of this. . .

    wow, that's one advantage I have (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
    is that my feelings were already at the bottom of the ocean. So my feelings aren't sinking. Why do I all the sudden feel like the character Delmar in O'Brother saying "well, I'll only be 82". :-\

    Parent
    Hard to know for sure. (none / 0) (#34)
    by TomP on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:57:35 PM EST
    The truth as I saw it was that both Obama and Clinton has strengths and weaknesses.  I think either could win, and either could lose.  Neither side liked me much when I said that.  

    Missouri might have been closer now, but it's still not November. But things must change or this road will not end up in a good place.

    Parent

    The real difference for Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    is that she would have almost certainly locked up Ohio and Pennsylvania by now. I would expect her to be advantaged in Florida too.

    It's impossible to know exactly how it would have gone, but I think the picture presented by the last Q polls in swing states that compared the two remaining Dems tells us what we needed to know.

    Parent

    Good points. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by TomP on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:04:55 PM EST
    Let's hope Obama turns it around.  

    It's not been a good month since Berlin, but hopefully things will get better.

    Parent

    Berlin was a mistake (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    but I think last week's vacation was an even bigger one.

    I don't know what gave Obama the idea that he could afford to take a week off.

    I do hope things will get better, but I don't have great hope.

    Parent

    The vacation is really incomprehensible. (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    All the signs show me that he is quite overconfident of victory, and that is a bad sign for Democrats who want him elected.

    Parent
    I think the stadium thing (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    plays into the rock star picture that McCain has framed him in. Sometimes too many people are just too many people. It should be interesting. But if it ends up being lots and lots of very young people, the effect of showing an adoring crowd might not wash with the elders. The Elders show up to vote.

    Parent
    The Stadium (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Amiss on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    I believe firmly that the stadium was chosen to dwarf the Hillary supporters exhuberance when her name is put into nomination. After all, nothing must overshadow "the one".

    Parent
    It'll also generate thousands of volunteers (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimotto on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:21:01 PM EST
    Actually tens of thousands of volunteers.  

    Parent
    well it is one thing to sign up (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:08:11 PM EST
    for a campaign and another to show up and work your heart out.

    Parent
    I beleive the tickets went to people (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimotto on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:57:44 PM EST
    who signed up and put in some time for the campaign in July

    Parent
    Yup ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:00:26 PM EST
    it's the old "five million Frenchmen can't be wrong" argument.

    Parent
    Losing Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:24:38 PM EST
    Didn't Ned Lamont do the same thing after he won the primary?. And look how great that turned out for us.

    Parent
    yup (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:28:22 PM EST
    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Parent
    And Kerry as well. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    A Quick Review of Electoral-Vote (none / 0) (#88)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    is not a happy experience.  On August 1, Obama led McCain by 316-198. That has decreased consistently over the month and today for the first time since at least the end of the primaries,* Obama does not reach the 270, although he is still ahead.  So he's losing people and states he once had.  

    I am hopeful that the convention will help.  The speakers include three nights of Clinton, Clinton and Gore.  Three people who can remind the country of how much better the Democratic administration was and at least two of whom are very popular with the white working class.  I'm calling my shot right now - Bill Clinton will make a better case for why Obama should be president than Obama will.  

    Unfortunately, there will be no time to build on it because the day after the Dem. Convention, McCain is expected to announce his VP selection, then there's Labor Day, and BAM! we're into the Rep. Convention.

    * I went back to June 3rd and he's over 270 in all of them, over 300 for most of June and early July.

    Parent

    Diminished expectations (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    Fifteen months ago I had high hopes for this Presidential election. But every step of the way (the closing of the field of declared candidates, the reduction to a Clinton-Obama contest, and since then the conduct of the Obama campaign) has made it clear that less and less would be attempted in trying to change the discussion of public issues and a fortiori the actual governance and policy direction of the US. And that's supposing that Obama wins. If McCain wins, we'll have plenty of change, I'm sure.

    The right-wing media narratives still reign. The criminality of the Bush Administration still stands as a valid precedent. So much is already off the table at the policy level.

    As a Nevadan, obama won't get my (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    vote.  Howard Dean is in NV today and switched venues suddenly and if you weren't signed up after the switch, you can't attend.  One more way for them to avoid dissenters imo.  The DNC is truly filled with a bunch of chickensh!!ts.  How quickly Dean forgot his chance for a vote at the convention with his puny numbers...

    A transfomative election (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    would be one where the Dems won.

    (Yes, I am down to that level)

    I'm going to (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:36:48 PM EST
    channel andgarden here:
    Then why the heck is he wasting money here in GA? He's not going to carry GA no way no how as they say down here. If this is his electoral strategy, it's the worst I've seen in years. It's Dukakis level ineptness.

    One reason to target GA (none / 0) (#54)
    by raig on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:52:26 PM EST
    is that this state is in the same class as VA, NC, MN, NV, CO, and AK:

    • All have active Senate campaigns in which the incumbent is a Republican, and

    • The Democratic challengers have, to varying degrees, a realistic opportunity to pick up the seats.

    Obama's voter registration and GOTV activities in all of these states can help those candidates, and their success might also increase his chances. Perhaps GA is the least likely to pick up (either for Senate or POTUS), but it isn't out of the question.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:10:23 PM EST
    it's certainly out of the question for POTUS. Perhaps they will help with the Senate race, perhaps not. His advertising is NOT helping even himself. Fine, if he wants field offices but running ads is going to have to make the Dem senate candidate fight two wars--one against Saxby and one against Obama.

    Parent
    The polling data suggests (none / 0) (#96)
    by raig on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:58:06 PM EST
    that GA isn't a lost cause for either POTUS or Senate.  According to www.electoral-vote.com, Obama is trailing McCain 43-50, while Martin is trailing Chambliss 43-48.  In both cases, the Republican's support has been trending down over the last six months.

    This is certainly a longer-shot for Obama, but given identical levels of support there's no evidence that he's dragging Martin down.  Keeping GA in the list of 18 battlegrounds appears reasonable to me; the opponent's support of 50% or less suggests that these races are in play and shouldn't be summarily ignored.

    Parent

    Put all (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:37:20 PM EST
    the undecideds in McCains column here in GA. Kerry got 42% in 2004 and Obama is unlikely to top that figure down here. The only reason McCain might win in single digits is because Barr would take some votes.

    Parent
    HRC too progressive for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by pluege on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:13:11 PM EST
    BTD, while you've been correct all along that HRC as VP would energize Obama's flailing campaign and give a great boost to assuring election victory, have you considered that Obama has never considered HRC for VP because she is too left for him? Look at Obama's positions and look at the short list for VP. It all points to HRC being too liberal, too progressive for Obama. Obama is at best a center-right candidate - a blue dog with strong republican sympathies.

    Hill is the VP (none / 0) (#85)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    take it to the bank...

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#93)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    Not a chance

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    I am betting Hillary had more to do with this than it seems.

    Barack Obama's campaign will call next week for the creation of a new commission to revise the rules for selecting a presidential nominee in 2012 with a goal of reducing the power of superdelegates, whose role became a major point of contention during the long battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton.

    The commission also will be urged to redraw the calendar for 2012 to avoid starting the primaries and caucuses so early, and also to look specifically at assuring more uniform rules and standards for those caucuses.

    Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign will ask the national convention delegates in Denver to approve a resolution approving the establishment of a 35-member Democratic Change Commission. The charter would authorize the Democratic National Committee chairman appoint the commission soon after the election and ask them to report back by January 2010.

    The proposed changes grow out of discussions between Obama's campaign team, officials at the Democratic National Committee and representatives of Hillary Clinton's former presidential campaign, Plouffe said.

    The most important change involves superdelegates -- the elected officials and party leaders who have automatic seats at national conventions and are free to vote for any candidate of their choice.

    The name of the commission is lame but I a glad to see Hillary's influence oppping up, even if it is a day late and a dollar short.

    LINK

    Time to shelve (none / 0) (#5)
    by magisterludi on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    the 50 State Solution? Too late?

    Not a bad strategy for (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    a party...or even, perhaps, in a primary...but for a general election?

    Good grief.  Focus.  Find target. Lock and load.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#8)
    by JThomas on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    has a massive ground operation gearing up in Ohio. He is not ''ignoring'' it.
    Will he win in Ohio? Who knows....kerry was 110k away from winning it in 04 and there has been massive GOP scandal in that state since then.
    It was sad news about Congresswoman Tubbs-Jones today,tho.

    The fabled ground game (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    Well, a strong ground operation is great, and it can be decisive in close contests. But to hear some tell it massive amounts of new voters who are completely invisible to current polling methods will turn out to save the day-- so stop worrying!

    If that's our only basis for hope, it sounds like a nail-biter at best to me. And the nail-biters have not been favorable for Democrats in Presidential politics recently.

    Parent

    A ground game (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    is almost no hope at all.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:20:58 PM EST
    It's not scalable (none / 0) (#94)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:33:09 PM EST
    The return is at best directly proportionate to the money and effort you put into it. It's based on the assumption that there are lots of people out there who are eager to vote for your candidate but (for whatever reason) too daunted by the process to actually follow through and do it.

    It does nothing to create a defining moment that completely changes how people think and talk about your campaign. It does nothing to create more people willing to vote for your candidate.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#101)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    I get the gist, though I don't understand "scalable".  I appreciate the response.

    In Obama's case, though, it seems he's really wanting to super register African American voters.  Isn't that population right off the bat willing to vote for him just due to the historic nature of his campaign?  Anyway, that's what I think the Obama campaign is saying when it emphasizes Black voter registration in Southern states.

    Parent

    And it's a smart thing to do (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:12:28 PM EST
    But if that's all they've got up their sleeve, then I think we'll come up short.

    Scalable is the ability to grow to an arbitrary size.

    Parent

    Ohhh, the great cell-phone gambit (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:25:25 PM EST
    that keeps popping up in replies on boards I see, whenever discussion was attempted of the worrisome polls of recent weeks.  Instead, we got the but, but, but they're missing all the cell-phone users.  Uh huh.  Total ignorance of which pollsters are working around that, of studies of whether it matters, etc.

    I do hope they understand that they can't text-message their votes to the polls but actually have to get up, get dressed, get there, get in line, and get the job done the old-fashioned way.

    Parent

    Yep, that appears to be the talking point of the (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by FLVoter on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    day.

    Parent
    good point (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Iris on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    Many polls are conducted through random digit dialing, which can reach cell phones just as easily as regular phones.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    unless they live in WA or OR, in which case they can fill out little bubbles in the comfort of their own homes, at least.  

    Parent
    OH will have mail in ballots (none / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    & Franklin Co will have weekend voting (unless it gets shot down).

    Parent
    Yeh, I almost amended while writing (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:07:06 PM EST
    to deal with Oregon, et al. -- but ran out of time.

    Most states still haven't entered the 21st century with such great options (including my state).  And most younger voters are more transient, so they move a lot, so they will have to go to the polls.

    At least voter access has improved a lot in most states since the debacle of '72, when so many of my generation found out too late in the game that they had to have registered far ahead of time.  A lot of those laws have loosened, plus the GOTV efforts have been excellent through several elections now.

    Parent

    Now (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:32:33 PM EST
    it seems that we have the "magical voter" who is going to come out of the woodwork in Nov. to "save the day." Obama is looking less and less like Dukakis and more like McGovern on this account.

    Parent
    Well, that makes perfect sense (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:47:00 PM EST
    to the party that assigned delegates to Obama based on imaginary voters.

    And it will absolutely work, until the bubble bursts.  Hey, I think I see McCain over there with a pin now...

    Parent

    Oo, you just gave (none / 0) (#67)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    me an idea for a campaign slogan:

    "He won the nomination with imaginary voters, and he'll win the Presidency the same way!"

    . . . or not.

    Parent

    Speaking of scandals... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM EST
    The recent raids in Cuyahoga County were on Democrats...

    That won't make the GOP any more popular here.  

    Parent

    sorry to say the campaign has been (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:09:37 PM EST
    saying like things for too long. and what do we have?

    Parent
    I was responding (none / 0) (#21)
    by JThomas on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:34:15 PM EST
    to the inference that Obama was ignoring Ohio. He has invested heavily in Ohio. It is not being reflected in the polls. Maybe it never will be, but he is not ignoring the state.
    And no, ground game is not the whole ball of wax but the last two elections the side that had the acknowledged better GOTV operations have won.
    Time for the dems to dig even deeper or be faced with a conservative packed Supreme Court for the next 25 years. Giving up is not an option.

    Excuse me... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:50:51 PM EST
    we already have a conservative packed Supreme Court.

    You haven't noticed?

    Parent

    No we don't (none / 0) (#35)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    we have 4-4 with a swing voter who leans conservative.

    This pres will probably add two more, at least.

    Parent

    Advice and consent of the senate (none / 0) (#55)
    by Romberry on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:53:27 PM EST
    Dems are in control of the senate. No one is packing any court unless the Dem senate consents to it.

    Parent
    So...too bad (none / 0) (#33)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    the Congressional Dems didn't fix the voting/counting no-paper-trail systems.

    Not only that but whether or not AA voters are, once again, prevented from voting at all through all the R tried-and-true methods and some new wrinkles we're likely to see this year.

    Obama thinks he can win Ohio?

    Sigh...

    We fixed it in FL (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:44:48 PM EST
    :-)  Since we did so much damage in 2000, we thought we better try a little democracy. Didn't want to have to secede.

    Parent
    More signs of non-transformation (none / 0) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    GWU has a poll out today with McCain up by 1, 40-39, with 21% undecided/other.

    I don't know much about their polling, so can't vouch either way.  But they do have month to month tracking on some questions, and some interesting stuff in the breakdowns.  On healthcare, the economy, and reducing gas/energy prices, and 'fights for people like me' Obama for the most part is ahead but trending down, while McCain is trending up.  On 'shares my values' McCain is actually slightly ahead, but same trend, McCain up and Obama down.

    44% are at least 'somewhat dissatisfied' with the choices for candidates (although no party breakdowns).

    My favorite question from the poll (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    Who do you think is in control of Congress? That is, which political party do you think is in control of Congress? Would you say it is the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?

    How would a person answer that question?  Talk about nuance.

    Parent

    Too bad the options don't include (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Iris on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    de jure Dem control / de facto GOP control.

    Parent
    Does anyone know (none / 0) (#46)
    by kempis on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    how Obama and McCain are doing with Independents and cross-over voters?

    Remember, Obama's big claim to fame in the primaries was that he would win Independents and "Obamacans." How is that working out? I know a couple of polls I've seen show that McCain now has the advantage with Independents and he actually is doing slightly better in wooing Democrats that Obama is in wooing Republicans. Is that a trend in most polls now?

    Anybody know?

    McCain is not uniformly ahead, but ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:37:26 PM EST
    ... definitely trending up strongly among Indies.

    Parent
    Thanks :) (none / 0) (#75)
    by kempis on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    That's what I thought.

    So much for the argument that Obama could draw Independents and had extraordinary cross-over appeal to Republicans. Actually I think he did before Rev. Wright and then the GOP efforts to connect him with Ayers, etc.

    Just goes to show: vet your nominee before you make his nomination a done deal.

    Parent

    Time to be Winter Soldiers. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM EST
    In the very old days, wars were fought only in warm weather after planting and before harvest because all the foot soldiers had to go home to pick those crops or die over the winter from starvation. Winter solders were those who hung in there in January.

    Yes, the polls don't look good this week,  as the Obama-Clinton minuet plays itself out, but those of you who are serious about not having a Pro War, anti-womens' right to choose, anti-environment and pro-oil, president need to take a deep breath, decide what's really important to you and get ready to fight, if that is what you really care about. As it is, all the sniping on the various sites is just encouraging the Republicans who take every opportunity to divide us further. Now is the time for the tough to get going.

    Yes, beginning with the general. (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:29:29 PM EST
    Obama could turn this around.
    Do you see any sign of him toughening up for battle? Maybe I missed the combat training he did on the beaches of Hawaii last week.

    Parent
    cosigns (none / 0) (#76)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:18:15 PM EST
    peoeple are acting like election night is tonight and its all over.

    give OBAMA time to get his VP picked  and settle in for the big battle

    summer polls are like preseason football...they mean squat.

    So would u rather have OBAMA up 15 pts in summer polls  and get smug and complancent  and lose in NOV?

    Parent

    Yes, I'd rather have him up 15 points, (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:20:16 PM EST
    smug and complacent, than in a fight for his life, barely ahead, and STILL smug and complacent, which is what we have today.

    Parent
    Obama is pro-war (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:24:58 PM EST
    Obama is pro-Afgahnistan-war and pro-war-on-terror.  Same war.  Different places.  Same results.

    Parent
    Different wars entirely. Bin Laden and the (none / 0) (#107)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:44:47 PM EST
    terrorists attacked US HERE.  Intending specifically to hit us, here. We may have philisophical disagreements  with taliban about the way the world should work (I have this unreconstructable notion that women are full people), but the taliban did not come here and blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and kill those people who died in that Pennsylvania field. Nobody in Iraq did that, nobody in Iraq had nukes or biological or chemical weapons, and Al Quaeda was not there when the war started. What is in Afghanistan is Bin Laden.

    You want to see real pro- war? Look at McCain, but also look at Clinton's statement backing him up before even considering how the Georgia mess even got going.  If you have read Big Tent Democrat's comments and the threads under them on this site  on the subject of Georgia, you will realize just hwo scary that actually is.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#108)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:36:07 PM EST
    doesn't sound any different on Georgia than McCain.

    And, in any event, pro-war is pro-war, even if you think the war Obama is for is a just war.

    Parent

    What can we do? (none / 0) (#92)
    by JanG on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:18:30 PM EST
    I am so frustrated. I am so tired of the republicans lying about democratic candidates and having most of the population buy it hook line and sinker. I really believed that our nation was smarter than that.  I think we should go after McCain. Talk about his nickname "Songbird" his cheating on his first wife, etc.  Sadly, that seems to be what works. Attacks on character.

    Parent
    All the air has gone out (none / 0) (#52)
    by pluege on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:48:55 PM EST
    of the campaign due to the poor performance and strategy of the Obama campaign. About the only thing left to energize the election would be a Hillary VP selection. But then again, 2008 is just a practice run for Obama and his sycophants so outcome is not a top priority this round.

    jump start... (none / 0) (#73)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    A jump start is good when the problem is a run down battery... but Obama looks more like a broken alternator to me.  

    And that being said, while Clinton will probably shore up the base, IMHO Clinton might wind up an eventual net 'negative', because of how the media would obsess over the soap opera aspects of an Obama/Clinton team, and report her choice as a sign of Obama's weakness and lack of principles.

    Parent

    once a campaign turns down, it is twice (none / 0) (#100)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    as hard to bring it back up. i don't see any indiction that the obama campaign is "there".

    Parent
    Amazing how Team Obama has Squandered (none / 0) (#53)
    by pluege on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    the dem slam dunk status of the election. I guess a sure dem win was upsetting the legions of republicans supporting Obama so Obama jettisoned the dem sure-win position.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#63)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    that apparantly just after the convention next week Obama plans to introduce measures to reduce the influence of superdelegates.

    This election writes its own jokes ... (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:17:11 PM EST
    day after day.

    Parent
    Typo alert... (none / 0) (#64)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    I think that when BTD wrote...
    if he wins Iowa and New Mexico and holds the Kerry states, then he only needs only one of VA or CO (NM gets him to a 269-269 tie)
    he

    he meant

    if he wins Iowa and New Mexico and holds the Kerry states, then he only needs only one of VA or CO (NV [NEVADA] gets him to a 269-269 tie).

    that being said, I think there is a very good chance that Obama could lose new hampshire -- which would mean that only Colorado (of the three states) puts him over the top.  

     

    Most definitely. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:14:18 PM EST
    McCain's won the NH primary twice--them Granite Staters like 'em some grandpa juice.

    Parent
    Electoral-vote.com shows VA being (none / 0) (#74)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    tied today. If you move it to the McCain column, then he is ahead. That is a swing of 150 virtual votes in a very few weeks---less than a month, I think.

    Parent
    Too many ifs ! (none / 0) (#77)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    This election was to be a cake walk. The western strategy has always made me nervous.

    Parent
    269-269 (none / 0) (#68)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    A 269-269 tie is as good as a win for Obama.  I'm pretty sure a Dem-controlled house will still exist after November.  Even though members vote by state, right now:

    Dems control 27 states: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

    Ties are in 2 states: Arizona, Kansas

    So vote would be 27-21 for the Democrat.  Maybe there would be pressure in places like Mississippi or Tennessee for representatives to vote for the popular vote winner in the state, but the same would hold true in places like Delaware.

    Is that what we've been reduced to? (none / 0) (#82)
    by angie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    Hoping for a TIE so that the congress can pick the President?  And you are actually confident that that scenario is a "guaranteed win" for Obama because all those DINO's in the house who've been showing us for 2 years how eager they are to roll over for the GOP are going to pick him. Key-Rist. Sorry, but I can't find this reassuring in the least.  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    Yes, that is what we've been reduced to.  Our  best-case scenario is a tie so that the House can pick the winner.  All I mean to say is that should Obama manage to have it come down to a House vote, it's most likely the Democrat would win.

    Parent
    Great! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    So he can become President the same way he became the nominee - through the back door and we voters should be happy with that?  Watching his campaign so far gives me no confidence that he would actually be an improvement over Bush or McCain.  He is far too pliable and eager to please and be everything to everyone.  Hell, maybe McCrazy is a "maverick" and won't be as pliabe as Obama to the republicans.  As far as the Supreme Court - if the Dems grow a spine they don't have to approve anyone not to their liking.  The SC has operated in the past without nine members and can do it again if need be.  

    Parent
    That's what ALL politicians do! (none / 0) (#95)
    by scdemocrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    He is far too pliable and eager to please and be everything to everyone.

    Isn't that kind of a politicians job and part of the election process. You have to try to appeal to as many types of people as you can and that often comes across as trying to "be everything to everyone." They all do it, just part of politics.

    Democrat Blog

    Parent